[Federal Register: October 31, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 212)]
[Notices]
[Page 64992-64993]
[DOCID:fr31oc08-111]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Proposed Collection; Comment Request

Upon Written Request, Copies Available From: Securities and Exchange
Commission, Office of Investor Education and Advocacy, Washington, DC
20549-0213.

Extension:
    Form N-PX, SEC File No. 270-524, OMB Control No. 3235-0582.

    Notice is hereby given that pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act
of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.) the Securities and Exchange Commission
(the ``Commission'') is soliciting comments on the collection of
information summarized below. The Commission plans to submit this
existing collection of information to the Office of Management and
Budget for extension and approval.
    The title of the collection of information is ``Form N-PX (17 CFR
274.129) under the Investment Company Act of 1940 (15 U.S.C. 80a-1 et
seq.) (``Investment Company Act''), Annual Report of Proxy Voting
Record.'' Rule 30b1-4 (17 CFR 270.30b1-4) under the Investment Company
Act of 1940 requires every registered management investment company,
other than a small business investment company (``Fund''), to file Form
N-PX not later than August 31 of each year. Funds use Form N-PX to file
annual reports with the Commission containing their complete proxy
voting record for the most recent twelve-month period ended June 30.
Funds also use Form N-PX to inform the Commission that certain of their
portfolios do not hold any equity

securities and have no proxy record to file.
    The Commission requires the dissemination of this information in
order to meet the filing and disclosure requirements of the Investment
Company Act and to enable Funds to provide investors with the
information necessary to evaluate an investment in the Fund. The
information filed with the Commission also permits the verification of
compliance with securities law requirements and assures the public
availability and dissemination of the information. Requiring a Fund to
file its annual reports on Form N-PX has the advantages of making each
Fund's proxy voting record available within a relatively short period
of time after the proxy voting season, and of providing disclosure of
all Funds' proxy voting records over a uniform period of time.
    There are approximately 3,800 Funds registered with the Commission,
representing approximately 9,400 Fund portfolios, which are required to
file Form N-PX.\1\ The 9,400 portfolios are comprised of 6,200
portfolios holding equity securities and 3,200 portfolios holding no
equity securities. The staff estimates that portfolios holding no
equity securities require approximately a 0.17 hour burden per response
and those holding equity securities require 14.4 hours per response.
The overall estimated annual burden is therefore 89,824 hours ((6,200
responses x 14.4 hours per response for equity holding portfolios) +
(3,200 responses x 0.17 hours per response for non-equity holding
portfolios)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The estimate of 3,800 Funds is based on the number of
management investment companies currently registered with the
Commission. We estimate, based on data from the Investment Company
Institute and other sources, that there are approximately 5,700 Fund
portfolios that invest primarily in equity securities, 500
``hybrid'' or bond portfolios that may hold some equity securities,
2,400 bond Funds that hold no equity securities, and 800 money
market Funds, for a total of 9,400 portfolios required to file Form
N-PX.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Written comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed
collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of
the functions of the agency, including whether the information will
have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of
the burden of the collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the
quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; and (d)
ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on
respondents, including through the use of automated collection
techniques or other forms of information technology. Consideration will
be given to comments and suggestions submitted in writing within 60
days of this publication.
    Please direct your written comments to Lewis W. Walker, Acting
Director/CIO, Securities and Exchange Commission, c/o Shirley
Martinson, 6432 General Green Way, Alexandria, VA 22312; or send an e-
mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
    Dated: October 22, 2008.
Florence E. Harmon,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. E8-25865 Filed 10-30-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 9 (Monday, January 14, 2013)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 2878]
[FR Doc No: 2013-00582]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R04-OAR-2012-0622; FRL-9770-1]

Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Georgia: New
Source Review--Prevention of Significant Deterioration

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule; withdrawal.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: EPA is withdrawing a proposed rulemaking published in the
Federal Register on January 2, 2013, to approve changes to the Georgia
State Implementation Plan (SIP) New Source Review Prevention of
Significant Deterioration program for the fine particulate matter
standards as a result of the inadvertent publication of an incorrect
version of the proposed rulemaking.

DATES: The proposed rule published January 2, 2013, is withdrawn as of
January 14, 2013.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Twunjala Bradley, Regulatory
Development Section, Air Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics
Management Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61
Forsyth Street SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. Ms. Bradley's
telephone number is<PHONE_NUMBER>; email address:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On January 2, 2013 (78 FR 45), a proposed
rulemaking was published in the Federal Register entitled ``Approval
and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Georgia: New Source Review--
Prevention of Significant Deterioration'' to approve changes to
Georgia's SIP-approved regulations entitled ``Air Quality Control Rule
391-3-.1.'' The proposed rule version published in the Federal Register
on January 2, 2013, was an incorrect version and EPA therefore, is now
withdrawing its January 2, 2013, proposed rulemaking action. In a
separate action, the correct version of EPA's proposed rulemaking
related to Georgia's Air Quality Control Rule 391-3-.1 is being
provided for public comment. This course of action will promote
efficiency, mitigate confusion, and create a new comment period on the
future proposed action to approve Georgia's SIP revisions related to
Rule 391-3-1 with a proper basis of evaluation.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Greenhouse gases,
Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen
oxides, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: January 4, 2013.
A. Stanley Meiburg,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 4.
[FR Doc. 2013-00582 Filed 1-11-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


Rev. 313 1/ 0 1 RECEt v  0 P BPFT NCK LEAD LABORATORY LISTING Department of Hedth Environmental Healih Administration Lead Based Paint Abatement Program APPENDIX H APPENDIX H THE LEAD LISTING The National Lead Service Provider Listing System Go Back to Map ~

LABORATORIES ACCREDITED UNDER THE EPA NATIONAL LEAD LABORATORY I State MD MD MD MD  MD ACCREDITATION PROGRAM AS OF December, 1998 Matrix Recognized Company Name Lab Type Commercially City Available Paint Soil Dust Phone Number Chips Wipes Cascoyne Laboratories Fixed Site Yes X X X Baltimore 4 10 633 1800 US Army CHPAPM Fixed Site No X X  x Aberdeen Proving Ground 4 10 436 8399 AMA Analytical Services, Inc. Fixed Site Yes X X X Lanham 301 459 2640 Metropolitan Env. Testing Fixed Site Yes X X X Services, Inc. 30 1 870 1955 EA Laboratories Fixed Site Yes X X X Baltimore 4 10 825 4131 For technical information about this Web Page, contact The Lead Listing 4


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 168 (Thursday, September 2, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 49410-49411]
[FR Doc No: 2021-18997]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Railroad Administration

[Safety Advisory 2021-01]

Positive Train Control Interface Design Issue With Locomotive and
Cab Car Braking Systems

