owner's manual specifies that either the child restraint may not
contact the seat back in front or that a certain distance must be
maintained between the CRS and the back of the front seat, we should
take this into consideration. The child restraint should be installed
and assessed for fit in the vehicle such that the specified distance
(if any) is maintained. For fit assessments under the vehicle-CRS
program, the agency is proposing that manufacturers make two
assessments with respect to the front seat position--one with the front
seat set to its mid-position on its seat track and one with the front
seat set to its forward-most position on its seat track.\54\ The agency
acknowledges that not all front seats will be able to be positioned in
their mid-track position when a CRS is installed rear-facing in the
seat behind it. As long as the front seat can be placed in any lockable
position with its seat back at the vehicle manufacturer's nominal seat
back angle, a CRS can be considered to meet the fit assessment
conditions in that vehicle. While it may be impractical to move the
driver's seat to its full forward position while operating the vehicle,
the consumer has the option of moving the front passenger seat of a
vehicle to that location to accommodate a rear-facing CRS, even if that
means other adult passengers may also have to sit in the rear seat. The
agency expects manufacturers to note any fit recommendations that
require a front seat to be placed forward of the mid-track location. We
intend to disseminate that information to consumers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \54\ Mid-position for these fit assessments is taken to be the
midpoint between the full-forward and full-rear position of the seat
on its mid-track, using only the primary seat fore-aft controls. If
a particular vehicle is available with different front seat options,
the manufacturer should exercise due care by assessing fit in the
vehicle seat whose mid-track seat position would be rear-most with
respect to the child restraint. During all assessments, the front
seat back should be set to the vehicle manufacturer's nominal seat
back angle.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The agency understands that vehicles of the same make and model can
have different upholstery and options that may affect the installation
of a child restraint. In the agency's experience, however, these
variations have not been severe enough to affect the ability to install
the same child restraint within variations of one vehicle make and
model. That said, the agency expects vehicle manufacturers to exercise
due care; if a particular trim line or vehicle option will have an
effect on the consumer's ability to achieve proper vehicle-CRS fit, the
manufacturer should not recommend that vehicle-CRS combination for this
program.

F. Vehicle Owner's Manual

    Proper installation of a child restraint requires that the parent
or caregiver read and follow all the requirements of both the vehicle
owner's manual and the child restraint user's manual. However, NHTSA is
aware of some cases in which the vehicle cannot accommodate the child
restraint properly due to constraints imposed by either the child
restraint manufacturer or the vehicle manufacturer. As such, NHTSA has
decided to propose the following criterion in the ``Vehicle Owner's
Manual'' category for rear-facing CRS, forward-facing CRS, and
boosters:

--Can the CRS be installed (rear-facing and forward-facing CRS) or
booster be positioned to meet both the restraint manufacturer's and the
vehicle manufacturer's instructions?

    It is important for parents and caregivers to follow all
instructions from both child restraint and vehicle manufacturers, to
ensure that the maximum protection possible is afforded. If a child
restraint's user's manual advises that the CRS should not be used in a
vehicle having a particular type of seating arrangement, this restraint
would not meet the assessment conditions. That is, NHTSA would deem
this CRS as not fitting a vehicle with that type of seating
arrangement, even if the vehicle manufacturer had identified the CRS as
one that fits the vehicle. Such an instance may arise if a vehicle
manufacturer recommended a child restraint for a particular vehicle
that has a specific type of side air bag and the CRS manufacturer's
instructions prohibit the installation of that particular CRS next to
that type of side air bag.
    A lack of information can be challenging for parents and
caregivers. It is prudent for both vehicle and child restraint
manufacturers to provide sufficient information regarding proper use.
As observed in the pilot study, there are instances in which specific
features cannot be used or in which the full use of features on the
restraint

cannot be realized. Not only can this be a disappointment to
caregivers, but it can also result in consumers improperly installing
the child restraint. For example, suppose a vehicle manufacturer
established a maximum weight for children who should be using CRSs with
the LATCH system, but did not include the LATCH anchor limit
information in the vehicle owner's manual. The harnessed restraint
installed with LATCH should be reinstalled with the seat belt when the
vehicle's LATCH anchor weight limits are exceeded. However, a parent
who was not aware of the weight limit might fail to reinstall the CRS
with the vehicle belt after his or her child's weight exceeded the
vehicle's LATCH anchor weight limit.
    Along similar lines, the vehicle should accommodate the child
restraint so that the CRS may be installed to meet the child restraint
manufacturer's instructions. For example, for rear-facing infant seats,
the carry handle's proper travel position must be reached. If the carry
handle makes contact with the vehicle's front seat backs or center
console when placed in this position and either the vehicle owner's
manual or the child restraint user's manual prohibits such contact, the
child seat should not be installed for use in this position in the
subject vehicle. A similar rationale should be applied for convertible
seats and/or all-in-one seats for which seat back contact is prohibited
when positioned rear-facing. Another example may be when a forward-
facing child restraint's user's manual states that the restraint's seat
back must make full contact with the vehicle seat back, but this
condition cannot be achieved because of the seat back or seat pan
contour, a high seat bight, or head restraint interference. The
restraint should have the ability to be properly utilized in every mode
of use and in every adjustment position as described in the manual so
that parents and caregivers can properly adjust the child restraint to
accommodate the growth of their child(ren).

G. Weight Limits

    Most forward-facing child restraints are equipped with internal
harness systems that are designed for children weighing 40 pounds or
less; however, many child restraint manufacturers now make forward-
facing child restraints that are designed for heavier, taller children.
These child restraints come with an internal harness system that can be
used for children weighing up to 65 pounds, and in some cases, 80
pounds. As mentioned previously, these restraints are informally known
as ``high-weight harness'' restraints. For vehicles that have
established child weight limits for their LATCH anchors and those
weight limits are lower than the upper child weight limits of these
high-weight harness restraints, parents and caregivers should not
install or continue to use these CRSs using the LATCH system when
children surpass the upper weight range allowed by the vehicle LATCH
anchors. In most cases, when the child's weight exceeds the vehicle
manufacturer's LATCH child weight limit, the child restraint's lower
attachments and/or top tether may have to be detached from the vehicle,
and the vehicle seat belt is then used to install the child restraint.
In some instances, however, the weight limit established by the vehicle
manufacturer for the vehicle's top tether anchor may be higher than
that for the vehicle's lower anchors and the top tether may continue to
be used after the CRS transitions from LATCH to a seat belt, until a
new weight threshold is reached. Regardless of whether the CRS is
installed with lower attachments or seat belts, many vehicle and child
restraint manufacturers require that the tether also be disconnected
once the child reaches a certain weight.
    As some vehicle manufacturers do not include information pertaining
to the child weight limits for LATCH use in the vehicle owner's
manuals, NHTSA is concerned that many parents and caregivers are not
given information as to whether they may have to disconnect the child
restraint from the LATCH anchors and use the vehicle seat belts as
their child gets heavier. There can also be confusion if the weight
limits of the CRS and the vehicle LATCH system do not match. To ensure
that parents and caregivers are provided with adequate information for
proper restraint use and to improve the fit of CRSs in vehicles, NHTSA
is proposing the following scenarios to assist vehicle manufacturers in
their fit assessment process. In the following scenarios, the LATCH
lower anchors and the top tether anchor have the same child weight
limit or a LATCH weight limit is not provided by the vehicle
manufacturer.
     If the recommended CRS has a maximum child weight limit
that is 40 pounds or less, NHTSA will evaluate fit using LATCH lower
anchors (with tether) or using seat belts (with tether), at each
applicable seating position;
     If the recommended CRS has a maximum child weight limit
that is greater than 40 pounds and the vehicle manufacturer does
include a child weight limit for LATCH use in the vehicle owner's
manual, NHTSA will evaluate fit at each applicable seating position as
follows:
    (1) If the recommended CRS's maximum child weight limit is less
than or equal to the child weight limit specified in the vehicle
owner's manual for LATCH use, vehicle-CRS fit may be assessed using
LATCH lower anchors (with tether) or using seat belts (with tether);
    (2) If the recommended CRS's maximum child weight limit is greater
than the child weight limit specified in the vehicle owner's manual for
LATCH use, vehicle-CRS fit may be assessed using:
    (a) LATCH lower anchors (with tether) or seat belts (with tether)--
for children weighing up to the child weight limit specified in the
vehicle owner's manual for LATCH use; and
    (b) Seat belts only--for children weighing above the child weight
limit specified in the vehicle owner's manual for LATCH use.
     If the recommended CRS has a maximum child weight limit
that is greater than 40 pounds and the vehicle manufacturer does NOT
include a child weight limit for LATCH use in the vehicle owner's
manual, NHTSA will evaluate fit at each applicable seating position
using:
    (1) LATCH lower anchors (with tether) or seat belts (with tether)--
for children weighing up to 40 pounds; and
    (2) Seat belts only--for children weighing more than 40 pounds.
    The agency believes the situation can exist where a vehicle
manufacturer could specify a child weight limit for the LATCH system in
which the lower anchors have a limit that differs from the weight limit
of the top tether. In those situations, we believe the below scenarios
would be appropriate for determining whether the lower anchors and top
tether should be used. With regard to the lower anchors, we propose
that NHTSA will attach the lower anchors if the CRS child weight limit
is less than or equal to the anchor's child weight limit provided by
the vehicle manufacturer. If the CRS child weight limit is greater than
the vehicle's anchors child weight limit, we would not attach lower
anchors and would use seat belts instead when assessing the fit of the
CRS as the CRS is configured for children weighing above the child
weight limit specified in the vehicle's owner manual for LATCH lower
anchors. With regard to the top tether, we propose that NHTSA will
attach the tether if the CRS child weight limit is less than or equal
to the tether child weight limit provided by the vehicle manufacturer.
If the CRS child weight limit is greater than the vehicle's tether

