[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 81 (Wednesday, April 27, 2011)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 23506-23511]
[FR Doc No: 2011-10031]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

49 CFR Part 571

[Docket No. NHTSA-2004-18794]
RIN 2127-AK85

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards No. 108; Lamp, Reflective
Devices and Associated Equipment

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

ACTION: Final rule; response to petitions for reconsideration.

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

SUMMARY: This document responds to seven petitions for reconsideration
submitted regarding our August 2004 final rule that amended the Federal
motor vehicle safety standard on lamps, reflective devices, and
associated equipment. After careful review of the petitions, we are
revising certain requirements of the standard pertaining to the
visibility of lamps mounted on motorcycles to increase the
compatibility of our visibility requirements with those of theUnited
Nations Economic Commission for Europe (ECE R53). We are otherwise
denying the petitions.

DATES: Effective date: The final rule is effective May 27, 2011 except
for the revision at instruction number 3, which is effective December
1, 2012. Petitions for reconsideration of the final rule must be
received not later than June 13, 2011.

ADDRESSES: Any petitions for reconsideration should refer to the docket
number of this document and be submitted to: Administrator, National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration, U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., West Building, Washington,
DC 20590.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For non-legal issues, you may call Mr.
Markus Price, Office of Crash Avoidance Standards (Phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>;
FAX:<PHONE_NUMBER>).
    For legal issues, you may call Mr. Thomas Healy, Office of the
Chief Counsel (Phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; FAX:<PHONE_NUMBER>).
    You may send mail to these officials at: National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC
20590.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

I. Background
II. Petitions for Reconsideration
III. Agency Analysis and Decision
IV. Effective Dates and Compliance Dates
V. Conclusion
VI. Rulemaking Analyses and Notices

I. Background

    The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) issued a
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) in 1995 to address a petition from
the Groupe de Travail Working Party ``Brussels 1952'' (GTB).\1\ The
petitioner asked the agency to harmonize the U.S. visibility
requirements with the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe
(UNECE or ECE) requirements. As a result, the agency published a
proposal that included several aspects of harmonization including
visibility of reflex reflectors (front side, rear, rear side,
intermediate), side markers (front, rear, intermediate), front turn,
rear turn, stop, front parking, tail, rear fog, high mount stop, and
daytime running lamps. In addition, the agency requested comments on
allowing amber rear side markers and regulating front and rear fog
lamps.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See 60 FR 54833 October 26, 1995.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In response to comments received, the agency followed the NPRM with
a Supplementary Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (SNPRM) \2\ in 1998 that
limited the scope to only visibility and terminated proposed rulemaking
that would allow an option of providing amber rear side marker lamps
and reflectors. The SNPRM proposed using either Society of Automotive
Engineers (SAE) or ECE derived visibility requirements. In a separate
notice, the issue of regulating front and rear fog lamps was also
terminated.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ See 63 FR 68233 December 10, 1998.
    \3\ See 62 FR 8883 February 27, 1997.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In 2004, NHTSA published a final rule \4\ that was based on the
UNECE derived visibility requirements. Regarding the method of
certification, the final rule stated the visibility requirements could
be satisfied by meeting a minimum visible area or by a minimum
photometric intensity. The final rule set a compliance date of
September 1, 2011 for vehicles that are less than 2032 mm in overall
width, and September 1, 2014 for vehicles that are 2032 mm or more in
overall width.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See 69 FR 48805 August 11, 2004.
    \5\ Dual dimension (80 in) has not been added because it does
not appear in the regulation text S5.3.2(b) which is the primary
area of interest for this background.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Petitions for Reconsideration

    Seven petitions for reconsideration were received from automotive
manufacturers, lighting suppliers, and motorcycle manufacturers.
Petitions for reconsideration were received from the Motor and
Equipment Manufacturers Association (MEMA), the Alliance of Automobile
Manufacturers (AAM), General Motors (GM), Sierra Products, North
American Lighting (NAL), Harley Davidson, and the Motorcycle Industry
Council (MIC). Among the seven petitions, six issues were raised that
requested reconsideration of the final rule. In addition, there were
also several requests, which could be characterized as clarifications,
related to the final rule that did not specifically request a rule
change. Finally, several general questions were received that are
related to FMVSS No. 108 but which are not directly related to the
final rule. These items are all summarized below.

1. Issue Regarding Harmonization of FMVSS No. 108 With ECE Regulation
No. 53 (ECE R53) for Vehicles With Less Than 4 Wheels

    Two petitions for reconsideration were received regarding the
visibility requirements of motorcycles from

Harley Davidson and MIC. Both of these petitioners supported the goal
of standards harmonization, however they argued that the requirements
in the final rule did not harmonize with the ECE R53 standard for
motorcycles. Specifically, both petitioners stated that ECE R53 allows
a narrower field of visibility for front and rear turn signal lamps,
and for multiple lamp stop configurations on motorcycles. Additionally,
both petitioners recommended decreasing the inboard visibility for
motorcycle turn signal lamps from 45 degrees to 20 degrees. They also
recommended decreasing the inboard visibility for multiple lamp stop
configurations from 45 degrees to 10 degrees.

2. Issue Whether New Definition for the Effective Projected Luminous
Lens Area Changes the Existing Requirements

    MEMA, AAM, and GM claimed that the new definition for the
``effective luminous lens area'' would influence lamps designed before
this final rule was effective. GM requested that the new definition not
become mandatory until the new visibility requirements become mandatory
on September 1, 2011, or September 1, 2014 depending on the width of
the vehicle. AAM requested that the new definition for effective
projected luminous lens area apply only to vehicles certified to the
new visibility requirements. MEMA objected to what it believes was a
lack of notice in changing the definition, as well as the lead time for
compliance with the new definition. MEMA also objected to the exclusion
of transparent lenses in the calculation of the effective projected
luminous lens area.

3. The Lead Time for Wide Vehicles

    MEMA petitioned that the lead time be increased to at least 15
years for wide vehicles. MEMA focused on two major points, the first
being that NHTSA ``ignored the substantial cost this rule will impose
on lighting suppliers in the heavy vehicle segment.'' MEMA also stated
that ``the final rule provides no demonstrated safety benefits.''

4. Compliance Method Choice Is Irrevocable

    MEMA also petitioned that the manufacturer's choice of compliance
method should not be irrevocable. MEMA stated that this will limit the
selection of catalog lamps that a manufacturer can choose from in the
event of an interruption in the supply of the originally certified
lamp. MEMA also stated that the safety neutrality of the compliance
method makes enforcement of this regulation impossible.

5. Requirements for Lamps Mounted Less Than 750 mm Above the Road
Surface

    MEMA and NAL both petitioned that the photometric requirements of
lamps mounted less than 750 mm above the roadway should be clarified.
NAL pointed out that the preamble seems to include side marker and
clearance lamps in the 750 mm rule, but the regulation text specifies
signal lamps and reflective devices. NAL requested that the
requirements for side marker and clearance lamps mounted less than 750
mm above the road surface be made clear.

6. Requirements for Lamps Mounted 15 Above the Road Surface

    Sierra Products suggested that the agency further reduce the
photometric requirements of lamps mounted 15 inches above the roadway,
on the basis that a reduction in required light below Horizontal-
Vertical (H-V) could allow for a more economical lamp.

7. Additional Questions That Do Not Request a Rule Change, or Are Not
Part of This Rulemaking

    Sierra Products asked several questions that do not request a
specific rule change. In addition, Sierra Products also asked questions
that are not part of this rulemaking. Among those questions, Sierra
Products asked why the spacing, position, and color harmonization was
abandoned. Also, Sierra Products asked for clarification as to the
meaning of ``apparent surface'' as it was used in the preamble to the
final rule. Among other clarification type questions, Sierra Products
asked if large vehicle H-V area requirements changed as part of the
final rule, and how the area compliance option will be tested for
compliance. They also asked why big rigs and boat and utility trailers
need reduced constraints on styling for aerodynamic purposes.
    Sierra Products asked several questions that are related to FMVSS
No. 108, but are not part of this rulemaking. Those included a question
about clearance lamp requirements. Sierra Products asked ``how can a
big rig clearance light that is only effective at auto eye level be
seen and understood by following, or passing auto traffic if it is
allowed to be mounted 12 feet high and have no inboard photometric
output?'' They also asked about the use of the latest SAE standards
within FMVSS No. 108. In addition, Sierra Products asked for
clarification as to the meaning of a multiple compartment lamp, and if
a LED is considered a separate lamp. Continuing, Sierra Products asked
``where have you discussed in this harmonization proposal that an
advertised 100,000 hour LED doesn't hold up when its circuitry is
heated or moistened, and who's responsible for the safety implications
when a big rig or utility trailer $30 replacement LED brake or turn
light can't be found anywhere?'' Finally, Sierra Products asked the
status of other rulemakings unrelated to the final rule.