AGENCY: Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), Department of
Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Notice of Safety Advisory.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: FRA is issuing Safety Advisory 2021-01 to make the rail
industry, including railroads and railroad employees, aware of a
recently identified interface design issue relating to how positive
train control (PTC) systems in use throughout the United States
interface with locomotive and cab car braking systems. This recently
identified interface design issue allows a train crewmember to
circumvent a PTC enforcement by manually cutting out the pilot valve/
brake stand, commonly known as the cut-out valve, prior to the PTC
system initiating the brakes. This interface design issue poses a
significant safety risk by allowing a PTC system to be disabled and
unable to initiate the brakes to prevent a train-to-train collision,
over-speed derailment, incursion into an established work zones, or the
movement of a train through a switch left in the wrong position. This
Safety Advisory recommends that all railroads operating with PTC
systems immediately remind crewmembers that circumventing a PTC
enforcement is subject to civil penalty or disqualification for the
locomotive engineer or conductor responsible; audit the designs of PTC
systems as implemented on all types of locomotives and cab cars; assess
the extent to which the design of the system could allow a locomotive
or cab car's PTC system to be circumvented by a crewmember; develop and
implement a plan to mitigate and/or correct this design issue; and
provide FRA with a schedule for completion of the identified actions.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gabe Neal, Staff Director, Signal,
Train Control and Crossings Division, Office of Railroad Systems and
Technology, at telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER> or email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    Positive train control (PTC) systems must be designed to prevent
train-to-train collisions, over-speed derailments, incursions into
established work zones, and the movement of a train through a switch
left in the wrong position.\1\ PTC accomplishes this by using
technology to monitor train speed and train locations, provide warnings
for the traincrew to take action, and automatically initiate braking if
the traincrew does not take action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 49 CFR 236.1005.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FRA is aware of a recently identified design issue relating to how
PTC systems in use throughout the United States interface with
locomotive and cab car braking systems. This interface design issue
allows a crewmember to circumvent a PTC enforcement by manually cutting
out the pilot valve/brake stand, commonly known as the cut-out valve,
prior to the PTC system initiating the brakes. If a PTC system is
allowed to be disabled by the actions of a crewmember, the PTC system
can no longer prevent a train-to-train collision, over-speed
derailment, incursion into an established work zone, or the movement of
a train through a switch left in the wrong position.
    Although FRA has found that all PTC systems are potentially
impacted by this interface design issue, FRA notes that only some
interface designs between the PTC system and the locomotive or cab car
braking system allow a PTC enforcement to be disabled. FRA believes
that the interface designs of most concern are limited to a number of
older locomotives equipped with mechanical braking systems, and the
interface design is likely not an issue on most newer locomotives
equipped with electronic braking systems. On PTC-equipped locomotives
and cab cars with interface designs with this issue, manually cutting
out the pilot valve/brake stand disables the PTC system enforcement
capability. FRA recognizes that a locomotive or cab car PTC system is
considered a ``safety device'' under FRA's regulations \2\ and that it
is unlawful for a railroad employee to operate the equipment with such
a safety device disabled without authorization. Accordingly, a system
that allows such interference in its operation does not comply with the
applicable statutory or regulatory requirements.\3\ In addition, a PTC
system that allows such interference presents a significant safety risk
in that it can no longer perform its required functions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ 49 CFR part 218.
    \3\ 49 CFR 236.1005.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FRA became aware of this issue through three recent events:
     On May 27, 2021, during testing of the Advanced Civil
Speed Enforcement System II (ACSES II) PTC system aboard a freight
train, an FRA PTC Specialist witnessed an engineer circumvent a penalty
brake application while operating in an overspeed condition. The
engineer placed the pilot valve/brake stand in the cut-out position
prior to PTC system enforcement of the overspeed condition. When the
overspeed condition no longer existed, the pilot valve/brake stand was
returned to the cut-in position, and the train continued without a PTC
system penalty.
     On July 13, 2021, during testing of the Interoperable
Electronic Train Management System (I-ETMS) PTC system on a freight
locomotive, FRA conducted a test in which a zero speed temporary speed
restriction (TSR) was issued to the train and the pilot valve/brake
stand was placed into the cut-out position prior to PTC system
enforcement of the TSR. This action allowed the train to circumvent PTC
system enforcement.
     On July 21, 2021, during testing of the ACSES II PTC
system on a passenger train, FRA conducted a similar test in which a
zero speed temporary speed restriction (TSR) was issued to the train
and the pilot valve/brake stand was placed into the cut-out position
prior to PTC system enforcement of the TSR. This action achieved
similar results, allowing the train to circumvent the PTC system
enforcement with one exception; after placing the pilot valve/brake
stand back into the cut-in position, the train encountered a PTC
penalty brake application.

Safety Advisory 2021-01

    As shown by the incidents described above, rail operations face a
safety risk due to the interface design issue that allows PTC
enforcement to be circumvented by cutting out the pilot valve/brake
stand. Such risks must be addressed to provide for the safety of train
operations, and thus FRA recommends that railroads do the following:
    (1) Immediately remind railroad crewmembers that, along with the
unauthorized disabling of a PTC system, circumventing PTC enforcement
by manually cutting out the pilot valve/brake stand when not authorized
is a revocable event for the locomotive engineer or conductor
responsible, and

subjects any other crewmember responsible to individual liability
proceedings, including disqualification and/or civil penalties. See 49
CFR 240.117(e)(5), 240.305(a)(5), and 242.403(b) and (e)(5).
    (2) Immediately conduct a complete audit of the PTC onboard design
of all locomotives and cab cars equipped with PTC to determine how the
onboard PTC equipment is integrated into each railroad's locomotive and
cab car's braking system, to ascertain what percentage of the
locomotive and cab car fleet is subject to the interface design issue
described above;
    (3) Within ten (10) days of the publication of this Safety
Advisory, provide FRA, via the SIR site, with a report of the number
and type of locomotives and cab cars that have this interface design
issue;
    (4) Upon completion of item (2) above, determine the mitigating
measures and/or corrective actions necessary to address the safety risk
presented by the design issue, and provide FRA, via the SIR site, with
a report documenting the planned measures and/or actions, including a
schedule for completion; and
    (5) Immediately commence implementation of the planned measures
and/or actions to address the safety risk presented by the design issue
per the documented schedule, and provide FRA, via the SIR site,
confirmation of completion.

    Issued in Washington, DC.
John Karl Alexy,
Associate Administrator for Railroad Safety, Chief Safety Officer.
[FR Doc. 2021-18997 Filed 9-1-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-06-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 82 (Friday, April 30, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 23031-23034]
[FR Doc No: 2021-09051]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

[Docket No. NHTSA-2019-0065, Notice 1]

Receipt of Petitions for Decision of Inconsequential
Noncompliance

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA),
Department of Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Receipt of petitions.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: Ricon Corporation (Ricon), has determined that certain S-
Series and K-Series Classic wheelchair lifts do not fully comply with
Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 403, Platform Lift
Systems for Motor Vehicles. Because of Ricon's determination, Navistar,
Inc., on behalf of IC Bus, LLC (Navistar), who installed the S-Series
and K-Series Classic wheelchair lifts in their buses, determined that
model year (MY) 2013-2019 IC buses do not comply with FMVSS No. 404,
Platform Lift Installation in Motor Vehicles. Ricon and Navistar,
collectively referred to as the ``the petitioners,'' filed the
appropriate noncompliance reports and subsequently petitioned NHTSA for
a decision that the subject noncompliance is inconsequential as it
relates to motor vehicle safety. This document announces receipt of the
petitioner's petitions.

DATES: The closing date for comments on the petition is June 1, 2021.