weight limit, we would not attach the top tether. That is, we would
assess fit without using the tether. A summary of the above scenarios
is shown in Appendix E.
    If NHTSA finds that a CRS does not fit a vehicle seating position
when attached by the LATCH system or the seat belt system as described
here, NHTSA plans to take action as proposed in the ``Program
Distribution'' section (VII-C).

H. Rear-Facing CRS

    Frontal crashes are the most frequently occurring types of crashes.
In a frontal crash, a rear-facing CRS acts to cradle the child,
prevents the child's head from snapping backward with respect to its
body, and helps distribute crash forces over the child's head, neck,
and back, thereby reducing the potential for injury to any one body
region. It is especially important to face infants (children under one
year old AND under 20 lbs) rear-facing, as the child's neck has not yet
matured to support the child's head in a frontal crash.
    To balance safety and comfort for children restrained rear-facing,
it is also imperative that parents and caregivers achieve the
appropriate recline angle for rear-facing restraints.\55\ This angle,
which is recommended by the CRS manufacturer, is typically specified to
be between 30 and 45 degrees from vertical, and must be determined when
the vehicle is on a level surface. Child restraint manufacturers often
equip rear-facing child restraints with a level indicator so that
caregivers can install the CRS at the appropriate angle. The prescribed
angle must be especially maintained for newborns to prevent their
airways from being restricted. As evidenced by the agency's pilot
study, parents and caregivers may find it particularly difficult to
achieve the appropriate recline angle when installing a rear-facing CRS
in a vehicle that has an extreme seat pan contour.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \55\ See http://www.car-safety.org/rearface.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NHTSA's pilot study revealed several instances in which anti-
rebound bars, equipped on some child restraints, increased stability on
the vehicle seat, particularly for the rear center seating
position.\56\ The agency also observed that these devices can actually
help parents and caregivers to achieve and maintain the recommended
recline angle for the CRS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \56\ To limit inertia-induced rotation of a rear-facing child
restraint upon rebound in a frontal or rear impact crash, many CRS
come equipped with an anti-rebound bar. This device serves not only
to transmit rotational forces seen by the CRS into the vehicle seat
back during sudden changes in velocity, but also may reduce the
chance of injuries resulting from a child's contact with the vehicle
seat during rebound.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With these considerations in mind, the agency is proposing the
following additional assessment criteria for rear-facing CRS:

--Can the CRS be installed to the recline angle specified by the
manufacturer?
--Can the anti-rotational device, if applicable, be adjusted/operated/
installed properly?

    A rear-facing child restraint should be able to be installed at the
manufacturer's prescribed angle (using any level indicators included)
when the vehicle is on level ground. The agency is not proposing to
permit the use of pool noodles, towels, or other objects to achieve the
proper angle for the reasons specified previously. NHTSA is also
proposing that an assessment of the installation, operation, and
adjustment of anti-rotational devices be made for applicable CRS when
installed rear-facing. If the device cannot be used, or if using it
prohibits a tight fit, the restraint would not meet the assessment
conditions for fit.

XI. Conclusions and Effective Date

    For the reasons described above, the agency believes that there is
a need to address vehicle-CRS fit via a consumer information program.
We are proposing that a voluntary Vehicle-CRS Fit assessment program
would be an effective method of meeting this need, as our pilot study
showed it to be a viable option. To fulfill the participation
conditions for the program, the agency is proposing that vehicle
manufacturers follow a list of criteria, similar to those the agency is
proposing in Appendix D, to determine CRS that fit in various vehicle
models.
    Comments are requested on the program, including the criteria
described in this document to assess a proper fit of a CRS in a
vehicle, and the conditions we are considering setting for
participation in the program (conditions that vehicle manufacturers
have to meet to have their information listed on Safercar.gov).
    We are proposing that the program begin with vehicle model year
2012. However, we are requesting comments on the appropriate lead time
for vehicle manufacturers to prepare for and participate in the
program. Under our proposed program, vehicle manufacturers will submit
recommendations of CRS that fit in their vehicle models to the agency
via the Buying a Safer Car submission, which is collected annually.
Although recommendations will be valid only for vehicle-CRS pairs,
vehicle manufacturers need not provide data for all of their vehicle
models in order to participate. The agency hopes that over time, a
wealth of information will be generated.
    As discussed, in the interest of time and simplicity, the proposed
program only includes objective fit criteria. Such objective criteria
quantify fit in a clear manner, which vehicle manufacturers can quickly
comprehend and use to start providing accurate assessments. The agency
plans to reevaluate the program after its inception to ensure that
consumers are receiving useful and complete information. If the agency
determines that it is warranted and practical, additional CRS ease of
fit criteria could be added. The agency also expects to revisit other
aspects of the program, such as the number and type of fit suggestions
being made by vehicle manufacturers. In particular, if the program is
adopted, as proposed, the agency may reevaluate whether vehicle
manufacturers may continue to claim vehicle-CRS fit for either LATCH or
vehicle belts, or decide if the manufacturer must instead claim fit for
both systems of attachment.
    While vehicle manufacturers will be expected to report CRS fit
under the proposed program, we expect there to be motivation for CRS
manufacturers to share in the process by identifying vehicles that
their products can fit and reporting their findings to vehicle
manufacturers. This serves both the vehicle manufacturers' needs, the
CRS manufacturers' needs, and consumers' needs. At this time, the
agency does not plan to collect CRS fit information from CRS
manufacturers directly. The agency believes that, in the interest of
time, requesting this information from the vehicle manufacturers is the
most appropriate approach. As mentioned, NCAP's Buying a Safer Car
information request should permit NHTSA to gather this information from
the vehicle manufacturers in an organized and efficient manner.
Furthermore, the agency does not currently have a means to collect
similar information from the CRS manufacturers. That being said, in the
interest of providing consumers with a greater number and variety of
CRS from which to choose from, the agency is requesting comments on an
alternative or additional approach to collecting this information.