III. Discussion and Analysis

1. Issue Regarding Harmonization of FMVSS No. 108 With ECE Regulation
No. 53 (ECE R53) for Vehicles With Less Than 4 Wheels

    The agency has considered the issue raised by Harley Davidson and
MIC that the final rule failed to harmonize motorcycle lamp visibility
with the ECE regulations. MIC stated that it believes the interests of
harmonization will be better served by recognizing and harmonizing with
the existing ECE regulations for motorcycle lighting. Harley Davidson
stated that the agency's failure to incorporate ECE R53 within the
final rule means that designs, standard and appropriate throughout the
world, may not be able to be used in the U.S. NHTSA has evaluated the
merits of this request in connection with harmonization and ensuring
safety. In the final rule, we explained our general approach to
harmonize the U.S. lamp visibility requirements with the ECE
requirements and to increase the field of view of signal lamps.
    Specifically for motorcycles, prior to the compliance date
specified by the August 2004 final rule, turn signals lamps are
required to be visible through a horizontal angle starting at 0 degrees
inboard (directly in front of the lamp) and continuing to 45 degrees
outboard. The final rule added a vertical component to the field of
visibility and increased the horizontal angle to 45 degrees inboard and
45 degrees (area option) or 80 degrees (intensity option) outboard
depending on the choice of visibility options. MIC's petition for
reconsideration requested that, for motorcycles, the inboard horizontal
angle match the requirements in ECE R53, which is 20 degrees inboard.
NHTSA considers MIC's petition regarding motorcycle turn signal lamp
visibility an improvement over the 2004 final rule as it better
harmonizes these requirements with the well established safety standard
used in various parts of the world without an expected decrease in
safety.

    In addition, prior to the compliance date specified by the August
2004 final rule, stop lamps mounted on motorcycles are required to be
visible through a horizontal angle 45 degrees inboard to 45 degrees
outboard. The 2004 rule added a vertical component to the required
field of view. MIC requested that to further harmonize these motorcycle
requirements with those of ECE R53, NHTSA should decrease the inboard
angle requirement for a two stop lamp configuration. MIC noted that ECE
R53 requires, for a two stop lamp configuration, that each lamp meet a
horizontal visibility angle of 10 degrees inboard. Because the
separation between stop lamps is typically small for motorcycles, NHTSA
agrees that harmonizing the inboard visibility requirement is not
expected to have a negative impact on safety.
    Accordingly, this notice adopts visibility requirements for
motorcycle lamps based on the ECE R53 regulation.\6\ The standard is
modified, establishing visibility requirements for motorcycles defined
by the following corner points:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ ECE R53 Revision 2 ``Uniform Provisions Concerning the
Approval of Category L3 Vehicles with Regard to the Installation of
Lighting and Light Signaling Devices.''

Turn Signal............................  15 deg. UP-20 deg. IB..............  15 deg. UP-80 deg. OB.
                                         15 deg. DOWN-20 deg. IB............  15 deg. DOWN-80 deg. OB.
Stop...................................  15 deg. UP-45 deg. RIGHT...........  15 deg. UP-45 deg. LEFT.
                                         15 deg. DOWN-45 deg. RIGHT.........  15 deg. DOWN-45 deg. LEFT.
Tail...................................  15 deg. UP-80 deg. RIGHT...........  15 deg. UP-80 deg. LEFT.
                                         15 deg. DOWN-80 deg. RIGHT.........  15 deg. DOWN-80 deg. LEFT.

    Two footnotes are added to both Table V-b and Table V-c as follows:

    If a multiple lamp arrangement is used for a motorcycle stop
lamp, the inboard angle for each lamp shall be 10 degrees.
    If a multiple lamp arrangement is used for a motorcycle tail
lamp, the inboard angle for each lamp shall be 45 degrees.

2. Issue Whether New Definition for the Effective Projected Luminous
Lens Area Changes the Existing Requirements

    MEMA, AAM, and GM claimed that a modified definition for the
effective projected luminous lens area changed requirements that were
not intended to be changed in the final rule, and petitioned for relief
by either a longer lead time, that the definition only apply to
vehicles certified to the new visibility requirements, or that the
definition be reverted back to its original form. The agency does not
agree with the petitioners, nor the suggestions for relief. Instead, we
believe that the definition published in the final rule only clarified
the definition and that the definition itself did not establish any new
requirements.
    The definition prior to the final rule stated: ``Effective
projected luminous lens area means the area of the projection on a
plane perpendicular to the lamp axis of the portion of the light-
emitting surface that directs light to the photometric test pattern,
and does not include mounting hole bosses, reflex reflector area, beads
or rims that may glow or produce small areas of increased intensity as
a result of uncontrolled light from small areas (\1/2\ deg. Radius
around the test point).''
    The final rule separated this definition into two parts to more
specifically define the meaning of the light-emitting surface. It reads
as follows:
    ``Effective light-emitting surface means that portion of a lamp
that directs light to the photometric test pattern, and does not
include transparent lenses, mounting hole bosses, reflex reflector
area, beads or rims that may glow or produce small areas of increased
intensity as a result of uncontrolled light from an area of \1/2\
degree radius around a test point.''
    ``Effective projected luminous lens area means the area of the
orthogonal projection of the effective light-emitting surface of a lamp
on a plane perpendicular to a defined direction relative to the axis of
reference. Unless otherwise specified, the direction is coincident with
the axis of reference.''
    This definition clarification has two major aspects. First it
clarifies that ``projection on a plane'' means an orthogonal
projection. This clarifies, but does not change, the previous
definition. The final rule stated that ``we believe these two phrases
have the same meaning * * * the term orthogonal projection has greater
clarity.'' \7\ The second aspect is the addition of the words ``and
does not include transparent lenses.'' This exclusion of transparent
lenses is not new with this definition as it reflects a previous agency
interpretation letter to Mr. Shigeyoshi Aihara on June 14, 2000.\8\ As
explained in this interpretation letter, transparent lenses are
excluded because they do not direct light, they simply allow light to
pass through them freely. Similarly, the dictionary defines transparent
as ``having the property of transmitting light without appreciable
scattering * * *'' \9\ In consideration of these factors, the agency
believes that no significant change in the method by which the
effective luminous lens area is calculated has been made by this final
rule. As such, there is no reason to delay the effective date as
requested by GM, nor to apply this clarified definition only to
vehicles certified to the new visibility requirements of the final
rule. Likewise, the agency does not agree that a lack of notice was
provided. As such, the agency is denying the requests from MEMA, AAM,
and GM.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See FR 48812 August 11, 2004.
    \8\ Available at http://isearch.nhtsa.gov/files/20836.ztv.html.
    \9\ Webster's Third New International Dictionary.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. The Lead Time for Wide Vehicles

    MEMA petitioned to adopt a lead time of 15 years for wide vehicles
because it believes that NHTSA underestimated the costs. The agency
disagrees. The final rule permitted an alternative method of compliance
until September 1, 2011 for vehicles less than 2032 mm in overall
width, or until September 1, 2014 for vehicles of 2032 mm or more in
width. Effectively, this provided the wider vehicles a lead time of 10
years, and 7 years for the more narrow vehicles. The agency believes
that the lead time provided is adequate and notes that no new data was
submitted indicating manufacturing costs, design constraints, or other
information that the agency could evaluate. Similarly, the agency notes
that unanticipated design changes would likely be limited to the lamps
only, not to the entire vehicle, as was described in the final
rule.\10\ In consideration of these factors, the agency is denying this
request.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See 69 FR 48811 August 11, 2004.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

4. Compliance Method Choice Is Irrevocable

    MEMA also requested that the agency eliminate the irrevocable
choice of compliance wording from the final rule because it limits the
selection of catalog lamps from which a manufacturer can choose. This
issue was addressed in the

comments based on the SNPRM, and the agency decided to carry the
wording from the SNPRM into the final rule. The preamble to the final
rule states:
    ``We continue to believe that when a vehicle manufacturer has
certified that the vehicle will meet a visibility requirement with a
lamp installed and tested according to a chosen compliance method, the
method chosen should be used to determine compliance of that vehicle
with the visibility requirements applicable to that lamp. This
provision is needed for the agency to effectively carry out its
enforcement responsibilities. The agency wants to avoid the situation
of a manufacturer confronted with an apparent noncompliance (based on a
compliance test) with the option it has selected responding to that
noncompliance by maintaining that its products comply with a different
option for which the agency has not conducted a compliance test. To
ensure that the agency will not be asked to conduct multiple compliance
tests, first for one compliance option, then for another. This rule
requires the vehicle manufacturer to select the option by the time it
certifies the vehicle and prohibits it from thereafter selecting a
different option.'' \11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See 69 FR 48810 August 11, 2004.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We note that vehicle manufacturers certify each vehicle to the
Federal motor vehicle safety standards. In the case of a standard with
compliance options, the manufacturer is not required to select the same
compliance option for similar or even identical vehicles, so long as
the vehicle being certified complies with the option selected by the
manufacturer. Thus, the requirement that a vehicle manufacturer select
a particular compliance option by the time it certifies a vehicle does
not limit manufacturer design choices.
    Therefore, the agency is denying this request.