ADDRESSES: Interested persons are invited to submit written data,
views, and arguments on this petition. Comments must refer to the
docket number cited in the title of this notice and may be submitted by
any of the following methods:
     Mail: Send comments by mail addressed to the U.S.
Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building
Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC
20590.
     Hand Delivery: Deliver comments by hand to the U.S.
Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building
Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC
20590. The Docket Section is open on weekdays from 10 a.m. to 5 p.m.
except for Federal Holidays.
     Electronically: Submit comments electronically by logging
onto the Federal Docket Management System (FDMS) website at https://www.regulations.gov/. Follow the online instructions for submitting
comments.
     Comments may also be faxed to<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Comments must be written in the English language, and be no greater
than 15 pages in length, although there is no limit to the length of
necessary attachments to the comments. If comments are submitted in
hard copy form, please ensure that two copies are provided. If you wish
to receive confirmation that comments you have submitted by mail were
received, please enclose a stamped, self-addressed postcard along with
the comments. Note that all comments received will be posted without
change to https://www.regulations.gov, including any personal
information provided.
    All comments and supporting materials received before the close of
business on the closing date indicated above will be filed in the
docket and will be considered. All comments and supporting materials
received after the closing date will also be filed and will be
considered fully possible.
    When the petitions are granted or denied a notice of the decision
will also be published in the Federal Register pursuant to the
authority indicated at the end of this notice.
    All comments, background documentation, and supporting materials
submitted to the docket may be viewed by anyone at the address and
times given above. The documents may also be viewed on the internet at
https://www.regulations.gov by following the online instructions for
accessing the dockets. The docket ID number for this petition is shown
in the heading of this notice.
    DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement is available for review in a

Federal Register notice published on April 11, 2000, (65 FR 19477-78).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    I. Overview: Ricon has determined that certain S-Series and K-
Series Classic wheelchair lifts do not fully comply with paragraphs
S<IP_ADDRESS> of FMVSS No. 403, Platform Lift Systems for Motor Vehicles
(49 CFR 571.403). Ricon filed a noncompliance report dated June 3,
2019, pursuant to 49 CFR part 573, Defect and Noncompliance
Responsibility and Reports. Ricon subsequently petitioned NHTSA on June
21, 2019, pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 30118(d) and 30120(h) and 49 CFR part
556, for an exemption from the notification and remedy requirements of
49 U.S.C. Chapter 301 on the basis that this noncompliance is
inconsequential as it relates to motor vehicle safety.
    Because of Ricon's determination, Navistar, who installed the S-
Series and K-Series Classic wheelchair lifts in their buses, determined
that certain model year (MY) 2013-2019 IC buses do not comply with
paragraph S4.1.4 of FMVSS No. 404, Platform Lift Installation in Motor
Vehicles (49 CFR 571.404). Navistar also filed two noncompliance
reports dated June 19, 2019, pursuant to 49 CFR part 573, Defect and
Noncompliance Responsibility and Reports, and subsequently petitioned
NHTSA on July 10, 2019, for an exemption from the notification and
remedy requirements of 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301 on the basis that this
noncompliance is inconsequential as it relates to motor vehicle safety,
pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 30118(d) and 30120(h) and 49 CFR part 556,
Exemption for Inconsequential Defect or Noncompliance.
    This notice of receipt of the petitioner's petitions is published
under 49 U.S.C. 30118 and 30120 and does not represent any agency
decision or other exercise of judgment concerning the merits of the
petitions.
    II. Equipment and Vehicles Involved: On June 3, 2019, Ricon
submitted a noncompliance report and then on June 21, 2019,
subsequently submitted a petition that reported approximately 20,862 S-
Series and K-Series Classic wheelchair lifts, manufactured between
October 2, 2012, and May 24, 2019, are potentially involved.
    In concert with Ricon's filings, Navistar who Ricon sold lifts to
and who installed the S-Series and K-Series Classic wheelchair lifts in
its vehicles also filed noncompliance reports and an inconsequential
noncompliance petition. Appropriately, Navistar determined that
approximately 2,921 of the following IC commercial buses and school
buses are potentially involved:
     MY 2013-2018 IC CE commercial buses, manufactured between
May 10, 2012, and November 7, 2017.
     MY 2016 IC RE commercial buses, manufactured between
November 12, 2015, and November 16, 2015.
     MY 2013-2015 IC BE school buses, manufactured between July
11, 2012, and September 17, 2014.
     MY 2013-2015 IC AE school buses, manufactured between
December 10, 2012, and October 16, 2014.
     MY 2013-2019 IC CE school buses, manufactured between May
10, 2012, and May 2, 2018.
     MY 2013-2014 IC RE school buses, manufactured between
August 30, 2012, and November 18, 2013.
     MY 2016-2017 IC RE school buses, manufactured between
January 13, 2015, and January 22, 2016.
     MY 2019 IC RE school buses, manufactured between February
8, 2018, and February 8, 2018.
    Ricon reported that 20,862 S-Series and K-Series Classic wheelchair
lifts are potentially involved while Navistar the only OEM to file,
reported in total, 2,921 buses with the noncompliant S-Series and K-
Series Classic wheelchair lifts are potentially involved. NHTSA reached
out to Ricon on multiple occasions to try to reconcile the difference
in number of lifts reported versus the number of vehicles reported. In
an email dated June 10, 2020, Ricon provided a table that reported that
20,862 S-Series and K-Series Classic wheelchair lifts were produced,
with 6,149 going to dealers, 14,701 going to OEMs, and 12 with Ricon's
parent company Wabtec Corporation (Wabtec). Below is a table that
outlines the different numbers as reported by Ricon, by date, for the
S-Series and K-Series Classic wheelchair lifts and the total number of
vehicles as reported by the OEM.

                    RICON S-Series and K-Series Classic Wheelchair Lifts Potentially Involved
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                  Ricon's  6/21/  Ricon's  6/10/   Total OEM 573
                                                                   19  reporting   20  reporting    reporting's
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dealers.........................................................  ..............           6,149  ..............
OEMs............................................................  ..............          14,701  ..............
Wabtec *........................................................  ..............              12  ..............
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
    Total.......................................................          20,862          20,862           2,921
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Ricon is a subsidiary of WABTEC.

    The total number of vehicles reported by Ricon and the OEM has not
changed and the number S-Series and K-Series Classic wheelchair lifts
as reported by Ricon on June 10, 2020, are the most up-to-date numbers.
Based on current numbers as shown in the table above, there are still
18,571 lifts that have not been accounted for. Despite several meetings
and communication with Ricon directed to discerning the distribution
and disposition of those lifts, NHTSA has not been able to obtain
additional information about the lifts not sold directly to vehicle
manufacturers. NHTSA also feels it is prudent to emphasize that any
decision on these petitions does not relieve vehicle or equipment
distributors and dealers of the prohibitions on the sale, offer for
sale, or introduction or delivery for introduction into interstate
commerce of the noncompliant lifts and vehicles under their control
after the petitioners notified them that the subject noncompliance
existed.
    III. Noncompliance: Ricon explains that its Classic S-Series and K-
Series platform lifts do not comply with the inner roll stop interlock
requirements of FMVSS No. 403, S<IP_ADDRESS> and S<IP_ADDRESS> when tested in
accordance with the test procedure at S7.6.1. The subject lifts, as
installed in certain commercial buses and school buses, do not comply
with paragraph S4.1.4 of FMVSS No. 404.
    IV. Rule Requirements: Paragraph S<IP_ADDRESS> and paragraph S<IP_ADDRESS>
of FMVSS No. 403, include the requirements relevant to the deployment
of the inner roll stop. When the platform reaches a level where the
inner roll stop is designed to deploy, the platform must stop unless
the inner roll stop has deployed. Verification with