XII. Paperwork Reduction Act

    Before a Federal agency can collect certain information from the
public, it must receive approval from the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB). Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, a person is
not required to respond to a

collection of information by a Federal agency unless the collection
displays a valid OMB control number with an expiration date. Before
seeking OMB approval, Federal agencies must publish a document in the
Federal Register providing a 60-day public comment period and otherwise
consult with members of the public and affected agencies concerning
each proposed collection of information.
    NHTSA believes that the consumer information program described in
this request for comments, if implemented, may result in a collection
of information burden on motor vehicle manufacturers, even if the
manufacturers provide the information voluntarily. In a separate
Federal Register document, NHTSA will provide a full description of the
proposed collection of information, including: (1) A discussion of the
need for the information and the proposed use of the information; (2) a
description of the likely respondents (including estimated number and
proposed frequency of response to the collection of information); and
(3) an estimate of the total annual reporting and recordkeeping burden
resulting from the collection of information. A 60-day public comment
period will be provided when the description of the proposed collection
of information is published.

XIII. Public Participation

How do I prepare and submit comments?

    Your comments must be written and in English. To ensure that your
comments are correctly filed in the Docket, please include the docket
number of this document in your comments.
    Your comments must not be more than 15 pages long. (49 CFR 553.21).
We established this limit to encourage you to write your primary
comments in a concise fashion. However, you may attach necessary
additional documents to your comments. There is no limit on the length
of the attachments.
    Comments may also be submitted to the docket electronically by
logging onto the Docket Management System Web site at http://
www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting
comments.
    Please note that pursuant to the Data Quality Act, in order for
substantive data to be relied upon and used by the agency, it must meet
the information quality standards set forth in the OMB and DOT Data
Quality Act guidelines. Accordingly, we encourage you to consult the
guidelines in preparing your comments. OMB's guidelines may be accessed
at http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/fedreg/reproducible.html.

How do I submit confidential business information?

    If you wish to submit any information under a claim of
confidentiality, you should submit three copies of your complete
submission, including the information you claim to be confidential
business information, to the Chief Counsel, NHTSA, at the address given
above under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. In addition, you should
submit two copies, from which you have deleted the claimed confidential
business information, to Docket Management at the address given above
under ADDRESSES. When you send a comment containing information claimed
to be confidential business information, you should include a cover
letter setting forth the information specified in our confidential
business information regulation. (49 CFR part 512.)

Will the agency consider late comments?

    We will consider all comments that Docket Management receives
before the close of business on the comment closing date indicated
above under DATES. To the extent possible, we will also consider
comments that Docket Management receives after that date. If Docket
Management receives a comment too late for us to consider in developing
a final decision, we will consider that comment as an informal
suggestion for future action.

How can I read the comments submitted by other people?

    You may read the comments received by Docket Management at the
address given above under ADDRESSES. The hours of the Docket are
indicated above in the same location. You may also see the comments on
the Internet. To read the comments on the Internet, go to http://
www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for accessing the
dockets.
    Please note that even after the comment closing date, we will
continue to file relevant information in the Docket as it becomes
available. Further, some people may submit late comments. Accordingly,
we recommend that you periodically check the Docket for new material.

    Issued on: February 18, 2011.
Joseph S. Carra,
Acting Associate Administrator for Rulemaking.

Appendix A: Worldwide Child Restraint Consumer Information Programs

    In developing NHTSA's Vehicle-CRS Fit program, the agency
considered other international consumer information programs for child
restraints. Some of the most prominent are briefly explained below.

A. Child Restraints Evaluation Program (CREP)

    The New South Wales Roads and Traffic Authority joined with the
National Roads and Motorists Association and the Royal Automobile Club
of Victoria to establish a joint program to assess both the relative
performance and the ease of using child restraints available in
Australia. The resulting program, which began in 1994, is known as
CREP, or the Child Restraints Evaluation Program. In addition to
frontal and side impact sled testing of child restraints based on the
Australian Standard AS 1754, CREP covers installation and compatibility
with vehicles and features specific to the child restraint itself. The
CREP criteria assess how easily child restraints can be installed as
well as how easily a child can be secured. They also include an
evaluation of the instructions, the clarity and quality of labeling and
packaging, and vehicle compatibility. CREP does not address CRS
compatibility as it relates to specific vehicles; therefore, the agency
is not proposing this approach.

B. Consumers Union

    Consumers Union (CU), publisher of Consumer Reports magazine, is a
nonprofit membership organization that evaluates child restraints in
dynamic sled tests, assesses their ease of use, and evaluates their
compatibility with vehicles. In the United States, CU rates child
restraints by evaluating the ease of using installation and harness
features as well as the ease of placing and removing the child in the
restraint. To evaluate compatibility, a few vehicles are selected from
each model year that span a variety of body types and features related
to child restraint installation. CU raters perform CRS installations in
each of these vehicles to generally assess ease of installation. They
do not, however, publish specific combinations or suggestions for fit
between child restraints and vehicles. In addition, CU conducts sled
testing to assign a dynamic performance rating to

the child restraint. All of the items are evaluated on a five-part
scale using the following rankings: ``Excellent,'' ``Very good,''
``Good,'' ``Fair,'' and ``Poor.'' The ease of use, installation, and
dynamic performance ratings are all combined into an overall rating for
consumers based on the same five-part scale. Because the agency is
primarily focused on proposing a program that addresses vehicle-CRS
compatibility as it relates to specific vehicle and restraint pairs,
CU's method of evaluating CRS was not selected.

C. EuroNCAP

    The European New Car Assessment Program, or EuroNCAP, also provides
consumers with child occupant protection ratings for its vehicles.
Vehicle manufacturers recommend child restraints suitable for
installation in their products during their offset frontal and 90-
degree side impact crash tests.\57\ Each vehicle's rear seat is fitted
with two child restraints: One suitable for a 3-year-old child and
another suitable for an 18-month-old infant. Technicians evaluate the
installation of the child restraints prior to the crash tests, and they
assess the quality and completeness of the child restraint's labeling
information. The dynamic performance of the child restraint is
determined by evaluating injury readings from child dummies placed in
these child restraints. It is then combined with the installation and
labeling evaluation as part of a vehicle's overall child protection
rating. Points earned during the evaluation are converted into a star
rating. The overall child protection ratings are attributed to the
vehicle in question rather than the particular child restraint.\58\ In
addition, the ratings are specific to that combination of vehicle and
CRS and do not necessarily indicate the safety performance of other
child restraints in that vehicle. At this time, there are no stand-
alone evaluations of child restraints conducted by EuroNCAP. Due to the
fact that only a small portion of EuroNCAP's approach is related to
vehicle-CRS fit, the agency is not proposing to use this method.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \57\ The EuroNCAP primarily provides consumers with crash safety
ratings for vehicles sold throughout Europe. The program is funded
by various European governments and private motoring clubs. EuroNCAP
has traditionally rated vehicles for crashworthiness based on an
offset frontal crash test at 40 mph (64 km/h) and a 90 degree side
impact crash test at 31 mph (50 km/h). Beginning in 2009, a
previously optional side impact pole test became a mandatory part of
the crashworthiness rating.
    \58\ However, the child restraints tested in each vehicle are
still displayed on the EuroNCAP Web site.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