5. Requirements for Lamps Mounted Less Than 750 mm Above the Road
Surface

    MEMA and NAL petitioned the agency to clarify the requirements for
lamps mounted less than 750 mm above the road surface. The agency
believes that this ambiguity was resolved in the FMVSS No. 108
administrative rewrite final rule.\12\ That final rule contains
footnotes within the photometric requirements (Table VI a and b, Table
VII, Table VIII, Table IX, Table X, Table XI, Table XIII a and b, Table
XIV, and Table XVI a) that explicitly state the ``photometry
requirements below 5[deg] down may be met at 5[deg] down rather than at
the specified required downward angle.'' Likewise, it also contains
similar footnotes within Tables V-b and V-c. Therefore, we believe this
request has already been addressed and requires no further action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ See 72 FR 68234 December 4, 2007.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

6. Requirements for Lamps Mounted 15 Inches Above the Road Surface

    Sierra Products petitioned the agency to eliminate the downward
photometric requirements for lamps mounted 15 inches above the road
surface. However, the petitioner did not provide any evidence
demonstrating that safety would not be compromised, particularly on
uneven roadways. The agency notes that the allowance for lamps mounted
less than 750 mm above the road surface was created in order to
harmonize FMVSS No. 108 visibility requirements with the ECE visibility
requirements. The petitioner does not cite, nor does the agency know
of, any allowance for lamps mounted 15 inches above the road surface
within the ECE regulation. As such, the agency is denying this request.

7. Additional Questions That Do Not Request a Rule Change, or Are Not
Part of This Rulemaking

    Sierra Products raised several questions that demonstrated a
request for clarification. These questions do not request a rule
change, and some are not related to this rulemaking. These questions
are addressed below.
    Sierra Products asked what happened to the proposed harmonization
of side marker lamps. The original NPRM did propose allowing rear side
markers to be amber in color. This rulemaking proposal was terminated
in the SNPRM.13 14 The reasons cited for the termination
included major differences in the side marker requirements between the
U.S. and European regulations, and the lack of data indicating whether
it is important for the drivers to know which end of the vehicle is
about to merge into their path.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ See 60 FR 54833 October 26, 1995.
    \14\ See 63 FR 68233 December 10, 1998.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Sierra Products also asked what is meant by the term ``apparent
surface'' as used in the preamble to the final rule. The term
``apparent surface'' does not appear in the regulations of FMVSS No.
108. However, it does appear in the discussion ``How the ECE Visibility
Requirements Differ from the Current Requirements of FMVSS No. 108'' of
the final rule preamble. This term is a well defined term in ECE No.
48. That document states that ``the apparent surface for a defined
direction of observation means, at the request of the manufacturer or
his duly accredited representative, the orthogonal projection of:
Either the boundary of the illuminating surface projected on the
exterior surface of the lens or the light-emitting surface.'' The
precise definition is only in reference to an ECE regulation, and is
not required in the discussion of this rule, nor will it be used to
determine compliance with FMVSS No. 108.
    Regarding Sierra Products' statement that they could not tell if
the H-V area requirement was changed for wide vehicles, we note that no
effective projected luminous lens area requirements projected in
coincidence to the axis of reference were changed with this rulemaking.
    Sierra Products asked how NHTSA would check the compliance of the
effective projected luminous lens area requirements. We note that
NHTSA's Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance (OVSC) provides contractor
laboratories with Laboratory Test Procedures as guidelines for
obtaining compliance test data. The data is used to determine if a
specific vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment is potentially non-
compliant with an applicable FMVSS. The Laboratory Test Procedure for
FMVSS No. 108 is available on NHTSA's Web site.\15\ It should be noted
that the OVSC Laboratory Test Procedures, prepared for the limited
purpose of use by independent laboratories under contract to conduct
compliance tests for the OVSC, are not rules, regulations or NHTSA
interpretations regarding the meaning of a FMVSS, and are not intended
to limit the requirements of the applicable FMVSS(s).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ Available at http://www.nhtsa.gov/DOT/TP-108-13.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, Sierra Products inquired as to the status of rulemaking
that was not part of this rule. Harmonization rules such as ``bulb
design, bulb tolerance, weathering, non required lamps, clearance
lamps, life span, markings, and replacement light sources'' will go
through the rulemaking process, as appropriate. The remaining
statements and questions proposed by Sierra Products either are not
related to the final rule, or do not request a specific rule change.

IV. Effective Dates and Compliance Dates

    As noted earlier, the August 2004 final rule set a compliance date
of September 1, 2011 for vehicles that are less than 2032 mm in overall
width, and September 1, 2014 for vehicles that are 2032 mm or more in
overall width.

Those compliance dates are not changed by today's rule. There are two
effective dates for the amendments we are adopting, one for the current
version of FMVSS No. 108 and the second for the FMVSS No. 108
administrative rewrite final rule.

V. Conclusion

    For the reasons discussed above, we are granting the requests to
make certain changes pertaining to the visibility of lamps mounted on
motorcycles to increase the compatability of our visibility
requirements with those of the United Nations Economic Commission for
Europe (UNECER53), and we are otherwise denying the petitions.

VI. Rulemaking Analyses and Notices

1. Executive Order 12866, Executive Order 13563, and DOT Regulatory
Policies and Procedures

    NHTSA has considered the impact of this rulemaking action under
Executive Order 12866, Executive Order 13563, and the Department of
Transportation's regulatory policies and procedures. This rulemaking
document was not reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget under
E.O. 12866, ``Regulatory Planning and Review.'' It is not considered to
be significant under E.O. 12866 or the Department's regulatory policies
and procedures.

2. Privacy Act

    Please note that anyone is able to search the electronic form of
all documents received into any of our dockets by the name of the
individual submitting the document (or signing the document, if
submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.).
You may review DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement in the Federal
Register published on April 11, 2000 (Volume 65, Number 70; Pages
19477-78), or you may visit http://www.dot.gov/privacy.html.

3. Other Rulemaking Analyses and Notices

    In the August 2004 final rule, the agency discussed relevant
requirements related to the Regulatory Flexibility Act, the National
Environmental Policy Act, Executive Order 13132 (Federalism), the
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act, Civil Justice Reform, the National
Technology Transfer and Advancement Act, and the Paperwork Reduction
Act. Today's rule does not affect the agency's analyses in those areas.

List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 571

    Imports, Motor vehicle safety, Motor vehicles, and Tires.

    In consideration of the foregoing, NHTSA amends 49 CFR Chapter V as
set forth below.

PART 571--FEDERAL MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARDS

0
1. The authority citation for part 571 of title 49 continues to read as
follows:

    Authority:  49 U.S.C. 322, 30111, 30115, 30117, and 30166;
delegation of authority at 49 CFR 1.50.

0
2. Effective May 27, 2011, Sec.  571.108 is amended by revising Figure
19 and Figure 20 to read as follows:

Sec.  571.108  Standard No. 108; Lamps, reflective devices, and
associated equipment.