this requirement is made by performing the test procedure specified in
S7.6.1. When the platform stops, the vertical change in distance of the
horizontal plane (passing through the point of contact between the
wheelchair test device wheel(s) and the upper surface of the inner roll
stop or platform edge) must not be greater than 13 mm (0.5 in).
Verification of compliance with this requirement is made using the test
procedure specified in S7.6.1.
    Paragraph S4.1.4 of FMVSS No. 404, includes lift-equipped buses,
school buses, and MPVs other than motor homes with a GVWR greater than
4,536 kg (10,000 lb.) must be equipped with a public use lift certified
as meeting FMVSS No. 403.
    V. Summary of Petitions: The following views and arguments
presented in this section, ``V. Summary of Petitions,'' are the views
and arguments provided by the petitioners. They have not been evaluated
by the Agency and do not reflect the views of the Agency. The
petitioners described the subject noncompliance and stated their belief
that the subject noncompliance is inconsequential as it relates to
motor vehicle safety.
    In support of their petitions, the petitioners submitted the
following arguments:
    1. The Occupant Unloading Orientation in the Test Procedure Does
Not Represent Real-World Use.
    The petitioners state that for public use lifts, Ricon's operator
instructions (and the industry standard practice) instructs that an
occupant is to exit the vehicle from vehicle floor loading level facing
frontwards, not backwards per the test procedure. In this orientation,
the occupant is facing away from the vehicle and can view his/her
surroundings on the street or parking lot. In this configuration, the
inner roll stop for the Classic lifts performs as designed. When
disembarking the vehicle consistent with Ricon's operator instructions,
and consistent with the way occupants regularly exit the vehicle, \1\
the micro switch is triggered consistently regardless of the placement
of the wheelchair because there is always sufficient weight
distribution from the mobility device to the micro switch. The loading
and unloading direction in the test procedure is not consistent with
real-world application or use and is not consistent with industry
practice or the way that Ricon (or its competitors \2\) instruct that
the lifts should be used. As such, in real-world operation, there is no
safety risk presented.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The reason why loading with the occupant's back to the
vehicle is the standard practice is that it is designed to prevent
injury to the occupant's lower extremities and feet.
    \2\ In the pictorials on their websites, competitors also
promote that the appropriate way to enter and exit the platform lift
is facing away from the vehicles.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Per the petitioners, the position of the wheelchair test device
specified in the FMVSS No. 403 test procedure is inconsistent with the
actual use of the lifts and therefore, in actual use, no real-world
safety risk is presented. The test procedure provides that the platform
should be maneuvered to vehicle floor level loading position and the
wheelchair test device should be placed on the platform with only one
front wheel of the wheelchair test device facing the vehicle. See FMVSS
No. 403, S7.6.2. This instruction is contrary to the instructions
provided in the Ricon operator's manual instructions and contrary to
industry practice. For public use lifts, the standard industry practice
is to load and unload occupants with mobility devices rearward, facing
away from the vehicle and with their back to the vehicle. \3\
Significantly, NHTSA's own literature is consistent with Ricon's
approach and states that wheelchair occupants should be loaded and
unloaded facing away from the vehicle. \4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See Best Practices for Loading and Unloading Wheelchair
Students.
    \4\ See School Bus Driver In-Service Safety-Series.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As written, the instructions in the test procedure are inconsistent
with the industry standard and Ricon's operator's manual for public use
lifts \5\. The petitioners state that the operator's manual for the
private use Classic lifts describes how an occupant should board the
lift and that similar instructions on passenger orientation are
provided for the public use version of the Classic lifts.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Ricon says that in response to a comment from a manufacturer
during the FMVSS No. 403 rulemaking about inconsistent loading
direction in the manufacturer's operator manual and the test
procedure, NHTSA concluded that since the ADA does not apply to
private lifts, the loading requirements were not inconsistent with
the ADA. The Agency did not, however, address that same concern as
it applied to public use lifts and thus, it remains an open point
that was not addressed through the rulemaking process. See 67 FR
49416 (December 27, 2002)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The petitions also note that to complement the operating
instructions, Ricon applies decals on the vertical arms of the lift to
remind the lift operator and reinforce the correct means to load and
unload an occupant onto the lift.
    2. The Classic Lifts Incorporate Redundant Safety Features.
    The petitioners contend that for public use lifts, assuming the
user exited the vehicle backwards per the test procedure, if the inner
roll stop began to deploy there are redundant safety features that
would preclude any injury. All the Classic lifts have an outer barrier
that will remain deployed (in the vertical position) until the lift
reaches the ground level unloading position. Because the outer barrier
remains vertical throughout the entire lift operation, there is no risk
that the occupant could roll backwards and off the lift itself. In
addition, on all public use lifts there is a belt retention device
which acts as another redundant safety feature. The belt retention
device would also restrain an occupant safely on the lift should the
inner barrier begin to deploy while occupied and the handrails on the
sides of the lift will prevent any tipping from the sides. The
environment in which these lifts are used also diminishes any potential
risk to safety. When the Classic lifts operate as a public use lifts,
there will always be a lift attendant present to monitor the lift to
ensure the occupant enters and exits the lift safely and is properly
positioned on the platform before activating the lift. When the lift
attendant is correctly monitoring the lift occupant, as they should,
even if the occupant were to exit the vehicle by backing onto the lift,
if the inner roll stop did begin to deploy while it was occupied the
lift attendant can quickly stop lift operation.
    Per the petitioners, although Classic lifts used as private use
lifts may not have the retention belt in all instances, if a passenger
who is also the operator of the private use lift were to disembark the
vehicle backwards and remain partially on the inner roll stop, the
operator/passenger would simply need to release the momentary switch on
the control pendant to automatically and immediately stop the operation
of the lift. Because the control pendant utilizes a momentary switch,
as soon as the individual releases the activation button the lift
ceases operation. In this situation, and despite all the other factors
which are necessary to create the condition in the first place, an
operator/passenger can immediately prevent further movement of the
inner roll stop. Private use lifts without a retention belt still have
an operable outer barrier and handrails for protection. In addition,
consistent with FMVSS No. 403, the private use lifts all have operating
instructions near the lift controls and in the vehicle owner's manual,
``that contain a warning that wheelchairs

should back onto the platform when entering from the ground.''
    3. NHTSA has previously granted petitions where wheelchair lifts
did not meet the performance requirements of FMVSS No. 403.
    The petitioners argue that the Agency has granted
inconsequentiality petitions where the manufacturer has not met the
performance requirements of FMVSS No. 403, finding that the
noncompliance did not pose an increased risk to safety as the lift is
used in the real world. The performance of Ricon's platform lifts is
consistent with this precedent.
    For example, the Agency granted a petition for decision of
inconsequential noncompliance submitted by The Braun Corporation
(Braun) where the lift handrails did not meet the values for deflection
force stated in FMVSS No. 403. The Agency recognized that while the
handrails collapsed and did not meet the displacement requirement, they
did not do so catastrophically. The Agency explained the failure
``would not cause the passenger to become unstable, adversely interact
with the vehicle, or pose a safety concerns that the handrail
requirements were intended to address'' and that its concern in
instituting the deflection force requirement was the possibility of a
catastrophic failure of the handrails, which would expose the occupant
to a risk of injury. According to the petitioners, in granting the
petition, the Agency not only ``anticipated that future tests will
specify placement and direction of forces that will be more focused to
address worst-case handrail displacement and real-world safety
problems,'' but it also recognized the noncompliance did not ``pose a
safety concern that the handrail requirements were intended to
address.'' See 72 FR 19754 (April 19, 2007). Thus, the Agency has
recognized that there are inherent provisions in FMVSS No. 403 that may
not test for the types of safety risks that can arise in actual use and
are therefore inconsequential.
    The petitions further note that as with the Agency's finding with
the Braun petition, in actual use, the Classic lifts do not pose a
safety risk. This is because the inner barrier interlock would sense
the presence of the rear wheels of the wheelchair occupant who is
loaded and unloaded facing away from the vehicle. The heavier weight of
the rear wheels is picked up by the sensors and the inner barrier
interlock is activated. The interlock performance is restricted only
under the set up per the test procedure, with the front wheels on the
inner roll stop and facing the vehicle.
    4. In addition, Navistar has reviewed warranty records, field
reports, and other applicable Navistar system and determined the
following:
    a. Navistar has not received any complaints or other notices from
vehicle owners or others regarding this issue.
    b. Navistar is not aware of any accidents or injuries that have
occurred because of this issue.
    c. Navistar is not aware of any warranty claims for this issue.
    The petitioners concluded by expressing the belief that the subject
noncompliance is inconsequential as it relates to motor vehicle safety
and that their petitions to be exempted from providing notification of
the noncompliance, as required by 49 U.S.C. 30118, and a remedy for the
noncompliance, as required by 49 U.S.C. 30120, should be granted.
    The petitioner's complete petitions and all supporting documents
are available by logging onto the Federal Docket Management System
(FDMS) website at: https://www.regulations.gov and by following the
online search instructions to locate the docket number as listed in the
title of this notice.
    NHTSA notes that the statutory provisions (49 U.S.C. 30118(d) and
30120(h)) that permit manufacturers to file petitions for a
determination of inconsequentiality allow NHTSA to exempt manufacturers
only from the duties found in sections 30118 and 30120, respectively,
to notify owners, purchasers, and dealers of a defect or noncompliance
and to remedy the defect or noncompliance. Therefore, any decision on
these petitions only applies to the subject lifts and buses that the
petitioners no longer controlled at the time it determined that the
noncompliance existed. However, any decision of these petitions does
not relieve vehicle or equipment distributors and dealers of the
prohibitions on the sale, offer for sale, or introduction or delivery
for introduction into interstate commerce of the noncompliant lifts and
buses under their control after the petitioners notified them that the
subject noncompliance existed.