D. Japan NCAP (JNCAP)

    The Japanese Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport, in
cooperation with the National Organization for Automotive Safety &
Victims' Aid, tests and evaluates the safety of automobiles as part of
its New Car Assessment Program (JNCAP). In 2002, the JNCAP began rating
child restraints for crash protection as well as usability.
    JNCAP dynamically rates Japan's most popular child restraints by
conducting a frontal sled test in excess of the country's minimum child
restraint performance requirements.\59\ Child restraints containing
age-appropriate dummies are subjected to a 35 mph (56 km/h) sled pulse
which is based on the characteristics of the European child restraint
safety standard, Economic Commission for Europe's Regulation 44 (ECE
R44). The child restraints are installed on a sled buck based on the
Toyota Estima, a popular family vehicle similar to the Toyota Sienna in
the U.S. The rating is comprised of an evaluation of dummy readings and
kinematics, the level of physical damage (if any) to the child
restraint, and the release (if any) of child restraint buckles or other
hardware. A four-tier rating system is used: ``Excellent,'' ``Good,''
``Normal,'' and ``Not Recommended.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \59\ To be sold in Japan, child restraints may be certified to
ECE R44, U.S. FMVSS No. 213, or Japan's own regulation, JIS D 0401.
The number of child restraints tested each year varies, but in April
2009, results were published for five CRS that were deemed
``currently available.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    JNCAP's usability ratings are very similar to the structure and
content of NHTSA's Ease of Use (EOU) program for child restraint
usability. Five child restraint specialists rate each child restraint
chosen for dynamic testing across five categories of usability, each of
which contains a number of different features for evaluation. The
specialists in this program rate each feature on a scale of 1 to 5,
with ``3'' representing an ``average'' feature. The ratings given by
all five specialists for each of the five categories of usability are
averaged; all of the features within each category are then averaged as
well. No overall rating is provided, but the five usability category
scores are presented to the consumer as a numerical value from 1 to 5.
Because JNCAP's ratings system does not address vehicle-to-CRS
compatibility, this approach is not being proposed.

E. New Program for the Assessment of Child Restraint Systems (NPACS)
and the Child Seat Rating Scheme

    On August 3, 2009, the United Kingdom Transport Research Laboratory
(TRL) announced it would launch a new five-star rating scheme for child
restraints in 2010. In its inception, TRL relied heavily on the NPACS
(New Programme for the Assessment of Child-restraint Systems) protocol
published by the U.K. Department for Transport. Though all child
restraints sold in the U.K. must meet the minimum performance standards
of ECE R44, TRL's new program will subject products to the NPACS
testing protocol, which goes above and beyond the minimum performance
standards set forth by ECE R44. The NPACS protocol (as well as the new
TRL CRS program) includes a side impact sled test as well as a
usability assessment, neither of which TRL felt were addressed
sufficiently in ECE R44. The rating scheme that was developed under
these efforts will present individual products' safety in terms of an
overall star rating, which is based on frontal and side sled test
performance as well as a usability assessment. TRL hopes that the
ratings will be useful to consumers seeking information on the
comparative performance of child restraints as well as provide a new
promotional tool for manufacturers and retailers. Again, because the
NPACS protocol does not address CRS-to-vehicle compatibility as it
relates to specific product pairs, the agency is not proposing to use
this protocol.
BILLING CODE P

Appendix B: Pilot Study Evaluation Form
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN25FE11.030

Appendix C: Observations From Vehicle-CRS Pilot Study

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                     Mitsubishi Eclipse                     Pontiac 5                     Chevrolet Impala                  Chrysler Sebring                    Dodge Charger                      Ford Focus
          CRS Model          -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                 Seat belt          LATCH          Seat belt          LATCH          Seat belt          LATCH          Seat belt          LATCH          Seat belt          LATCH          Seat belt          LATCH
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Combi Shuttle EX............  N(b)...........  N(f)...........  N(i)...........  Y..............  N(b)(i)........  N(c)...........  N(c)(r)........  N(r)...........  N(b)...........  Y..............  Y..............  Y
Graco Snugride 32...........  N(b)...........  Y*.............  N(i)...........  Y..............  N(b)...........  Y..............  Y..............  N(c)...........  N(b)...........  N(l)...........  Y..............  Y
Safety 1st Designer 22......  N(b)...........  N(f)...........  N(b)(r)........  N(l)...........  N(b)...........  Y..............  N(f)...........  N(l)...........  N(b)(c)........  N(c)...........  N(m)...........  Y
Graco ComfortSport..........  N(b)...........  Y*.............  Y*.............  Y*.............  Y..............  Y..............  N(c)(f)........  N(c)...........  N(b)(r)........  N(r)...........  N(t)...........  N(t)
Britax Boulevard CS.........  N(b)...........  Y*.............  Y*.............  Y*.............  N(b)...........  Y..............  Y..............  Y..............  N(b)...........  Y*.............  Y*.............  N(l)
Sunshine Kids Radian XT.....  N(b)...........  Y*.............  Y*.............  Y*.............  N(b)...........  Y*.............  N(b)(c)........  N(c)...........  N(b)...........  N(l)...........  Y*.............  Y*
Safety 1st Summit...........  N(b)...........  Y..............  N(b)(c)........  N(l)...........  N(b)...........  Y..............  N(b)(c)........  N(c)...........  N(b)...........  Y..............  Y..............  Y
Britax Frontier.............  N(b)...........  Y..............  N(b)(h)........  N(h)...........  N(b)...........  Y..............  N(b)...........  Y..............  N(b)(c)........  N(c)(f)........  N(b)...........  Y
Learning Curve B505.........  N(h)(s)........  n/a............  Y(c)...........  n/a............  Y..............  n/a............  Y..............  n/a............  N(b)...........  n/a............  N(b)...........  n/a
Magna Clek Olli.............  Y..............  N(l)...........  Y..............  Y..............  Y..............  Y..............  Y..............  Y..............  N(b)...........  N..............  N(b)...........  Y
Evenflo Amp.................  Y..............  n/a............  N(b)(c)........  n/a............  Y..............  n/a............  N(c)...........  n/a............  N(b)...........  n/a............  N(b)...........  n/a
Safety 1st All in One.......  N(c)(r)........  N(l)...........  N(b)(r)........  N(l)...........  N(b)(r)........  N(r)...........  N(b)(r)........  Y*.............  N(c)...........  N(c)(f)........  N(t)...........  N(l)(t)
Evenflo Symphony............  N(b)...........  Y*.............  N(c)(h)........  N(f)...........  N(b)...........  Y..............  Y..............  Y..............  N(b)(c)(r).....  N(f)...........  N(t)...........  N(t)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
N--Proper fit could not be achieved in every allowable seating position and mode of CRS use for this combination.
Y--Proper fit was achieved for this vehicle-CRS combination in every allowable seating positioning and mode of use for this combination.
*--Front seat may need to be positioned in front half of seat track to accommodate CRS installed rear-facing.
(b)--Seat belt and child restraint are incompatible.
(c)--Seat or seat back contour creates instability and does not allow for a proper install.
(f)--Could not achieve 1'' or less of movement at the belt/LATCH path for this installation.
(h)--Height of roofline prevents the use of this CRS in its highest position.
(i)--Seat belt latch plate button interfered with belt lock-off hardware.
(l)--Lower anchors and child restraint are not compatible.
(m)--Instructions in the CRS or vehicle owner's manual prohibited this installation.
(r)--Proper recline could not be achieved without use of a towel or pool noodle.
(s)--Unwanted slack is created between the vehicle seat belt and the belt guide on this CRS.
(t)--Tether cannot be properly tightened.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                       Hyundai Elantra                    Mazda Protege                     Toyota Yaris                     Subaru Forester                    Nissan Murano                      Toyota RAV4
          CRS Model          -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                 Seat belt          LATCH          Seat belt          LATCH          Seat belt          LATCH          Seat belt          LATCH          Seat belt          LATCH          Seat belt          LATCH
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Combi Shuttle EX............  N(b)...........  Y..............  Y..............  Y..............  N(b)(c)(r)(m)..  Y..............  N(i)...........  Y..............  Y..............  Y..............  N(b)...........  Y
Graco Snugride 32...........  Y..............  Y..............  Y..............  Y..............  N(b)(m)........  Y*.............  Y..............  Y..............  Y..............  Y..............  N(b)...........  Y
Safety 1st Designer 22......  Y..............  Y..............  N(b)...........  Y*.............  N(b)(c)........  Y..............  N(i)...........  Y..............  N(b)...........  Y..............  N(b)...........  Y
Graco ComfortSport..........  Y..............  Y..............  N(b)...........  Y*.............  N(b)(c)........  N(c)(l)........  Y..............  Y..............  Y..............  Y..............  N(b)...........  Y
Britax Boulevard CS.........  Y..............  Y..............  N(b)...........  Y*.............  N(b)(c)........  Y*.............  Y..............  Y..............  Y..............  Y..............  N(b)...........  Y
Sunshine Kids Radian XT.....  N(b)...........  Y..............  N(b)...........  N(l)...........  N(b)...........  N(l)...........  N(f)...........  Y..............  N(b)...........  Y..............  N(b)...........  N(l)
Safety 1st Summit...........  N(f)...........  N(f)...........  N(b)...........  N(l)...........  N(b)(c)........  N(l)...........  Y..............  Y..............  Y..............  Y..............  N(b)...........  Y
Britax Frontier.............  N(b)...........  Y..............  N(b)...........  Y..............  N(b)(h)(c).....  N(h)(l)........  Y..............  Y..............  N(b)...........  Y..............  N(b)...........  Y
Learning Curve B505.........  Y..............  n/a............  Y..............  n/a............  N(b)...........  n/a............  Y..............  n/a............  Y..............  n/a............  Y..............  n/a
Magna Clek Olli.............  Y..............  N(l)...........  Y..............  Y..............  N(b)...........  N(b)(l)........  Y..............  Y..............  Y..............  Y..............  Y..............  Y
Evenflo Amp.................  Y..............  n/a............  Y..............  n/a............  N(b)(c)........  n/a............  Y..............  n/a............  Y..............  n/a............  Y..............  n/a
Safety 1st All in One.......  N(r)...........  Y..............  N(r)...........  N(r)...........  N(c)(r)........  N(c)(r)........  Y..............  Y..............  N(b)(r)........  N(r)...........  N(b)...........  Y
Evenflo Symphony............  Y..............  Y..............  N(b)...........  Y*.............  N(b)(c)........  N(l)...........  Y..............  Y..............  Y..............  Y..............  N(b)...........  Y
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
N--Proper fit could not be achieved in every allowable seating position and mode of CRS use for this combination.
Y--Proper fit was achieved for this vehicle-CRS combination in every allowable seating positioning and mode of use for this combination.
*--Front seat may need to be positioned in front half of seat track to accommodate CRS installed rear-facing.
(b)--Seat belt and child restraint are incompatible.
(c)--Seat or seat back contour creates instability and does not allow for a proper install.
(f)--Could not achieve 1'' or less of movement at the belt/LATCH path for this installation.
(h)--Height of roofline prevents the use of this CRS in its highest position.
(i)--Seat belt latch plate button interfered with belt lock-off hardware.
(l)--Lower anchors and child restraint are not compatible.
(m)--Instructions in the CRS or vehicle owner's manual prohibited this installation.
(r)--Proper recline could not be achieved without use of a towel or pool noodle.
(s)--Unwanted slack is created between the vehicle seat belt and the belt guide on this CRS.
(t)--Tether cannot be properly tightened.