* * * * *

           Figure 19--Visibility of Installed Lighting Devices
                     [Lens area measurement method]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                  Item                     Corner points \1\ (degrees)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Front Turn Signal Lamp \2\.............  (15U,-45H \5\), (15U,+45H),
                                          (15D,-45H \5\), (15D,+45H).
Rear Turn Signal Lamp..................  (15U,-45H \5\), (15U,+45H),
                                          (15D,-45H \5\), (15D,+45H).
Stop Lamp \3\..........................  (15U,-45H), (15U,+45H), (15D,-
                                          45H), (15D,+45H).
Parking Lamp...........................  (15U,-45H), (15U,+45H), (15D,-
                                          45H), (15D,+45H).
Taillamp \4\...........................  (15U,-45H), (15U,+45H), (15D,-
                                          45H), (15D,+45H).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ In the horizontal (H) direction, a minus (-) indicates an inwards
  direction (toward the vehicle's longitudinal centerline) and a plus
  (+) sign indicates an outward direction.
\2\ Where more than one lamp or optical area is lighted at the front on
  each side of a multipurpose passenger vehicle, truck trailer, or bus,
  of 2032 mm. or more overall width, only one such area need comply.
\3\ If a multiple lamp arrangement is used for a motorcycle stop lamp,
  the inboard angle for each lamp shall be 10 degrees.
\4\ If a multiple lamp arrangement is used for a motorcycle tail lamp,
  the inboard angle for each lamp shall be 45 degrees.
\5\ Front and Rear Turn Signal Lamps mounted on a motorcycle, the
  inboard angle shall be 20 degrees.

                               Figure 20--Visibility of Installed Lighting Devices
                                     [Luminous intensity measurement method]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Minimum luminous
                     Item                               Corner points \1\ (degrees)                intensity
                                                                                (candela)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Front Turn Signal Lamp \2\...................  (15U,-45H \5\), (15U,+80H), (15D,-45H \5\),                  0.3
                                                (15D,+80H).
Rear Turn Signal Lamp........................  (15U,-45H \5\), (15U,+80H), (15D,-45H \5\),                  0.3
                                                (15D,+80H).
Stop Lamp \3\................................  (15U,-45H), (15U,+45H), (15D,-45H),                          0.3
                                                (15D,+45H).
Parking Lamp.................................  (15U,-45H), (15U,+80H), (15D,-45H),                          0.05
                                                (15D,+80H).
Taillamp \4\.................................  (15U,-45H \2\), (15U,+80H), (15D,-45H \2\),                  0.05
                                                (15D,+80H).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ In the horizontal (H) direction, a minus (-) indicates an inwards direction (toward the vehicle's
  longitudinal centerline) and a plus (+) sign indicates an outward direction.
\2\ -80H[deg] for motorcycles incorporating a single lamp.
\3\ If a multiple lamp arrangement is used for a motorcycle stop lamp, the inboard angle for each lamp shall be
  10 degrees.
\4\ If a multiple lamp arrangement is used for a motorcycle tail lamp, the inboard angle for each lamp shall be
  45 degrees.
\5\ Front and Rear Turn Signal Lamps mounted on a motorcycle, the inboard angle shall be 20 degrees.

* * * * *

0
3. Effective December 1, 2012, Sec.  571.108 is amended by revising
Table V-b: Visibility Requirements of Installed Lighting Devices--Lens
Area Visibility Option and Table V-c: Visibility Requirements of
Installed Lighting Devices--Luminous Intensity Visibility Option, as
added at 72 FR

68269 (December 4, 2007), effective September 1, 2008, delayed until
December 1, 2009, at 73 FR 50730 (August 28, 2008), and further delayed
until December 1, 2012 at 74 FR 58214 (November 12, 2009), to read as
follows:

Sec.  571.108  Standard No. 108; Lamps, reflective devices, and
associated equipment.

* * * * *

                              Table V-b--Visibility Requirements of Installed Lighting Devices--Lens Area Visibility Option
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lighting device                                                           Corner points\1 2\                                        Required visibility
                                    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                       Motorcycle
                                                        All other
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Turn signal lamp \3\...............  15[deg] UP-20[deg] IB.  15[deg] UP-45[deg] OB.  15[deg] UP-45[deg] IB  15[deg] UP-45[deg] OB  Unobstructed minimum
                                     15[deg] DOWN-20[deg]    15[deg] DOWN-45[deg]    15[deg] DOWN-45[deg]   15[deg] DOWN-45[deg]    effective projected
                                      IB.                     OB.                     IB.                    OB.
Stop lamp..........................  15[deg] UP-45[deg]      15[deg] UP-45[deg]      15[deg] UP-45[deg] IB  15[deg] UP-45[deg] OB   luminous lens area
                                      RIGHT \4\.              LEFT \4\.
                                     15[deg] DOWN-45[deg]    15[deg] DOWN-45[deg]    15[deg] DOWN-45[deg]   15[deg] DOWN-45[deg]    of 1,250 sq mm in
                                      RIGHT \4\.              LEFT \4\.               IB.                    OB.                    any
Taillamp...........................  15[deg] UP-45[deg]      15[deg] UP-45[deg]      15[deg] UP-45[deg] IB  15[deg] UP-45[deg] OB   direction throughout
                                      RIGHT \5\.              LEFT \5\.
                                     15[deg] DOWN-45[deg]    15[deg] DOWN-45[deg]    15[deg] DOWN-45[deg]   15[deg] DOWN-45[deg]    the pattern defined
                                      RIGHT \5\.              LEFT \5\.               IB.                    OB.                    by
Parking lamp.......................  No Requirement........  No Requirement........  15[deg] UP-45[deg] IB  15[deg] UP-45[deg] OB   the specified corner
                                     No Requirement........  No Requirement........  15[deg] DOWN-45[deg]   15[deg] DOWN-45[deg]    points.
                                                                                IB.                    OB.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ IB indicates an inboard direction (toward the vehicle's longitudinal centerline) and OB indicates an outboard direction.
\2\ Where a lamp is mounted with its axis of reference less than 750 mm above the road surface, the vertical test point angles located below the
  horizontal plane subject to visibility requirements may be reduced to 5[deg] down.
\3\ Where more than one lamp or optical area is lighted at the front on each side of a multipurpose passenger vehicle, truck, trailer, or bus, of 2032
  mm or more overall width, only one such area need comply.
\4\ If a multiple lamp arrangement is used for a motorcycle stop lamp, the inboard angle for each lamp shall be 10 degrees.
\5\ If a multiple lamp arrangement is used for a motorcycle tail lamp, the inboard angle for each lamp shall be 45 degrees.

                         Table V-c--Visibility Requirements of Installed Lighting Devices--Luminous Intensity Visibility Option
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lighting device                                                       Corner points 1 2                                     Required visibility Minimum
                                                                                luminous intensity in any
                                                                                direction throughout the
                                                                                pattern defined by the
                                                                                specified corner points.
                                  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                   Motorcycle
                                                    All Other                  Candela.............
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Turn signal lamp.................  15[deg] UP-20[deg]    15[deg] UP-80[deg]    15[deg] UP-45[deg]    15[deg] UP-80[deg]                             0.3
                                    IB.                   OB.                   IB.                   OB.
                                   15[deg] DOWN-20[deg]  15[deg] DOWN-80[deg]  15[deg] DOWN-45[deg]  15[deg] DOWN-80[deg]
                                    IB.                   OB.                   IB.                   OB.
Stop lamp........................  15[deg] UP-45[deg]    15[deg] UP-45[deg]    15[deg] UP-45[deg]    15[deg] UP-45[deg]                             0.3
                                    RIGHT \4\.            LEFT \4\.             IB.                   OB.
                                   15[deg] DOWN-45[deg]  15[deg] DOWN-45[deg]  15[deg] DOWN-45[deg]  15[deg] DOWN-45[deg]
                                    RIGHT \4\.            LEFT \4\.             IB.                   OB.
Taillamp \3\.....................  15[deg] UP-80[deg]    15[deg] UP-80[deg]    15[deg] UP-45[deg]    15[deg] UP-80[deg]                            0.05
                                    RIGHT \5\.            LEFT \5\.             IB.                   OB.
                                   15[deg] DOWN-80[deg]  15[deg] DOWN-80[deg]  15[deg] DOWN-45[deg]  15[deg] DOWN-80[deg]
                                    RIGHT \5\.            LEFT \5\.             IB.                   OB.
Parking lamp.....................  No Requirement......  No Requirement......  15[deg] UP-45[deg]    15[deg] UP-80[deg]                            0.05
                                                                                IB.                   OB.
                                   No Requirement......  No Requirement......  15[deg] DOWN-45[deg]  15[deg] DOWN-80[deg]
                                                                                IB.                   OB.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ IB indicates an inboard direction (toward the vehicle's longitudinal centerline) and OB indicates an outboard direction.
\2\ Where a lamp is mounted with its axis of reference less than 750 mm above the road surface, the vertical test point angles located below the
  horizontal plane subject to visibility requirements may be reduced to 5[deg] down
\3\ Inboard and outboard corner points are 80[deg] for a single taillamp installed on a motorcycle
\4\ If a multiple lamp arrangement is used for a motorcycle stop lamp, the inboard angle for each lamp shall be 10 degrees.
\5\ If a multiple lamp arrangement is used for a motorcycle tail lamp, the inboard angle for each lamp shall be 45 degrees.