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 30118, 30120: delegations of authority at
49 CFR 1.95 and 501.8

Otto G. Matheke III,
Director, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance.
[FR Doc. 2021-09051 Filed 4-29-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 63 (Wednesday, April 1, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 18290-18292]
[FR Doc No: 2020-06740]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-88487; File No. SR-CboeBZX-2020-027]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Cboe BZX Exchange, Inc.; Notice of
Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change Relating
To Amend the Fee Schedule To Institute a Fee Code Applicable to the
Cboe Market Close

March 26, 2020.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that
on March 19, 2020, Cboe BZX Exchange, Inc. (``BZX'' or ``Exchange'')
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'') the
proposed rule change as described in Items I, II, and III below, which
Items have been prepared by the Exchange. The Commission is publishing
this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change from
interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

I. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Terms of Substance
of the Proposed Rule Change

    Cboe BZX Exchange, Inc. (``BZX'' or the ``Exchange'') is filing
with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the ``Commission'') a
proposed rule change to amend the fee schedule to institute a fee code
applicable to the Cboe Market Close. The text of the proposed rule
change is provided in Exhibit 5.
    The text of the proposed rule change is also available on the
Exchange's website (http://markets.cboe.com/us/equities/regulation/rule_filings/bzx/), at the Exchange's Office of the Secretary, and at
the Commission's Public Reference Room.

II. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

    In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements
concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and
discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The
text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in
Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in
sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such
statements.

A. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to amend the fee schedule applicable to its
equities trading platform (``BZX Equities'') to introduce a fee code
for orders that participate in the Cboe Market Close.\3\ As proposed,
orders executed in the Cboe Market Close would yield fee code ``MC.''
There would be no transaction fees associated with such orders.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The Exchange initially filed the proposed fee changes on
March 5, 2020 (SR-CboeBZX-2020-022). On March 13, 2020, the Exchange
withdrew that filing and re-filed (SR-CboeBZX-2020-024). On March
19, 2020, the Exchange withdrew that filing and submitted this
filing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange plans to implement the Cboe Market Close on March 6,
2020 as part of its ongoing efforts to improve market structure for the
benefit of investors.\4\ The Cboe Market Close is an innovative closing
match process for non-BZX Listed Securities that is designed to match
buy and sell Market-On-Close (``MOC'') orders at the official closing
price for such security published by the primary listing market. The
Exchange is introducing the Cboe Market Close in response to requests
from market participants, particularly buy-side firms, for an
alternative to the primary listing exchanges' closing auctions that
still provides an execution at a security's official closing price.
Cboe Market Close is designed in response to industry persistence and
interest in an alternative to the listing market's closing auction.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ The Commission approved the Cboe Market Close on January 21,
2020. See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 88008 (January 21,
2020) 85 FR 4726 (January 27, 2020) (the ``Approval Order'') (SR-
BatsBZX-2017-34).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As noted in the Approval Order, BZX stated that the fees for Cboe
Market Close would be set and maintained over time at a rate less than
the fee charged by the applicable listing exchange for its own
respective closing mechanism. Accordingly, in conjunction with the
upcoming implementation of the Cboe Market Close, the Exchange proposes
to introduce a new fee code for orders that are executed in the Cboe
Market Close, which would yield fee code ``MC.'' As proposed, there
would be no fee to participate in the Cboe Market Close, thereby
providing cost effective executions at the official closing price on a
public exchange, and facilitating the execution of those orders at a
lower rate than such orders would be charged in a primary listing
markets' closing auction.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ For example, Nasdaq offers tiered fees for both MOC and
Limit-on-Close (``LOC'') order executions in its closing auction
process ranging from $0.0008 to $0.0016 per executed share. See
Nasdaq Crossing Network, Execution Fees for the Nasdaq Closing
Cross, Tiers A through G of the Nasdaq Price List. NYSE offers
tiered fees for MOC order executions in its closing auction process
ranging from $0.0004 to $0.0010. See Executions at the Close Equity
Per Share Charge--per transaction (both sides)--of the NYSE Price
List.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with the objectives of Section 6 of the Act,\6\ in general, and
furthers the objectives of Section 6(b)(4),\7\ in particular, as it is
designed to provide for the equitable allocation of reasonable dues,
fees and other charges among its Members and issuers and other persons
using its facilities. The Exchange also notes that it operates in a
highly-competitive market in which market participants can readily
direct order flow to competing venues if they deem fee levels at a
particular venue to be excessive or incentives to be insufficient. The
proposed rule change reflects a competitive pricing structure designed
to incentivize market participants to direct their MOC orders to the
Cboe Market Close, which the Exchange believes would facilitate the
execution of those orders at the official closing price.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78f.
    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In particular, the Exchange believes the proposal is reasonable
because it provides Members a free alternative for executing MOC orders
at the official closing price. Currently, market participants may
execute MOC orders on public exchanges at the official closing price
only by participating in the primary listing market's closing auction.
As noted in the Approval Order, BZX stated that the fees for Cboe
Market Close would be set and maintained over time at a rate less than
the fee charged by the applicable listing exchange for its own
respective closing mechanism. Accordingly, the proposal would allow all
Members to participate in the Cboe Market Close without charge, and
therefore at a price that is less than the applicable closing auction
fees that would be incurred on the primary listing exchanges.\8\ The
Exchange also believes the proposal is reasonable because fostering
price

competition for the execution of MOC orders may facilitate the ability
for smaller and mid-size brokers to better compete for investors' MOC
order flow. In turn, greater choice among, and participation by,
broker-dealers in handling MOC orders should inure to the benefit of
end investors. Further, the Exchange believes the proposal may increase
execution quality competition for MOC orders by incentivizing other
venues, including the primary listing exchanges, to continue to
innovate and compete to attract MOC orders to their venues.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ For example, Nasdaq offers tiered fees for executions in its
closing auction process ranging from $0.0008 to $0.0016 per executed
share. See Tiers A through G of the Nasdaq fee schedule http://nasdaqtrader.com/Trader.aspx?id=PriceListTrading2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Additionally, the Exchange believes the proposal is equitable and
not unfairly discriminatory because it would apply equally to all
Members who choose to participate in the Cboe Market Close. The
proposed fee change is designed to allow broad participation in the
Cboe Market Close, and there would be no differentiation in fees
charged to Members. Rather, the Exchange's proposal would allow all
Members to participate in the Cboe Market Close without charge. In
turn, this would allow any interested Member to participate in the Cboe
Market Close on an equal and non-discriminatory basis.
    Lastly, while the Exchange's proposal offers participation in the
Cboe Market Close at no cost to Members, the Exchange will continue to
surveil for potentially manipulative activities and will enhance its
surveillance procedures and work with other SROs to detect and prevent
manipulative activity through the use of Cboe Market Close.

B. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on intramarket or intermarket competition that is not
necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
Rather, as discussed above, the Exchange believes that the proposed
change would encourage the submission of MOC orders to a public
exchange for execution at the official closing price.
    The Exchange believes the proposed rule change does not impose any
burden on intramarket competition that is not necessary or appropriate
in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. Particularly, the proposed
change allows all Members to participate in the Cboe Market Close
without charge. The proposal is designed to encourage Members to
participate in the Cboe Market Close, which the Exchange believes will
benefit all Members by fostering price competition for the execution of
MOC orders at the official closing price, and may facilitate the
ability for smaller and mid-size brokers to better compete for
investors' MOC order flow. In turn, greater choice among, and
participation by, broker-dealers in handling MOC orders should inure to
the benefit of end investors.
    Next, the Exchange believes the proposed rule change does not
impose any burden on intermarket competition that is not necessary or
appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The purpose of
Cboe Market Close is to increase competition for the execution of MOC
orders. Specifically, the Exchange believes the proposal may increase
competition for MOC orders by incentivizing other venues, including the
primary listing exchanges, to continue to innovate and compete to
attract MOC orders to their venues.\9\ Further, as previously
discussed, the Exchange operates in a highly competitive market.
Members have numerous alternative venues that they may participate on
and direct their MOC order flow, including primary listing markets and
off-exchange venues and alternative trading systems.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ Supra note 3.
    \10\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Lastly, the proposal is offered in conjunction with the launch of
the Cboe Market Close which is designed to enhance competition for the
execution of MOC orders at the official closing price. Market
participants may only execute at the official closing price on a public
exchange is through the primary listing market auction. Generally, more
than 70% of execution volume at the official closing price occurs on
the primary listing exchange. Therefore, the proposal is designed to
enhance competition among exchanges by offering market participants an
alternative option to execute MOC orders at the official closing price.
Furthermore, market participants can readily choose to send their MOC
orders to primary listing markets and off-exchange venues if they deem
fee levels at those other venues to be more favorable. For example,
recent studies have shown that Trade Reporting Facility (``TRF'')
volumes using the primary closing auction price have reached as high as
30% on some occasions.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See BZX Statement in Support of the Division's Order
Approving a Rule to Introduce Cboe Market Close, at 16 (April 12,
2018).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission has repeatedly expressed its preference for
competition over regulatory intervention in determining prices,
products, and services in the securities markets. Specifically, in
Regulation NMS, the Commission highlighted the importance of market
forces in determining prices and SRO revenues and, also, recognized
that current regulation of the market system ``has been remarkably
successful in promoting market competition in its broader forms that
are most important to investors and listed companies.'' \12\ The fact
that this market is competitive has also long been recognized by the
courts. In NetCoalition v. Securities and Exchange Commission, the D.C.
Circuit stated as follows: ``[n]o one disputes that competition for
order flow is `fierce.' . . . As the SEC explained, `[i]n the U.S.
national market system, buyers and sellers of securities, and the
broker-dealers that act as their order-routing agents, have a wide
range of choices of where to route orders for execution'; [and] `no
exchange can afford to take its market share percentages for granted'
because `no exchange possesses a monopoly, regulatory or otherwise, in
the execution of order flow from broker dealers'. . . .''.\13\
Accordingly, the Exchange does not believe the proposal imposes any
burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 51808 (June 9,
2005), 70 FR 37496, 37499 (June 29, 2005).
    \13\ NetCoalition v. SEC, 615 F.3d 525, 539 (D.C. Cir. 2010)
(quoting Securities Exchange Act Release No. 59039 (December 2,
2008), 73 FR 74770, 74782-83 (December 9, 2008) (SR-NYSEArca-2006-
21)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Comments on the Proposed
Rule Change Received From Members, Participants, or Others

    The Exchange neither solicited nor received comments on the
proposed rule change.

III. Date of Effectiveness of the Proposed Rule Change and Timing for
Commission Action

    The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \14\ and paragraph (f) of Rule 19b-4 \15\
thereunder. At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed
rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule
change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or
appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or
otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission
takes such action, the Commission will institute proceedings to
determine whether the proposed rule change should be approved or
disapproved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \15\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f).

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Solicitation of Comments

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and
arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule
change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of
the following methods:

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-CboeBZX-2020-027 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

     Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities
and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-CboeBZX-2020-027. This
file number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's internet website (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml).
Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written
statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with
the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed
rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those
that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions
of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for website viewing and printing in
the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC
20549, on official business days between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and
3:00 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available for inspection
and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All comments
received will be posted without change. Persons submitting comments are
cautioned that we do not redact or edit personal identifying
information from comment submissions. You should submit only
information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions
should refer to File Number SR-CboeBZX-2020-027, and should be
submitted on or before April 22, 2020.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

J. Matthew DeLesDernier,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2020-06740 Filed 3-31-20; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: June 23, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 121)]
[Notices]
[Page 35412-35414]
[DOCID:fr23jn08-69]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Occupational Safety and Health Administration

[Docket No. OSHA-2008-0020]

Slings; Extension of the Office of Management and Budget's (OMB)
Approval of Information Collection (Paperwork) Requirements

AGENCY: Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), Labor.

ACTION: Request for public comment.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: OSHA solicits comments concerning its proposal to extend OMB
approval of the information collection requirements contained in the
Standard on Slings (29 CFR 1910.184). The collection of information
(paperwork) provisions of the Standard specify affixing identification
tags or markings on slings, developing and maintaining inspection
records, and retaining proof testing certificates.

DATES: Comments must be submitted (postmarked, sent, or received) by
August 22, 2008.

ADDRESSES: Electronically: You may submit comments and attachments
electronically at http://www.regulations.gov, which is the Federal
eRulemaking Portal. Follow the instructions online for submitting
comments.
    Facsimile: If your comments, including attachments, are not longer
than 10 pages, you may fax them to the OSHA Docket Office at (202) 693-
1648.
    Mail, hand delivery, express mail, messenger, or courier service:
When using this method, you must submit three copies of your comments
and attachments to the OSHA Docket Office, Docket No. OSHA-2008-0020,
U.S. Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and Health
Administration, Room N-2625, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington,
DC 20210. Deliveries (hand, express mail, messenger, and courier
service) are accepted during the Department of Labor's and Docket
Office's normal business hours, 8:15 a.m. to 4:45 p.m., e.t.
    Instructions: All submissions must include the Agency name and OSHA
docket number for the ICR (OSHA-2008-0020). All comments, including any
personal information you provide, are placed in the public docket
without change, and may be made available online at http://
www.regulations.gov. For further information on submitting comments see
the ``Public Participation'' heading in the section of this notice
titled SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION.
    Docket: To read or download comments or other material in the
docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov or the OSHA Docket Office at
the address above. All documents in the docket (including this Federal
Register notice) are listed in the http://www.regulations.gov index;
however, some information(e.g., copyrighted material) is not publicly
available to read or download through the Web site. All submissions,
including copyrighted material, are available for inspection and
copying at the OSHA Docket Office. You may also contact Theda Kenney at
the address below to obtain a copy of the ICR.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Theda Kenney or Todd Owen, Directorate
of Standards and Guidance, OSHA, U.S. Department of Labor, RoomN-3609,
200 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20210; telephone (202)
693-2222.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    The Department of Labor, as part of its continuing effort to reduce
paperwork and respondent (i.e., employer) burden, conducts a
preclearance consultation program to provide the public with an
opportunity to comment on proposed and continuing information
collection requirements in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act
of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)). This program