Appendix D: Proposed Vehicle-CRS Fit Assessment Forms
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN25FE11.031

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN25FE11.032

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN25FE11.033

Appendix E: Installation Methods for Assessing Vehicle-CRS Fit

                                  Overall Child Weight Limit is 40 lbs or Less
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                    Is vehicle top     CRS child weight    CRS child weight       Methods of
  Is vehicle lower anchor child     tether  anchor     limit  <= vehicle   limit  <= vehicle   installation that
weight limit in  vehicle manual?  child weight limit  lower anchor child   top tether anchor      NHTSA will
                                  in vehicle manual?     weight limit     child weight limit       evaluate
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes.............................  Yes...............  Yes...............  Yes...............  Evaluations
                                                                                Conducted for
                                                                                Children Up to 40
                                                                                lbs:
                                                                                Lower
                                                                                Anchors w/Tether
                                                                                or
                                                                                Seat
                                                                                belts w/Tether.
                                  No................  Yes...............  N/A...............  Evaluations
                                                                                Conducted for
                                                                                Children Up to 40
                                                                                lbs:
                                                                                Lower
                                                                                Anchors w/Tether
                                                                                or
                                                                                Seat
                                                                                Belts w/Tether.
No..............................  Yes...............  N/A...............  Yes...............  Evaluations
                                                                                Conducted for
                                                                                Children Up to 40
                                                                                lbs:
                                                                                Lower
                                                                                Anchors w/Tether
                                                                                or
                                                                                Seat
                                                                                Belts w/Tether.
                                  No................  N/A...............  N/A...............  Evaluations
                                                                                Conducted for
                                                                                Children Up to 40
                                                                                lbs:
                                                                                Lower
                                                                                Anchors w/Tether
                                                                                or
                                                                                Seat
                                                                                Belts w/Tether.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                Overall Child Weight Limit Is Greater Than 40 lbs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                    Is vehicle top     CRS child weight    CRS child weight       Methods of
  Is vehicle lower anchor child     tether  anchor     limit  <= vehicle   limit  <= vehicle   installation that
weight limit in  vehicle manual?  child weight limit  lower anchor child   top tether anchor      NHTSA will
                                  in vehicle manual?     weight limit     child weight limit       evaluate
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes.............................  Yes...............  Yes...............  Yes...............  Evaluations
                                                                                Conducted for
                                                                                Children Up To 40
                                                                                lbs:
                                                                                Lower
                                                                                Anchors w/Tether
                                                                                or
                                                                                Seat
                                                                                Belts w/Tether.
                                  ..................  ..................  No................  Evaluations
                                                                                Conducted for
                                                                                Children Up To
                                                                                Vehicle Tether
                                                                                Anchor Child
                                                                                Weight Limit:
                                                                                Lower
                                                                                Anchors w/Tether
                                                                                or
                                                                                Seat
                                                                                Belts w/Tether.
                                                                                Evaluations
                                                                                Conducted for
                                                                                Children Over
                                                                                Vehicle Tether
                                                                                Anchor Child
                                                                                Weight Limit:
                                                                                Lower
                                                                                Anchors or
                                                                                Seat
                                                                                Belts.
                                  ..................  No................  Yes...............  Evaluations
                                                                                Conducted for
                                                                                Children Up To
                                                                                Vehicle Lower
                                                                                Anchor Child
                                                                                Weight Limit:
                                                                                Lower
                                                                                Anchors w/Tether
                                                                                or
                                                                                Seat
                                                                                Belts w/Tether.
                                                                                Evaluations
                                                                                Conducted for
                                                                                Children Over
                                                                                Vehicle Tether
                                                                                Anchor Child
                                                                                Weight Limit:
                                                                                Seat
                                                                                Belts w/Tether.
                                  ..................  ..................  No................  Evaluations
                                                                                Conducted for
                                                                                Children Up To
                                                                                Vehicle Lower
                                                                                Anchor Child
                                                                                Weight Limit:
                                                                                Lower
                                                                                Anchors or
                                                                                Seat
                                                                                Belts.
                                                                                Evaluations
                                                                                Conducted for
                                                                                Children Over
                                                                                Vehicle Lower
                                                                                Anchor Child
                                                                                Weight Limit but
                                                                                Under Vehicle
                                                                                Tether Anchor
                                                                                Child Weight
                                                                                Limit:
                                                                                Seat
                                                                                Belts w/Tether.
                                                                                Evaluations
                                                                                Conducted for
                                                                                Children Over
                                                                                Vehicle Lower
                                                                                Anchor Child
                                                                                Weight Limit:
                                                                                Seat
                                                                                Belts Only.
                                  No................  Yes...............  N/A...............  Evaluations
                                                                                Conducted for
                                                                                Children Up To 40
                                                                                lbs:
                                                                                Lower
                                                                                Anchors w/Tether
                                                                                or
                                                                                Seat
                                                                                Belts w/Tether.
                                                                                Evaluations
                                                                                Conducted for
                                                                                Children Over 40
                                                                                lbs:
                                                                                Lower
                                                                                Anchors or
                                                                                Seat
                                                                                Belts.
                                  ..................  No................  N/A...............  Evaluations
                                                                                Conducted for
                                                                                Children Up To 40
                                                                                lbs:
                                                                                Lower
                                                                                Anchors w/Tether
                                                                                or
                                                                                Seat
                                                                                Belts w/Tether.
                                                                                Evaluations
                                                                                Conducted for
                                                                                Children Over 40
                                                                                lbs and Under or
                                                                                Equal to Vehicle
                                                                                Lower Anchor
                                                                                Child Weight
                                                                                Limit:
                                                                                Lower
                                                                                Anchors or
                                                                                Seat
                                                                                Belts.
                                                                                Evaluations
                                                                                Conducted for
                                                                                Children Over
                                                                                Vehicle Lower
                                                                                Anchor Child
                                                                                Weight Limit:
                                                                                Seat
                                                                                Belts Only.
No..............................  Yes...............  N/A...............  Yes...............  Evaluations
                                                                                Conducted for
                                                                                Children Up To 40
                                                                                lbs:
                                                                                Lower
                                                                                Anchors w/Tether
                                                                                or
                                                                                Seat
                                                                                Belts w/Tether.
                                                                                Evaluations
                                                                                Conducted for
                                                                                Children Over 40
                                                                                lbs:
                                                                                Seat
                                                                                Belts w/Tether.