    Issued on: March 23, 2011.
David L. Strickland,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2011-10031 Filed 4-26-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P


[Federal Register: August 15, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 157)]
[Notices]
[Page 45848-45850]
[DOCID:fr15au07-128]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-56228; File No. SR-NASDAQ-2007-056]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC;
Notice of Filing of Proposed Rule Change and Amendment No. 2 Thereto,
To Modify Pricing for Nasdaq Members Using the Nasdaq Market Center

August 8, 2007.
    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 June 1, 2007, The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC (``Nasdaq'') 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 Nasdaq. On July 27, 2007, Nasdaq filed Amendment No.
1. On August 6, 2007, Nasdaq withdrew Amendment No. 1 and filed
Amendment No. 2, which replaced the text of the original filing in its
entirety. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comment
on the proposed rule change, as amended, 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

    Nasdaq proposes to modify pricing for the Nasdaq Market Center.
Nasdaq will make the proposed rule change effective retroactively as of
February 12, 2007.
    The text of the proposed rule change appears below. Proposed new
language is italicized and proposed deletions are in brackets.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Changes are marked to the rule text that appears in the
electronic Nasdaq Manual found at http://nasdaq.complinet.com.

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

* * * * *

7013.  Consolidated Quotation Service and Exchange-Listed Securities
Transaction Credit

    (a) No change.
    (b) Nasdaq members that trade securities listed on [the NYSE
(``Tape A'') and] Amex (``Tape B'') through Nasdaq may receive from
Nasdaq transaction credits based on the number

of transactions attributed to them. A transaction is attributed to a
member if the transaction is executed through the Nasdaq Market Center,
and the member acts as liquidity provider (i.e., the member sells in
response to a buy order or buys in response to a sell order). A Nasdaq
member may earn credits from [one or both] a pool[s] maintained by
Nasdaq[, each pool] representing 50% of the revenue paid by the
Consolidated Tape Association to Nasdaq for [each of Tape A and] Tape B
transactions after deducting the amount that Nasdaq pays to the
Consolidated Tape Association for capacity usage. A Nasdaq member may
earn credits from the pool[s] according to the member's pro rata share
of transactions attributed to Nasdaq members in [each of Tape A and]
Tape B for each calendar quarter. Liquidity providers executing
transactions in Tape B securities through the Nasdaq Market Center will
receive credits with respect to such transactions on an estimated
monthly basis[; all other credits under this rule will be paid on a
quarterly basis].

7014.  [Nasdaq Market Center for Non-Nasdaq Securities] Reserved.

    [The charges to be paid by members using the Nasdaq Market Center
for trading non-Nasdaq exchange-listed securities through the Nasdaq
Market Center shall consist of a fixed service charge of $200 per
member per month, transaction charges as provided in Nasdaq Rule 7018
and equipment-related charges as provided elsewhere in the Rule 7000
Series.]
* * * * *

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

    In its filing with the Commission, Nasdaq included statements
concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the proposed rule change. The
text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in
Item III below, and is set forth in Sections A, B, and C below.

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

1. Purpose
    Nasdaq proposes two retroactive changes to its fee schedule to
address transition issues arising from its commencing operations as a
national securities exchange for trading non-Nasdaq securities on
February 12, 2007. First, Nasdaq proposes to eliminate a monthly fixed
fee for trading non-Nasdaq securities through the Nasdaq Market Center,
as provided in Rule 7014. That rule states that members trading such
securities will pay a fixed service charge of $200 per member per
month, transaction charges as provided in Nasdaq Rule 7018, and
equipment-related charges as provided elsewhere in the Rule 7000
Series. Prior to February 12, 2007, Nasdaq's parent corporation, The
Nasdaq Stock Market, Inc. (``Nasdaq Inc.''), operated multiple
platforms for trading non-Nasdaq securities, and charged a $200 monthly
service fee under NASD rules. On February 12, 2007, Nasdaq began to
trade non-Nasdaq securities as an exchange on a single platform, but
Nasdaq Inc. continued to operate a separate platform for trading non-
Nasdaq securities under NASD rules until March 5, 2007. Accordingly,
the charge under NASD rules remained in place until March 5, 2007.
    Because trading all securities on a single platform governed by a
common set of trading rules reduces Nasdaq's costs, and because
Nasdaq's pricing now makes few distinctions between the trading of
Nasdaq-listed and non-Nasdaq securities, Nasdaq believes that it is
appropriate to eliminate the $200 monthly service charge. Nasdaq seeks
to make the change retroactive to February 12, 2007, the date when
Nasdaq began trading these securities as an exchange. Making the change
retroactive to February 12, 2007 will also ensure that members are not
charged duplicative fees (a fee under NASD rules and a fee under Nasdaq
rules) for the period from February 12, 2007 to March 5, 2007.
    The rule's reference to equipment related charges is now obsolete,
since trading through Nasdaq is no longer reliant on equipment provided
by Nasdaq for use on the premises of its market participants. Finally,
although transaction charges under Rule 7018 are applicable, Nasdaq
believes that it is unnecessary to cross-reference them in a separate
rule. Accordingly, the rule is being deleted in its entirety.
    Second, Nasdaq proposes to correct an oversight with regard to the
text of Rule 7013 that arose when Nasdaq began to operate as an
exchange for trading non-Nasdaq securities on February 12, 2007. Prior
to that time, and until March 5, 2007, Nasdaq Inc. shared market data
revenue with NASD members trading non-Nasdaq stocks pursuant to former
NASD Rule 7010(c)(2). For the period from February 1, 2006 through
March 5, 2007, the text of that rule read as follows:

    NASD members that trade securities listed on the NYSE (``Tape
A'') and Amex (``Tape B'') in over-the-counter transactions may
receive from the NASD transaction credits based on the number of
transactions attributed to them. A transaction is attributed to a
member if (i) For Tape B securities, the transaction is executed
through CAES, ITS, or Nasdaq's Brut or Inet Facilities, and the
member acts as liquidity provider (i.e., the member sells in
response to a buy order or buys in response to a sell order) or (ii)
for Tape A and Tape B securities, the transaction is not executed
through CAES, ITS, or Nasdaq's Brut or Inet Facilities, and the
member is identified as the executing party in a trade report
submitted to the NASD that the NASD submits to the Consolidated Tape
Association. An NASD member may earn credits from one or both pools
maintained by the NASD, each pool representing 50% of the revenue
paid by the Consolidated Tape Association to the NASD for each of
Tape A and Tape B transactions after deducting the amount that the
NASD pays to the Consolidated Tape Association for capacity usage.
An NASD member may earn credits from the pools according to the
member's pro rata share of all over-the-counter transactions
attributed to NASD members in each of Tape A and Tape B for each
calendar quarter.

    The rule text reflected the fact that Nasdaq Inc. provided both
electronic transaction execution systems similar to those currently
provided by Nasdaq, and over-the-counter trade reporting services
similar to those now provided by the NASD/NASDAQ Trade Reporting
Facility (``TRF'') and TRFs operated by other exchanges. For both Tape
A and Tape B securities, the rule provided for sharing of revenues
associated with over-the-counter trade reports,\4\ but the rule
provided for sharing of revenues associated with electronic system
trades for Tape B securities only.\5\ The rule was amended effective
February 1, 2006 to eliminate sharing of revenues associated with
electronic system trades for Tape A securities.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ ``[F]or Tape A and Tape B securities, the transaction is not
executed through CAES, ITS, or Nasdaq's Brut or Inet Facilities. * *
*.'' ITS/CAES, Brut and Inet were electronic trading systems
operated by Nasdaq Inc.
    \5\ ``[F]or Tape B securities, the transaction is executed
through CAES, ITS, or Nasdaq's Brut or Inet Facilities. * * *''
    \6\ Securities Exchange Act Release No. 53256 (February 8,
2006), 71 FR 8020 (February 15, 2006) (SR-NASD-2006-013).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Following transition to exchange operation on February 12, 2007,
Nasdaq intended to maintain the status quo with respect to revenue
sharing. Thus, NASD Rule 7001B, which applies to the NASD/NASDAQ TRF,
continues to provide for sharing of revenues associated with over-the-
counter trade reports, on terms comparable to those provided under
former NASD Rule 7010(c)(2). By contrast, the text of Nasdaq Rule 7013,
which was originally adopted through Nasdaq's Form 1

application for registration as a national securities exchange,\7\ was
not amended to reflect the elimination of Tape A sharing prior to the
time when Nasdaq began to trade non-Nasdaq securities as an exchange on
February 12, 2007. The proposed rule change will rectify this
oversight, and thereby allow Nasdaq to maintain the status quo with
respect to market data revenue sharing, as had been Nasdaq's intent.
Nasdaq has not distributed any Tape A revenues for system trades.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ Securities Exchange Act Release No. 53128 (January 13,
2006), 71 FR 3550 (January 23, 2006) (File No. 10-131).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    Nasdaq believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with
the provisions of Section 6 of the Act,\8\ in general, and with Section
6(b)(4) of the Act,\9\ in particular, in that it provides for the
equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees and other charges among
members and issuers and other persons using any facility or system
which Nasdaq operates or controls. Nasdaq believes that the change will
eliminate an unnecessary charge with respect to trading of non-Nasdaq
securities and thereby make Nasdaq's fees for trading these securities
more reasonable. Nasdaq further believes that the change with respect
to revenue sharing will allow Nasdaq to maintain the status quo with
respect to Tape A revenue sharing that had existed prior to Nasdaq
beginning to operate as a national securities exchange for trading non-
Nasdaq securities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78f.
    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    Nasdaq does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose
any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act.