ensures that information is in the desired format, reporting burden
(time and costs) is minimal, collection instruments are clearly
understood, and OSHA's estimate of the information collection burden is
accurate. The Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (the OSH Act)
(29 U.S.C. 651 et seq.) authorizes information collection by employers
as necessary or appropriate for enforcement of the Act or for
developing information regarding the causes and prevention of
occupational injuries, illnesses, and accidents (29 U.S.C. 657). The
OSH Act also requires that OSHA obtain such information with minimum
burden upon employers, especially those operating small businesses, and
to reduce to the maximum extent feasible unnecessary duplication of
efforts in obtaining information (29 U.S.C. 657).
    The Slings Standard (29 CFR 1910.184) specifies several collection
of information (paperwork) requirements, depending on the type of
sling. The purpose of each of these requirements is to prevent
employees from using defective or deteriorated slings, thereby reducing
their risk of death or serious injury caused by sling failure during
material handling.
    Paragraph (e) of the Standard covers alloy steel chain slings.
Paragraph (e)(1) requires that alloy steel chain slings have
permanently affixed and durable identification stating the size, grade,
rated capacity, and reach of the sling. The information, supplied by
the manufacturer, is typically marked on a metal tag and affixed to the
sling.
    Paragraph (e)(3)(i) requires the employer to make a thorough
periodic inspection of alloy steel chain slings in use on a regular
basis, but at least once a year. Paragraph (e)(3)(ii) requires the
employer to make and maintain a record of the most recent month in
which each alloy steel chain sling was thoroughly inspected, and make
this record available for examination.
    Paragraph (e)(4) requires the employer to retain certificates of
proof testing. Employers must ensure that before use, each new,
repaired, or reconditioned alloy steel chain sling, including all
welded components in the sling assembly, has been proof tested by the
sling manufacturer or an equivalent entity. The certificates of proof
testing must be retained by the employer and made available for
examination.
    Paragraph (f) of the Standard covers wire rope slings. Paragraph
(f)(4)(ii) requires that all welded end attachments of wire rope slings
be proof tested by the manufacturer at twice their rated capacity prior
to initial use, and that the employer retain a certificate of the proof
test and make it available for examination.
    Paragraph (g) of the Standard covers metal mesh slings. Paragraph
(g)(1) requires each metal mesh sling to have a durable marking
permanently affixed that states the rated capacity for vertical basket
hitch and choker hitch loadings. Paragraph (g)(8)(ii) requires that
once repaired, each metal mesh sling be permanently marked or tagged,
or a written record maintained to indicate the date and type of the
repairs made, and the person or organization that performed the
repairs. Records of the repairs shall be made available for
examination.
    Paragraph (i) of the Standard covers synthetic web slings.
Paragraph (i)(1) requires that synthetic web slings be marked or coded
to show the rated capacities for each type of hitch and the type of
synthetic web material used in the sling.
    Paragraph (i)(8)(i) prohibits the use of repaired synthetic web
slings until they have been proof tested by the manufacturer or an
equivalent entity. Paragraph (i)(8)(ii) requires the employer to retain
a certificate of the proof test and make it available for examination.
    The information on the identification tags, markings, and codings
assist the employer in determining whether the sling can be used for
the lifting task. The sling inspections enable early detection of
faulty slings. The inspection and repair records provide employers with
information about when the last inspection was made and about the type
of the repairs made. This information provides some assurance about the
condition of the slings. These records also provide the most efficient
means for an OSHA compliance officer to determine that an employer is
complying with the Standard. Proof testing certificates give employers,
employees, and OSHA compliance officers assurance that slings are safe
to use. The certificates also provide the compliance officers with an
efficient means to assess employer compliance with the Standard.

II. Special Issues for Comment

    OSHA has a particular interest in comments on the following issues:
     Whether the proposed information collection requirements
are necessary for the proper performance of the Agency's functions,
including whether the information is useful;
     The accuracy of OSHA's estimate of the burden (time and
costs) of the information collection requirements, including the
validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
     The quality, utility, and clarity of the information
collected; and
     Ways to minimize the burden on employers who must comply;
for example, by using automated or other technological information
collection and transmission techniques.

III. Proposed Actions

    OSHA is requesting that OMB extend its approval of the information
collection requirements contained in the Standard on Slings (29 CFR
1910.184). OSHA is proposing to decrease the existing burden hour
estimate for the collection of information requirements specified by
the Standard from 19,167 hours to 17,760 hours, a total decrease of
1,407 hours. The decrease occurred because, although there was an
increase in the total number of slings, there was a decrease in the
number of alloy steel chain slings. The Agency will summarize the
comments submitted in response to this notice and will include this
summary in the request to OMB.
    Type of Review: Extension of a currently approved collection.
    Title: Slings (29 CFR 1910.184).
    OMB Number: 1218-0223.
    Affected Public: Business or other for-profits; Not-for-profit
organizations; Federal Government; State, Local, or Tribal Government.
    Number of Respondents: 1,000,000.
    Frequency of Response: On occasion.
    Average Time Per Response: Varies from 1 minute (.02 hour) to
maintain a certificate to 30 minutes (.50 hour) for a manufacturing
employee to acquire information from a manufacturer for a new tag, make
a new tag, and affix it to a sling.
    Estimated Total Burden Hours: 17,760.
    Estimated Cost (Operation and Maintenance): $0.

IV. Public Participation--Submission of Comments on this Notice and
Internet Access to Comments and Submissions

    You may submit comments in response to this document as follows:
(1) Electronically at http://www.regulations.gov, which is the Federal
eRulemaking Portal; (2) by facsimile (FAX); or (3) by hard copy. All
comments, attachments, and other material must identify the Agency name
and the OSHA docket number for the ICR (Docket No. OSHA-2008-0020). You
may supplement electronic submissions by uploading document files
electronically. If you wish to mail additional materials in reference
to an electronic or facsimile submission, you must submit them to the
OSHA Docket Office (see the section of this notice titled ADDRESSES).
The additional

materials must clearly identify your electronic comments by your name,
date, and the docket number so the Agency can attach them to your
comments.
    Because of security procedures, the use of regular mail may cause a
significant delay in the receipt of comments. For information about
security procedures concerning the delivery of materials by hand,
express delivery, messenger, or courier service, please contact the
OSHA Docket Office at<PHONE_NUMBER> (TTY<PHONE_NUMBER>).
    Comments and submissions are posted without change at http://
www.regulations.gov. Therefore, OSHA cautions commenters about
submitting personal information such as social security numbers and
date of birth. Although all submissions are listed in the http://
www.regulations.gov index, some information (e.g., copyrighted
material) is not publicly available to read or download through this
Web site. All submissions, including copyrighted material, are
available for inspection and copying at the OSHA Docket Office.
Information on using the http://www.regulations.gov Web site to submit
comments and access the docket is available at the Web site's
``UserTips'' link. Contact the OSHA Docket Office for information about
materials not available through the Web site, and for assistance in
using the Internet to locate docket submissions.