                                  ..................  ..................  No................  Evaluations
                                                                                Conducted for
                                                                                Children Up To 40
                                                                                lbs:
                                                                                Lower
                                                                                Anchors w/Tether
                                                                                or
                                                                                Seat
                                                                                Belts w/Tether.
                                                                                Evaluations
                                                                                Conducted for
                                                                                Children Over 40
                                                                                lbs and Under or
                                                                                Equal to Vehicle
                                                                                Tether Anchor
                                                                                Child Weight
                                                                                Limit:
                                                                                Seat
                                                                                Belts w/Tether.
                                                                                Evaluations
                                                                                Conducted for
                                                                                Children Over
                                                                                Vehicle Tether
                                                                                Anchor Child
                                                                                Weight Limit:
                                                                                Seat
                                                                                Belts Only.
                                  No................  N/A...............  N/A...............  Evaluations
                                                                                Conducted for
                                                                                Children Up To 40
                                                                                lbs:
                                                                                Lower
                                                                                Anchors w/Tether
                                                                                or
                                                                                Seat
                                                                                Belts w/Tether.
                                                                                Evaluations
                                                                                Conducted for
                                                                                Children Over 40
                                                                                lbs:
                                                                                Seat
                                                                                Belts Only.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 2011-4212 Filed 2-24-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE C


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 208 (Wednesday, October 28, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 66085-66087]
[FR Doc No: 2015-27344]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-76224; File No. SR-NYSEArca-2015-94]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE Arca, Inc.; Notice of Filing
and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Regarding the
AdvisorShares WCM/BNY Mellon Focused Growth ADR ETF's Holdings

October 22, 2015.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) \1\ of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 (the ``Act'') \2\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\3\ notice is hereby
given that, on October 8, 2015, NYSE Arca, Inc. (the ``Exchange'' or
``NYSE Arca'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the
``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I and II
below, which Items have been prepared by the self-regulatory
organization. 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\ 15 U.S.C. 78a.
    \3\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange proposes to change a representation regarding the
AdvisorShares WCM/BNY Mellon Focused Growth ADR ETF's holdings. Shares
of the WCM/BNY Mellon Focused Growth ADR ETF have been approved for
listing and trading on the Exchange under NYSE Arca Equities Rule
8.600. The text of the proposed rule change is available on the
Exchange's Web site at www.nyse.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 those statements may be examined at
the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared
summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most
significant parts of such statements.

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

1. Purpose
    The Commission has approved a proposed rule change relating to
listing and trading on the Exchange of shares (``Shares'') of the
AdvisorShares WCM/BNY Mellon Focused Growth ADR ETF (the ``Fund'')
under NYSE Arca Equities Rule 8.600,\4\ which governs the listing

and trading of Managed Fund Shares.\5\ The Fund's Shares are currently
listed and traded on the Exchange under NYSE Arca Equities Rule 8.600.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 62502 (July 15,
2010), 75 FR 42471 (July 21, 2010) (SR-NYSEArca-2010-57) (the
``Prior Order''). The notice with respect to the Prior Order was
published in Securities Exchange Act Release No. 62344 (June 21,
2010), 75 FR 37498 (June 29, 2010) (``Prior Notice'' and, together
with the Prior Order, the ``Prior Release''). The Exchange has filed
a proposed rule change pursuant to Rule 19b-4 under the Act to
provide that the Fund may invest in securities outside of U.S.
markets, and that not more than 10% of the net assets of the Fund in
the aggregate invested in equity securities (excluding non-exchange-
traded investment company securities) shall consist of equity
securities whose principal market is not a member of the Intermarket
Surveillance Group (``ISG'') or is a market with which the Exchange
does not have a comprehensive surveillance sharing agreement. See
Securities Exchange Act Release No. 74271 (February 13, 2015), 80 FR
9301 (February 20, 2015) (SR-NYSEArca-2015-06) (``Second Prior
Release''). The Exchange also has filed a proposed rule change
pursuant to Rule 19b-4 under the Act to provide that the Fund will
invest at least 80% of its total assets in American Depositary
Receipts (``ADRs'') and other equity securities, including common
and preferred stock, warrants, convertible securities and master
limited partnerships, and that the Fund's portfolio will consist
primarily of ADRs. See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 75100
(June 3, 2015), 80 FR 32641 (June 9, 2015) (SR-NYSEArca-2015-47)
(``Third Prior Release'').
    \5\ A Managed Fund Share is a security that represents an
interest in an investment company registered under the Investment
Company Act of 1940 (15 U.S.C. 80a-1) (``1940 Act'') organized as an
open-end investment company or similar entity that invests in a
portfolio of securities selected by its investment adviser
consistent with its investment objectives and policies. In contrast,
an open-end investment company that issues Investment Company Units,
listed and traded on the Exchange under NYSE Arca Equities Rule
5.2(j)(3), seeks to provide investment results that correspond
generally to the price and yield performance of a specific foreign
or domestic stock index, fixed income securities index or
combination thereof.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Shares are offered by AdvisorShares Trust (the ``Trust''), a
statutory trust organized under the laws of the State of Delaware and
registered with the Commission as an open-end management investment
company.\6\ The investment adviser to the Fund is AdvisorShares
Investments, LLC (the ``Adviser''). WCM Investment Management (``WCM'')
is the sub-adviser and portfolio manager to the Fund (``Sub-Adviser'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ The Trust is registered under the 1940 Act. On November 1,
2014, the Trust filed with the Commission an amendment to its
registration statement on Form N-1A under the Securities Act of 1933
(15 U.S.C. 77a) and the 1940 Act relating to the Fund (File Nos.
333-157876 and 811-22110) (the ``Registration Statement''). The
description of the operation of the Trust and the Fund herein is
based, in part, on the Registration Statement. In addition, the
Commission has issued an order granting certain exemptive relief to
the Trust under the 1940 Act. See Investment Company Act Release No.
29291 (May 28, 2010) (File No. 812-13677) (``Exemptive Order'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    According to the Registration Statement, and as stated in the Prior
Release, the Fund's investment objective is long-term capital
appreciation above international benchmarks such as the BNY Mellon
Classic ADR Index and the MSCI EAFE Index. WCM seeks to achieve the
Fund's investment objective by selecting a portfolio of U.S. traded
securities of non-U.S. organizations included in the BNY Mellon Classic
ADR Index. The BNY Mellon Classic ADR Index predominantly includes ADRs
and, in addition, includes other Depositary Receipts (``DRs''), which
include Global Depositary Receipts (``GDRs''), Euro Depositary Receipts
(``Euro DRs'') and New York Shares (``NYSs'').\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ According to the Registration Statement, DRs, which include
ADRs, GDRs, Euro DRs and NYSs, are negotiable securities that
generally represent a non-U.S. company's publicly traded equity or
debt. DRs may be purchased in the U.S. secondary trading market.
They may trade freely, just like any other security, either on an
exchange or in the over-the-counter market. Although typically
denominated in U.S. dollars, DRs can also be denominated in Euros.
DRs can trade on all U.S. stock exchanges as well as on many
European stock exchanges.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Prior Notice and the Second Prior Release stated that the
Fund's portfolio will typically have fewer than 30 companies. The
Exchange proposes to amend such statement in the Prior Notice and the
Second Prior Release to provide that, going forward, the Fund's
portfolio will typically have fewer than 40 companies. The Adviser and
Sub-Adviser have represented that an increase in the number of
companies typically included in the Fund's portfolio would provide the
Fund with additional investment opportunities to permit the Fund to
meet its investment objective, as described above.
    Except for the change described above, all other representations
made in the Prior Release, the Second Prior Release and the Third Prior
Release remain unchanged.\8\ The Fund will continue to comply with all
initial and continued listing requirements under NYSE Arca Equities
Rule 8.600.