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

    Written comments on the proposed rule change were neither solicited
nor received.

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

    Within 35 days of the date of publication of this notice in the
Federal Register or within such longer period (i) As the Commission may
designate up to 90 days of such date if it finds such longer period to
be appropriate and publishes its reasons for so finding or (ii) as to
which the self-regulatory organization consents, the Commission will:
    A. By order approve such proposed rule change, as amended; or
    B. Institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule
change, as amended, should be disapproved.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and
arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule
change, as amended, 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 e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include

File Number SR-NASDAQ-2007-056 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NASDAQ-2007-056. This
file number should be included on the subject line if e-mail 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 Web site (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 inspection
and copying in the Commission's Public Reference Room on official
business days between the hours of 10 a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of such
filing also will be available for inspection and copying at the
principal office of the Exchange. All comments received will be posted
without change; the Commission does not edit personal identifying
information from submissions. You should submit only information that
you wish to make available publicly. All submissions should refer to
File Number SR-NASDAQ-2007-056 and should be submitted on or before
August 30, 2007.

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

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

Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E7-15965 Filed 8-14-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 19 (Monday, January 30, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Page 5953]
[FR Doc No: 2023-01742]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-96740; File No. SR-NSCC-2022-015]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; National Securities Clearing
Corporation; Notice of Designation of Longer Period for Commission
Action on a Proposed Rule Change To Make Certain Enhancements to the
Gap Risk Measure and the VaR Charge

January 24, 2023.
    On December 2, 2022, National Securities Clearing Corporation
(``NSCC'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') proposed rule change SR-NSCC-2022-015 (the ``Proposed
Rule Change'') pursuant to section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 (``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder.\2\ The Proposed
Rule Change was published for comment in the Federal Register on
December 21, 2022,\3\ and the Commission has received one comment
regarding the changes proposed in the Proposed Rule Change.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 96511 (Dec. 15,
2022), 87 FR 78157 (Dec. 21, 2022) (File No. SR-NSCC-2022-015)
(``Notice of Filing'').
    \4\ Comments are available at https://www.sec.gov/comments/sr-nscc-2022-015/srnscc2022015.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Section 19(b)(2) of the Act \5\ provides that, within 45 days of
the publication of notice of the filing of a proposed rule change, or
within such longer period up to 90 days as the Commission may designate
if it finds such longer period to be appropriate and publishes its
reasons for so finding or as to which the self-regulatory organization
consents, the Commission shall either approve the proposed rule change,
disapprove the proposed rule change, or institute proceedings to
determine whether the proposed rule change should be disapproved. The
45th day after publication of the notice for the Proposed Rule Change
is February 4, 2023.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission is extending the 45-day period for Commission action
on the Proposed Rule Change. The Commission finds that it is
appropriate to designate a longer period within which to take action on
the Proposed Rule Change so that it has sufficient time to consider and
take action on the Proposed Rule Change.
    Accordingly, pursuant to section 19(b)(2) of the Act \6\ and for
the reasons stated above, the Commission designates March 21, 2023, as
the date by which the Commission shall either approve, disapprove, or
institute proceedings to determine whether to disapprove proposed rule
change SR-NSCC-2022-015.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Id.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(31).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sherry R. Haywood,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2023-01742 Filed 1-27-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 109 (Wednesday, June 6, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 33535-33537]
[FR Doc No: 2012-13643]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-67087; File No. SR-ISE-2012-43]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; International Securities Exchange,
LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule
Change Relating to the Options Regulatory Fee

May 31, 2012.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the ``Exchange Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is
hereby given that on May 25, 2012, the International Securities
Exchange, LLC (the ``Exchange'' or the ``ISE'') 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

    The ISE proposes to increase its Options Regulatory Fee. The text
of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Web site
(http://www.ise.com), at the principal office of the Exchange, 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 self-regulatory organization
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 self-regulatory organization
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 purpose of this proposed rule change is to amend the Options
Regulatory Fee (``ORF'') to increase it from $0.0035 per contract to
$0.0042 per contract in order to recoup increased regulatory expenses
while also ensuring that the ORF will not exceed costs.
    The ORF is assessed by the Exchange to each member for all options
transactions executed or cleared by the member that are cleared by The
Options Clearing Corporation (``OCC'') in the customer range, i.e.,
transactions that clear in the customer account of the member's
clearing firm at OCC, regardless of the marketplace of execution. In
other words, ISE imposes the ORF on all customer-range transactions
executed by a member, even if the transactions do not take place on the
Exchange.\3\ The ORF also is charged for customer-range transactions
that are not executed by an ISE member but are ultimately cleared by an
ISE member. In the case where an ISE member executes a transaction and
an ISE member clears the transaction, the ORF is assessed to the member
who executed the transaction. In the case where a non-ISE member
executes a transaction and an ISE member clears the transaction, the
ORF is assessed to the ISE member who clears the transaction.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Exchange rules require each member to submit trade
information in order to allow the Exchange to properly prioritize
and match orders and quotations and report resulting transactions to
the OCC. See ISE Rule 712. The Exchange represents that it has
surveillances in place to verify that members comply with the rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The dues and fees paid by members go into the general funds of the
Exchange, a portion of which is used to help pay the costs of
regulation. The Exchange monitors the amount of revenue collected from
the ORF to ensure that it, in combination with other regulatory fees
and fines, does not exceed regulatory costs. The ORF is collected
indirectly from members through their clearing firms by OCC on behalf
of the Exchange.
    The ORF is designed to recover a material portion of the costs to
the Exchange of the supervision and regulation of its members,
including performing routine surveillances, investigations, as well as
policy, rulemaking, interpretive and enforcement activities. The
Exchange believes that revenue generated from the ORF, when combined
with all of the Exchange's other regulatory fees, will cover a material
portion, but not all, of the Exchange's regulatory costs. The Exchange
notes that its regulatory responsibilities with respect to member
compliance with options sales practice rules have been allocated to
FINRA under a 17d-2 agreement. The ORF is not designed to cover the
cost of options sales practice regulation. The Exchange will continue
to monitor the amount of revenue collected from the ORF to ensure that
it, in combination with its other regulatory fees and fines, does not
exceed regulatory costs. If the Exchange determines regulatory revenues
exceed regulatory costs, the Exchange will adjust the ORF by submitting
a fee filing change to the Commission. The Exchange has designated this
proposal to be operative on June 1, 2012.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that its proposal to amend its Schedule of
Fees is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Exchange Act \4\ in
general, and furthers the objectives of Section 6(b)(4) of the Exchange
Act \5\ in particular, in that it is an equitable allocation of
reasonable dues, fees and other charges among Exchange members and
other persons using its facilities. The Exchange believes that the
proposed fee change is reasonable because the Exchange's collection of
the ORF has declined due to a decrease in industry volume and the
adjustment would serve to provide the Exchange with additional ORF. The
additional ORF will help offset regulatory expenses, but does not
exceed regulatory costs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \5\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that the ORF is equitable and not unfairly
discriminatory because it is objectively allocated to Exchange members
in that it would continue to be charged to all members on all of their
transactions that clear as customer at OCC. Moreover, the Exchange
believes the ORF ensures fairness by assessing higher fees to those
member firms that require more Exchange regulatory services based on
the amount of customer options business they conduct. Regulating
customer trading activity is more labor intensive and requires greater
expenditure of human and technical resources than regulating non-
customer trading activity. Surveillance and regulation of non-customer
trading activity tends to be more automated and less labor-intensive.
As a result, the costs associated with administering the customer
component of the Exchange's overall regulatory program are anticipated
to be higher than the costs associated with administering the non-
customer component of its regulatory program. As such, the Exchange
proposes assessing higher fees to those firms that will require more
Exchange regulatory services based on the amount of customer options
business they conduct. The ORF is not charged for orders that clear in
categories other than the customer range (e.g., market maker orders)
because members incur the costs of owning memberships and through their
memberships are charged transaction fees, dues and other fees which go
into the general funds of the Exchange, a portion of which is used to
help pay the costs of regulation.
    As previously stated, OCC collects the ORF on behalf of ISE through
each member's clearing firm. In addition, the ORF seeks to recover the
costs of supervising and regulating members, including performing
routine surveillances, investigations, as well as policy, rulemaking,
interpretive and enforcement activities. The Exchange will continue to
monitor the amount of revenue collected from the ORF to ensure that it,
in combination with its other regulatory fees and fines, does not
exceed regulatory costs. If the Exchange determines regulatory revenues
exceed regulatory costs, the Exchange will adjust the ORF by submitting
a fee filing change to the Commission.