V. Authority and Signature

    Edwin G. Foulke, Jr., Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational
Safety and Health, directed the preparation of this notice. The
authority for this notice is the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44
U.S.C. 3506 et seq.) and Secretary of Labor's Order No. 5-2007 (72 FR
31159).

    Signed at Washington, DC, on June 12, 2008.
Edwin G. Foulke, Jr.
Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health.
[FR Doc. E8-14073 Filed 6-20-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4510-26-P


[Federal Register: December 12, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 237)]
[Notices]
[Page 73488-73489]
[DOCID:fr12de05-94]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-52893; File No. SR-Amex-2005-067]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; American Stock Exchange LLC; Order
Approving Proposed Rule Change To Expand Its $2.50 Strike Price
Interval Program

December 5, 2005.

I. Introduction

    On June 17, 2005, the American Stock Exchange LLC (``Amex'' or
``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission''), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ a
proposed rule change to amend Commentary .06 to Amex Rule 903 to expand
the $2.50 Strike Price Interval Program for individual equity options
to allow the listing of options with $2.50 strike price intervals for
strike prices between $50 and $75. The Commission published the
proposed rule change for comment in the Federal Register on November 3,
2005.\3\ The Commission received no comments on the proposal. This
order approves the proposed rule change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ Securities Exchange Act Release No. 52690 (October 27,
2005), 70 FR 66869.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Description of the Proposal

    The $2.50 Strike Price Interval Program (``Program'') was initially
adopted in 1995 as a joint pilot program of the options exchanges,
which permits them to list options with $2.50 strike price intervals up
to $50 on a total of up to 100 option classes.\4\ The Program was later
expanded and permanently approved in 1998 to allow the options
exchanges collectively to select up to 200 classes on which to list
options with $2.50 strike price intervals.\5\ Of these 200 option
classes eligible for the Program, 51 classes were allocated to Amex
pursuant to a formula approved by the Commission as part of the
permanent approval of the Program. Each options exchange, in addition,
is permitted to list options with $2.50 strike price intervals on any
option class that another exchange selects as part of its Program.
Under the Program currently, an option with a $2.50 strike price
interval may be listed only if the strike price is between $25 and
$50.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 35993 (July 19,
1995), 60 FR 38073 (July 25, 1995) (approving File Nos. SR-Phlx-95-
08, SR-Amex-95-12, SR-PSE-95-07, SR-CBOE-95-19, and SR-NYSE-95-12).
    \5\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 40662 (November 12,
1998), 63 FR 64297 (November 19, 1998) (approving File Nos. SR-Amex-
98-21, SR-CBOE-98-29, SR-PCX-98-31, and SR-Phlx-98-26).
    \6\ See, e.g., Amex Rule 903, Commentary .06.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange proposes to amend Commentary .06 to Amex Rule 903 to
allow the listing of options with $2.50 strike price intervals for
options with strike prices between $50 and $75. However, the $2.50
strike price intervals between $50 and $75 must be no more than $10
from the closing price of the underlying stock in its primary market on
the preceding day. For example, and as expressly described in the
proposed change to Commentary .06 to Amex Rule 903, if an option class
has been selected as part of the Program, and the underlying stock
closes at $48.50 in its primary market, Amex could list options with
strike prices of $52.50 and $57.50 on the next business day. If the
underlying stock closes at $54, Amex could list options with strike
prices of $52.50, $57.50, and $62.50 on the next business day. The
proposed rule change does not increase the total number of option
classes that Amex may select for the Program.
    In addition, the Exchange has proposed other technical changes to
Commentary .06 to Amex Rule 903, including expressly noting in the rule
text that: (1) the total number of option classes, i.e., 51, that the
Amex has been allocated of the 200 classes that are eligible for the
Program; and (2) an option class shall remain in the Program until
otherwise designated by the Exchange and a decertification notice is
sent to the Options Clearing Corporation.

III. Discussion

    After careful review, the Commission finds that the proposed rule
change is consistent with the requirements of the Act and the rules and
regulations thereunder applicable to a national securities exchange.\7\
In particular, the

Commission finds that the proposed rule change is consistent with
Section 6(b)(5) of the Act, which requires, among other things, that
the rules of a national securities exchange be designed to remove
impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and
a national market system, and in general to protect investors and the
public interest.\8\ The Commission believes that this proposal is a
reasonable means of providing investors with greater flexibility to
establish equity options positions that can be better tailored to meet
their investment objectives.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ In approving this rule proposal, the Commission notes that
it has considered the proposed rule's impact on efficiency,
competition, and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).
    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission has previously noted a concern with the pressures on
system capacity caused by the proliferation of illiquid options series.
However, this proposal should not exacerbate the problem of increased
quote traffic. As a result of this proposal, Amex will be permitted to
list options with $2.50 strike price intervals with strike prices
between $50 and $75, but the total number of classes that Amex is
authorized to list pursuant to its $2.50 Strike Price Interval Program
remains unchanged.

IV. Conclusion

    It is therefore ordered, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the
Act,\9\ that the proposed rule change (SR-Amex-2005-067) be, and it
hereby is, approved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation,
pursuant to delegated authority.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Jonathan G. Katz,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E5-7189 Filed 12-9-05; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010-01-P


[Federal Register: August 2, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 148)]
[Notices]
[Page 42406]
[DOCID:fr02au07-84]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ER07-964-000]

UNS Electric, Inc.; Notice of Issuance of Order

July 26, 2007.
    UNS Electric, Inc. (UNS Electric) filed an application for market-
based rate authority, with an accompanying rate schedule. The proposed
market-based rate schedule provides for the sale of energy, capacity
and ancillary services at market-based rates. UNS Electric also
requested waivers of various Commission regulations. In particular, UNS
Electric requested that the Commission grant blanket approval under 18
CFR part 34 of all future issuances of securities and assumptions of
liability by UNS Electric.
    On July 25, 2007, pursuant to delegated authority, the Director,
Division of Tariffs and Market Development--West, granted the requests
for blanket approval under part 34 (Director's Order). The Director's
Order also stated that the Commission would publish a separate notice
in the Federal Register establishing a period of time for the filing of
protests. Accordingly, any person desiring to be heard concerning the
blanket approvals of issuances of securities or assumptions of
liability by UNS Electric should file a protest with the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, in
accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice
and Procedure. 18 CFR 385.211, 385.214 (2004).
    Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests is
August 24, 2007.
    Absent a request to be heard in opposition to such blanket
approvals by the deadline above, UNS Electric is authorized to issue
securities and assume obligations or liabilities as a guarantor,
indorser, surety, or otherwise in respect of any security of another
person; provided that such issuance or assumption is for some lawful
object within the corporate purposes of UNS Electric, compatible with
the public interest, and is reasonably necessary or appropriate for
such purposes.
    The Commission reserves the right to require a further showing that
neither public nor private interests will be adversely affected by
continued approvals of UNS Electric's issuance of securities or
assumptions of liability.
    Copies of the full text of the Director's Order are available from
the Commission's Public Reference Room, 888 First Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20426. The Order may also be viewed on the Commission's
Web site at http://www.ferc.gov, using the eLibrary link. Enter the

docket number excluding the last three digits in the docket number
filed to access the document. Comments, protests, and interventions may
be filed electronically via the internet in lieu of paper. See, 18 CFR
385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's Web site
under the ``e-Filing'' link. The Commission strongly encourages
electronic filings.

Kimberly D. Bose,
 Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E7-14963 Filed 8-1-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P