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

    \8\ See note 4, supra. All terms referenced but not defined
herein are defined in the Prior Release.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The basis under the Act for this proposed rule change is the
requirement under Section 6(b)(5) \9\ that an exchange have rules that
are designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices,
to promote just and equitable principles of trade, to remove
impediments to, and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market
and, in general, to protect investors and the public interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is designed to
prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices in that the
Shares are listed and traded on the Exchange pursuant to the initial
and continued listing criteria in NYSE Arca Equities Rule 8.600. Except
for the change described above, all other representations made in the
Prior Release, the Second Prior Release and the Third Prior Release
remain unchanged. The Fund will continue to comply with all initial and
continued listing requirements under NYSE Arca Equities Rule 8.600.
    The proposed rule change is designed to promote just and equitable
principles of trade and to protect investors and the public interest in
that the net asset value (``NAV'') per Share is calculated daily and
that the NAV and the Disclosed Portfolio is made available to all
market participants at the same time. An increase in the number of
companies typically included in the Fund's portfolio from 30 to 40
would further diversify the Fund's investments and may decrease the
susceptibility to manipulation of the Shares' price.
    The proposed rule change is designed to perfect the mechanism of a
free and open market and, in general, to protect investors and the
public interest. The Adviser represents that the proposed change, as
described above, is consistent with the Fund's investment objective,
and will further assist the Adviser and Sub-Adviser to achieve such
investment objective. Such an increase would further the public
interest by providing the Fund with additional flexibility to achieve
long-term capital appreciation above international benchmarks. An
increase in the number of companies typically included in the Fund's
portfolio from 30 to 40 would further diversify the Fund's investments
and may decrease the susceptibility to manipulation of the Shares'
price.

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate
in furtherance of the purpose of the Act. The Exchange believes the
proposed rule change is designed to allow the Fund to invest in a
broader range of non-U.S. equity securities thereby helping the Fund to
achieve its investment objective, and will enhance competition among
issues of Managed Fund Shares that invest in non-U.S. equity
securities.

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

    No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the
proposed rule change.

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

    Because the proposed rule change does not (i) significantly affect
the protection of investors or the public interest; (ii) impose any
significant burden on competition; and (iii) become operative for 30
days from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as the
Commission may designate, the proposed rule change has become effective
pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \10\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(6)
thereunder.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \11\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). As required under Rule 19b-
4(f)(6)(iii), the Exchange provided the Commission with written
notice of its intent to file the proposed rule change, along with a
brief description and the text of the proposed rule change, at least
five business days prior to the date of filing of the proposed rule
change, or such shorter time as designated by the Commission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange has asked the Commission to waive the 30-day operative
delay so that the proposal may become operative immediately upon
filing. The Exchange states that an increase in the number of companies
typically included in the Fund's portfolio from 30 to 40 would further
diversify the Fund's investments and may decrease the susceptibility to
manipulation of the Shares' price. For that reason, the Commission
believes that waiver of the 30-day operative delay is consistent with
the protection of investors and the public interest. Therefore, the
Commission designates the proposed rule change to be operative upon
filing.\12\

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

    \12\ For purposes only of waiving the 30-day operative delay,
the Commission has considered the proposed rule's impact on
efficiency, competition, and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C.
78c(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-NYSEArca-2015-94 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NYSEArca-2015-94. 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 Section, 100 F Street
NE., Washington, DC 20549 on official business days between 10 a.m. and
3 p.m. Copies of the filing will also be available for inspection and
copying at the NYSE's principal office and on its Internet Web site at
www.nyse.com. 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-
NYSEArca-2015-94 and should be submitted on or before November 18,
2015.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Brent J. Fields,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2015-27344 Filed 10-27-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 131 (Wednesday, July 9, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 39046-39048]
[FR Doc No: 2014-15960]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-72514; File No. SR-NFA-2014-05]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; National Futures Association;
Notice of Filing of Proposed Rule Change Relating to the NFA
Interpretive Notice Entitled ``NFA Compliance Rule 2-9: Enhanced
Supervisory Requirements''

July 2, 2014.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(7) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Exchange Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-7 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby
given that on June 18, 2014, National Futures Association (``NFA'')
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``SEC'' or
``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I, II,
and III below, which Items have been substantially prepared by NFA. The
Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the
proposed rule change from interested persons.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(7).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-7.
    \3\ NFA previously filed amendments to the Notice regarding Rule
2-9(b) with the Commission. See Exchange Act Release No. 47533 (Mar.
19, 2003), 68 FR 14733 (Mar. 26, 2003) (SR-NFA-2003-01); Exchange
Act Release No. 52808 (Nov. 18, 2005), 70 FR 71347 (Nov. 28, 2005)
(SR-NFA-2005-01); Exchange Act Release No. 53568 (Mar. 29, 2006), 71
FR 16850 (Apr. 4, 2006) (SR-NFA-2006-01); Exchange Act Release No.
55710 (May 4, 2007), 72 FR 26858 (May 11, 2007) (SR-NFA-2007-03);
Exchange Act Release No. 57142 (Jan. 14, 2008), 73 FR 3502 (Jan. 18,
2008) (SR-NFA-2007-07); Exchange Act Release No. 57640 (Apr. 9,
2008), 73 FR 20341 (Apr. 15, 2008) (SR-NFA-2008-01); and Exchange
Act Release No. 63602 (Dec. 22, 2010), 76 FR 202 (Jan. 3, 2011) (SR-
NFA-2010-04).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On June 18, 2014, NFA also filed the proposed rule change with the
Commodity Futures Trading Commission (``CFTC'') and requested that the
CFTC make a determination

that review of the proposed rule change of NFA is not necessary. The
CFTC has not yet made such determination.