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

    The proposed rule change does not impose any burden on competition
that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of
the Exchange Act.

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

    The Exchange has not solicited, and does not intend to solicit,
comments on this proposed rule change. The Exchange has not received
any unsolicited written comments from members or other interested
parties.

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)(ii) of the Exchange Act.\6\ At any time within 60 days of
the filing of such 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 Exchange Act. If the Commission takes such action, the Commission
shall institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule
should be approved or disapproved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 Exchange 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-ISE-2012-43 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-ISE-2012-43. 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 Web site (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 Web site 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; the Commission does
not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should
submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All
submissions should refer to File Number SR-ISE-2012-43 and should be
submitted on or before June 27, 2012.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-13643 Filed 6-5-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: November 4, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 213)]
[Notices]
[Page 68021-68022]
[DOCID:fr04no10-93]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Railroad Administration

Draft Finding of No Significant Impact on the Tier 1 Ohio 3C
Quick Start Passenger Rail Tier-1 Environmental Assessment

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

ACTION: Notice of availability; request for comments on draft Finding
of No Significant Impact.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of
1969 (NEPA) and the FRA's Procedures for Considering Environmental
Impacts (FRA Environmental Procedures) (64 FR 28545, May 26, 1999), the
FRA and the Ohio Department of Transportation (ODOT) and the Ohio Rail
Development Commission (ORDC) prepared a Tier-1 Environmental
Assessment (Tier-1 EA) that evaluates the impacts of the 3C Quick Start
Passenger Rail Project. Based on the Tier-1 EA, the FRA has prepared a
draft finding of no significant impact (draft FONSI) and is inviting
the public to comment on the draft.

DATES: Written comments will be accepted on or before December 6, 2010.
Copies of both the Tier-1 EA and draft FONSI are available on FRA's Web
site at: http://www.fra.dot.gov/Pages/249.shtml and ODOT's Web site at
http://www.3CisMe.Ohio.gov.

ADDRESSES: Please submit written comments on the draft FONSI to Ms.
Judi Craig Parsons Brinckerhoff, 312 Elm Street, Suite 2500,
Cincinnati, Ohio 45202.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For further information regarding the
draft FONSI please contact Wendy Messenger, Environmental Protection
Specialist, Federal Railroad Administration, 1200 New Jersey Ave., SE.,
Stop 20, Washington DC 20590<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The purpose of the 3C ``Quick Start''
Passenger Rail Project is to reestablish intercity conventional speed
passenger rail service (up to 79 miles per hour) in the 3C Corridor and
provide a reliable train system that links Ohio's three largest cities
(Cleveland, Columbus and Cincinnati.) The service will deliver
predictable and consistent travel times. It is intended to provide
travel options and develop the passenger rail market for possible
further development. To achieve these goals ORDC applied for Federal
funding through the High Speed Intercity Passenger Rail Program (HSIPR
Program) administered by the FRA and funded by the American Recovery
and Reinvestment Act (Recovery Act). ORDC's application under the
Recovery Act identified the transportation benefits of the project as
providing citizens with additional mobility options and a new
transportation choice for travelers with associated benefits. The FRA
intends to provide funding under the HSIPR Program for this project.
    In June 2009, the FRA released the HSIPR Program Guidance (Interim
Guidance) that described the eligibility requirements and procedures
for obtaining funding under the HSIPR Program. (74 FR 29900 (June 23,
2009)). The Interim Guidance split the funding opportunities into four
separate tracks. The 3C Quick Start Project was submitted by ODOT for
consideration for Track 2 funding. The Interim Guidance required Track
2 applicants to submit, with their application, a ``corridor-wide
`service' NEPA study, such as a programmatic or Tier I EIS.'' (Interim
Guidance Section 1.6.2). The Interim Guidance went on to explain that
Tier 1 Environmental Impact Statements and some Environmental
Assessments are programmatic and ``[a]ddress[ ] actions at a broad
level, such as a program concept for an entire corridor.'' (Interim
Guidance Section 2.2).
    In order to comply with the requirements of the Interim Guidance,
ODOT and ORDC prepared a Tier-1 or ``service'' NEPA document that
included the analysis of four route alternatives including the ``No
Build'' and twelve communities with 32 possible station sites. The No
Build Alternative analyzes what would happen if there are no
improvements on the OH 3C Corridor. The alternatives analyses analyze
the effect on the human and natural environments of the improvements
that involve the four route alternatives, twelve communities and 32
possible station sites that meet the goals of the OH 3C Quick Start
Project. The Tier-1 EA was completed in September, 2009 and was made
available for comment between September 25, 2009 and October 6, 2009 at
http://www.3CisMe.Ohio.gov. Approximately 7,500 comments were received.
    At the Tier-1 level of review, the FRA finds that the 3C Quick
Start Passenger Rail Project as presented and evaluated in the July
2010 Tier-1 EA, satisfies the requirements of FRA's ``Procedures for
Considering Environmental Impacts'' and will not have a significant
impact on the quality of the human or natural environment, following
the implementation of the mitigation measures detailed in the FONSI and
those which will be developed during the site-specific environmental
documentation process for specific improvements.
    Therefore, FRA has drafted a FONSI for the proposed improvements.
This FONSI based on the Tier-1 EA has been prepared to comply with NEPA
and the FRA's Environmental Procedures. FRA has concluded that the
award of Federal funds to reestablish the intercity passenger rail
service on the 3C corridor as described in the EA, constitutes a major
Federal action within the meaning of Section 102(c) of NEPA (42 U.S.C.
4332). Prior to release of construction funding for this project, ODOT
and ORDC will successfully complete applicable mitigation measures
detailed in the draft FONSI and complete appropriate project-level NEPA
evaluations, documentation and decision documents and the mitigation
measures developed thereunder.
    FRA Environmental Procedures require that a FONSI be made available
to the public for not less than 30 days when the ``nature of the
proposed action is one without precedent.'' Because the nature of this
project is unprecedented and this Tier-1 Level FONSI is

contemplated to be one of the first that FRA will issue, this notice
invites the public to comment on the draft FONSI.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on November 1, 2010.
Mark E. Yachmetz,
Associate Administrator for Railroad Policy and Development.
[FR Doc. 2010-27872 Filed 11-2-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-06-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 112 (Friday, June 10, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 35593-35595]
[FR Doc No: 2022-12574]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

[Docket No. FMCSA-2022-0134]

Definitions of Broker and Bona Fide Agents

AGENCY: Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), Department
of Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Notice; request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: FMCSA is requesting responses to a number of questions in
order to inform future guidance on the definitions of broker and bona
fide agents. FMCSA is required to issue guidance by November 15, 2022,
in response to the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA).

DATES: Comments on this notice must be received on or before July 11,
2022.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments bearing the Federal Docket
Management System Docket ID FMCSA-2022-0134 using any of the following
methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to www.regulations.gov.
Follow the online instructions for submitting comments.
     Mail: Docket Management Facility; U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, West Building, Ground Floor,
Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590-0001.