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

    NFA Compliance Rule 2-9(b) (``Rule 2-9(b)'') and its related
Interpretive Notice entitled ``NFA Compliance Rule 2-9: Enhanced
Supervisory Requirements'' (``Notice'') require NFA member firms
(``Members'') that meet certain criteria identified by NFA's Board of
Directors (``Board'') to comply with specific enhanced supervisory
requirements that are designed to prevent abusive sales practices. One
way a Member firm triggers the enhanced supervisory requirements is to
employ a certain specified number or percentage of associated persons
(APs) that have previously been associated with another firm that was a
``Disciplined Firm'' (as defined in the Notice). The Notice, however,
permits a Member firm to exclude certain of those APs and principals
who meet very specific criteria identified by the Board from its
determination of whether it triggers the enhanced supervisory
requirements. The amendment to the Notice revises this criterion to
provide limited additional relief to a few individual principals who
would currently not be excluded from a Member firm's determination of
whether it triggers the enhanced supervisory requirements.
    The text of the proposed rule change is available at the principal
office of NFA, on NFA's Web site at http://www.nfa.futures.org, 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, NFA 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. NFA 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 the
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

1. Purpose
    Section 15A(k) of the Exchange Act \4\ makes NFA a national
securities association for the limited purpose of regulating the
activities of Members who are registered as brokers or dealers in
security futures products under Section 15(b)(11) of the Exchange
Act.\5\ The Notice entitled: ``NFA Compliance Rule 2-9: Enhanced
Supervisory Requirements'' applies to all Members who meet the criteria
in the Notice and could apply to Members registered as security futures
brokers or dealers under Section 15(b)(11) of the Exchange Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ 15 U.S.C. 78o-3(k).
    \5\ 15 U.S.C. 78o(b)(11).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Rule 2-9(b) authorizes NFA's Board to require Members that meet
certain criteria established by the Board to comply with specific
enhanced supervisory requirements designed to prevent abusive sales
practices. The related Notice specifies the criteria that subject a
Member firm to the enhanced supervisory requirements and the enhanced
supervisory requirements that must be followed.\6\ Rule 2-9(b) and the
Notice \7\ also provide that a Member may seek a waiver from the
requirements from NFA's Telemarketing Procedures Waiver Committee
(``Waiver Committee''), a Board-appointed panel consisting of three
members of NFA's Business Conduct Committee or Hearing Committee.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See Notice at II (Obligations of Members Subject to Enhanced
Supervisory Requirements).
    \7\ See Notice at IV (Waiver Procedure).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As stated above, under Rule 2-9(b) and the Notice, a Member firm
with a certain number or percentage of APs who were previously employed
or associated with a Disciplined Firm is required to comply with the
enhanced supervisory requirements. The Notice also provides that any
Member with a principal who is or was a principal at another Member
that was required to comply with the enhanced supervisory requirements
must itself adopt the enhanced supervisory requirements or seek a
waiver. The Notice further provides, however, that if the principal
satisfies certain criteria in the Notice, the principal will not cause
the Member to comply with the enhanced supervisory requirements.
    NFA's Waiver Committee suggested that NFA make a minor modification
to the Notice to provide limited additional relief to a few individual
principals who the Waiver Committee believes are similarly situated to
the current exempt group of principals but who do not benefit from the
relief contemplated in creating the exemption because the principal
does not satisfy the criteria that he/she was a principal at only one
firm that was subject to the enhanced supervisory requirements. The
Waiver Committee is concerned with respect to situations where a Member
firm becomes subject to the enhanced supervisory requirements by virtue
of having a significant percentage of APs who had formerly worked at
Disciplined Firms. If a principal of that firm is also a principal of
another Member firm, then the second Member firm automatically is
subject to the enhanced supervisory requirements simultaneously with
the original firm because the second Member firm now has a principal
who is a principal of another Member (i.e., the first Member) that is
subject to the enhanced supervisory requirements. There have been
several instances where both Members have successfully petitioned the
Waiver Committee for full waivers; however, the principals of those
Members do not qualify for the current exemption because they have been
principals of more than one such Member subject to the enhanced
supervisory requirements.
    The Waiver Committee requested that NFA modify the exemption to
eliminate the requirement that the principal could only have been a
principal of one firm that has been subject to the enhanced supervisory
requirements and replace it with the requirement that the most recent
firm in the principal's history that was subject to the enhanced
supervisory requirements either had received a full waiver from those
requirements or had abided by the requirements for two years and is no
longer subject to the requirements. The proposed amendments do not
eliminate any of the other requirements including that the individual
principal must never have been personally subject to CFTC or NFA
disciplinary action or a principal or an AP of a current Disciplined
Firm; and that no firm in the principal's history that was subject to
the enhanced supervisory requirements has become subject to a sales
practice or promotional material based disciplinary action by NFA or
the CFTC since becoming subject to the enhanced supervisory
requirements.
2. Statutory Basis
    NFA believes that the proposed rule change is authorized by, and
consistent with, Section 15A(k)(2)(B) of the Exchange Act. That section
sets out requirements for rules of a futures

association, registered under Section 17 of the Commodity Exchange Act,
that is a registered national securities association for the limited
purpose of regulating the activities of members who are registered as
brokers or dealers in security futures products under Section 15(b)(11)
of the Exchange Act. Under Section 15A(k)(2)(B), the rules of such a
limited purpose national securities association must be designed to
prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to promote just
and equitable principles of trade, and, in general, to protect
investors and the public interest in connection with security futures
products in a manner reasonably comparable to the rules of a registered
national securities association applicable to securities futures
products. NFA believes Rule 2-9(b) and the Notice meet these
requirements by imposing enhanced supervisory requirements on Members
that meet criteria that NFA's Board has determined indicates a greater
potential for sales practice fraud to occur. The proposed rule change
does not diminish the effectiveness of Rule 2-9(b) and the Notice but
merely extends relief to certain principals whose background the Board
has determined do not raise the supervisory concerns that Rule 2-9(b)
and the Notice were intended to address.

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

    NFA does not believe that the proposed rule change would impose any
burden on competition. The amendments merely extend existing relief to
certain individual principals whose backgrounds the Board has
determined do not raise the supervisory concerns that Rule 2-9(b) and
the Notice were intended to address.

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

    NFA did not publish the rule changes to its membership for comment.
NFA did not receive comment letters concerning the rule changes.

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

    The proposed rule change is not effective because the CFTC has not
yet determined that review of the proposed rule change is not
necessary.
    At any time within 60 days of the date of effectiveness of the
proposed rule change, the Commission, after consultation with the CFTC,
may summarily abrogate the proposed rule change and require that the
proposed rule change be refiled in accordance with the provisions of
Section 19(b)(1) of the Exchange Act.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-NFA-2014-05 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NFA-2014-05. 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 such filing also will be available
for inspection and copying at the principal office of NFA. 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 publicly available. All
submissions should refer to File Number SR-NFA-2014-05 and should be
submitted on or before July 30, 2014.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(73).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Jill M. Peterson,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2014-15960 Filed 7-8-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: July 28, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 145)]
[Notices]
[Page 42888-42889]
[DOCID:fr28jy06-113]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Sunshine Act Meeting

    Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the
Government in the Sunshine Act, Pub. L. 94-409, that the Securities and
Exchange Commission will hold the following meeting during the week of
July 31, 2006:
    A closed meeting will be held on Tuesday, August 1, 2006 at 2 p.m.
    Commissioners, Counsel to the Commissioners, the Secretary to the
Commission, and recording secretaries will attend the closed meeting.
Certain staff members who have an interest in the matters may also be
present.
    The General Counsel of the Commission, or his designee, has
certified that, in his opinion, one or more of the exemptions set forth
in 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(3), (5), (7), (9)(B), (10) and 17 CFR
200.402(a)(3), (5), (7), (9)(ii),

and (10) permit consideration of the scheduled matters at the closed
meeting.
    Commissioner Atkins, as duty officer, voted to consider the items
listed for the closed meeting in closed session.
    The subject matter of the closed meeting scheduled for Tuesday,
August 1, 2006 will be:
    Formal orders of investigation;
    Institution and settlement of injunctive actions;
    Institution and settlement of administrative proceedings of an
enforcement nature;
    A litigation mater; and
    An adjudicatory matter.
    At times, changes in Commission priorities require alterations in
the scheduling of meeting items.
    For further information and to ascertain what, if any, matters have
been added, deleted or postponed, please contact:
    The Office of the Secretary at<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: July 25, 2006.
Jill M. Peterson,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 06-6570 Filed 7-25-06; 4:48 pm]

BILLING CODE 8010-01-M