     Hand Delivery or Courier: West Building Ground Floor, Room
W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington DC, between 9 a.m. and 5
p.m., ET, Monday through Friday, except Federal Holidays.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Instructions: Each submission must include the Agency name and the
docket number for this notice. Note that DOT posts all comments
received without change to www.regulations.gov, including any personal
information included in a comment. Please see the Privacy heading
below.
    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or
comments, go to www.regulations.gov at any time or visit Room W12-140
on the ground level of the West Building, DOT, 1200 New Jersey Avenue
SE, Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., ET, Monday through
Friday, except Federal holidays. If you want acknowledgment that we
received your comments, please include a self-addressed, stamped
envelope or postcard or print the acknowledgement page that appears
after submitting comments online.
    Privacy: In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits comments
from the public to better inform its guidance process. DOT posts these
comments, without edit, including any personal information the
commenter provides, to www.regulations.gov, as described in the system
of records notice (DOT/ALL-14 FDMS), which can be reviewed at
www.dot.gov/privacy.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Jeff Secrist, Registration,
Licensing, and Insurance Division, Office of Registration and Safety
Information, FMCSA, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590-
0001,<PHONE_NUMBER>, [email protected]. If you have questions on
viewing or submitting material to the docket, contact Dockets
Operations,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Public Participation and Request for Comments

    FMCSA encourages you to participate by submitting comments and
related materials.

Submitting Comments

    If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this
notice (FMCSA-2022-0134), indicate the specific section of this
document to which each comment applies, and provide a reason for each
suggestion or recommendation. You may submit your comments and material
online or by fax, mail, or hand delivery, but please use only one of
these means. FMCSA recommends that you include your name and a mailing
address, an email address, or a phone number in the body of your
document so the Agency can contact you if it has questions regarding
your submission.
    To submit your comment online, go to https://www.regulations.gov/docket/FMCSA-2022-0134/document, click on this notice, click
``Comment,'' and type your comment into the text box on the following
screen.
    If you submit your comments by mail or hand delivery, submit them
in an unbound format, no larger than 8\1/2\ by 11 inches, suitable for
copying and electronic filing. If you submit comments by mail and would
like to know that they reached the facility, please enclose a stamped,
self-addressed postcard or envelope.
    FMCSA will consider all comments and material received during the
comment period.

II. Background

    Currently, broker is defined in 49 U.S.C. 13102(2) as a ``person,
other than a motor carrier or an employee or agent of a motor carrier,
that as a principal or agent sells, offers for sale, negotiates for, or
holds itself out by solicitation, advertisement, or otherwise as
selling, providing, or arranging for, transportation by motor carrier
for compensation.'' It is also defined in 49 CFR 371.2(a) as a ``person
who, for compensation, arranges, or offers to arrange, the
transportation of property by an authorized motor carrier. Motor
carriers, or persons who are employees or bona fide agents of carriers,
are not brokers within the meaning of this section when they arrange or
offer to arrange the transportation of shipments which they are
authorized to transport and which they have accepted and legally bound
themselves to transport.'' In that same section, bona fide agents are
defined as ``persons who are part of the normal organization of a motor
carrier and perform duties under the carrier's directions pursuant to a
preexisting agreement which provides for a continuing relationship,
precluding the exercise of discretion on the part of the agent in
allocating traffic between the carrier and others.'' 49 CFR 371.2(b).
    Over the past decade, FMCSA has received numerous inquiries and
several petitions related to the definition of a broker.\1\ FMCSA is
aware that there is significant stakeholder interest in FMCSA's
unauthorized brokerage enforcement. On November 15, 2021, The President
signed the IIJA into law. (Pub. L. 117-58, 135 Stat. 429) Section 23021
of the IIJA \2\ directed the Secretary (FMCSA) to issue guidance,
within 1 year of the date of enactment of the IIJA, clarifying the
definitions of the terms broker and bona fide agents in 49 CFR 371.2.
The guidance must take into consideration the extent to which
technology has changed the nature of freight brokerage, the role of
bona fide agents, and other aspects of the freight transportation
industry. Additionally, when issuing the guidance, FMCSA must, at a
minimum: (1) examine the role of a dispatch service in the
transportation industry; (2) examine the extent to which dispatch
services could be considered brokers or bona fide agents; and (3)
clarify the level of financial penalties for unauthorized brokerage
activities under 49 U.S.C. 14916, applicable to a dispatch service.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ A list of open and closed petitions for rulemaking is
available at https://www.fmcsa.dot.gov/regulations/petitions-0.
    \2\ The full text is available at congress.gov/117/plaws/publ58/PLAW-117publ58.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Questions

    FMCSA is requesting comment on the following questions, to inform
the agency as it completes the guidance required by the IIJA. Please
identify the question you are responding to in each section of your
comments.
    1. What evaluation criteria should FMCSA use when determining
whether a business model/entity meets the definition of a broker?
    2. Provide examples of operations that meet the definition of
broker in 49 CFR 371.2 and examples of operations that do not meet the
definition in 49 CFR 371.2.
    3. What role should the possession of money exchanged between
shippers and motor carriers in a brokered transaction play in
determining whether one is conducting brokerage or not?
    4. How would you define the term dispatch service? Is there a
commonly accepted definition? What role do dispatch services play in
the transportation industry?
    5. To the best of your knowledge, do dispatch services need to
obtain a business license/Employer Identification Number from the State
in which they primarily conduct business?
    6. Some ``dispatch services'' cite 49 CFR 371.2(b) as the reason
they do not obtain FMCSA brokerage authority registration in order to
conduct their operations. As noted above, section 371.2(b) states that
bona fide agents are ``persons who are part of the normal organization
of a motor carrier and perform duties under the carrier's

directions pursuant to a pre-existing agreement which provides for a
continuing relationship, precluding the exercise of discretion on the
part of the agent in allocating traffic between the carrier and
others.'' Some dispatch services interpret this regulation as allowing
them to represent more than one carrier yet not obtain broker operating
authority registration. Others interpret this regulation to argue that
a dispatch service can only represent one carrier without obtaining
broker authority. What should FMCSA consider when determining if a
dispatch service needs to obtain broker operating authority?
    7. If a dispatch service represents more than one carrier, does
this in and of itself make it a broker operating without authority?
    8. When should a dispatch service be considered a bona fide agent?
    9. What role do bona fide agents play in the transportation of
freight?
    10. Electronic bulletin boards match shippers and carriers for a
fee. The fee is a membership fee to have access to the bulletin board
information. Should electronic bulletin boards be considered brokers
and required to register with FMCSA to obtain broker operating
authority? If so, when and why?
    11. How has technology changed the nature of freight brokerage, and
how should these changes be reflected, if at all, in FMCSA's guidance?
    12. Are there other business models/services, other than dispatch
services and electronic bulletin boards, that should be considered when
clarifying the definition of broker?
    13. Are there other aspects of the freight transportation industry
that FMCSA should consider in issuing guidance pertaining to the
definitions of broker and bona fide agents?

Robin Hutcheson,
Deputy Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2022-12574 Filed 6-9-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 214 (Friday, November 4, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 76956-76957]
[FR Doc No: 2016-26721]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-4286-DR]; [Docket ID FEMA-2016-0001]

South Carolina; Amendment No. 3 to Notice of a Major Disaster
Declaration

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice amends the notice of a major disaster declaration
for the State of South Carolina (FEMA-4286-DR), dated October 11, 2016,
and related determinations.

DATES: Effective Date: October 18, 2016.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dean Webster, Office of Response and
Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW.,
Washington, DC 20472,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The notice of a major disaster declaration
for the State of South Carolina is hereby amended to include the
following areas among those areas determined to have been adversely
affected by the event declared a major disaster by the President in his
declaration of October 11, 2016.

    Allendale, Bamberg, Barnwell, Beaufort, Colleton, Dillon,
Dorchester, Florence, Georgetown, Hampton, Jasper, Lee, Marion,
Sumter, and Williamsburg Counties for Public Assistance [Categories
C-G] (already designated for Individual Assistance and assistance
for debris removal and emergency protective measures [Categories A
and B], including direct federal assistance, under the Public
Assistance program).
    Berkeley and Horry Counties for Public Assistance [Categories C-
G] (already designated for assistance for debris removal and
emergency protective measures [Categories A and B], including direct
federal assistance, under the Public Assistance program).
    Orangeburg County for Public Assistance (already designated for
Individual Assistance).

    The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers
(CFDA) are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030,
Community Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis
Counseling; 97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster
Unemployment Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance
Grant; 97.048, Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and
Households In Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049,
Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance--Disaster Housing
Operations for Individuals and Households; 97.050 Presidentially
Declared Disaster Assistance to Individuals and Households--Other
Needs; 97.036, Disaster Grants--Public Assistance (Presidentially
Declared Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant.

W. Craig Fugate,
Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2016-26721 Filed 11-3-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 9111-23-P