[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 69 (Tuesday, April 11, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Pages 21739-21741]
[FR Doc No: 2023-07521]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

[Docket No. NHTSA-2022-0108]

Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission to the
Office of Management and Budget for Review and Approval; Request for
Comment; Older Driver Rearview Video Systems

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

ACTION: Notice and request for comments on a reinstatement of
previously approved information collection.

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

SUMMARY: In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA),
this notice announces that the Information Collection Request (ICR)
summarized below will be submitted to the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB) for review and approval. The ICR describes the nature of
the information collection and its expected burden. NHTSA invites
public comments about our intention to request approval from the Office
of Management and Budget (OMB) for a reinstatement with modification of
a previously approved information collection request exploring older
drivers' use of rearview video systems (backing cameras). A Federal
Register Notice with a 60-day comment period soliciting comments on the
following information collection was published. NHTSA received comments
from one organization, which we address below.

DATES: Comments must be submitted on or before May 11, 2023.

ADDRESSES: Written comments and recommendations for the proposed
information collection, including suggestions for reducing burden,
should be submitted to the Office of Management and Budget at
www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain. To find this particular information
collection, select ``Currently under Review--Open for Public Comment''
or use the search function.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For additional information or access
to background documents, contact Kathy Sifrit, Ph.D., Office of
Behavioral Safety Research (NPD-320),<PHONE_NUMBER>, National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration, W46-472, U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590. Please
identify the relevant collection of information by referring to its OMB
Control Number.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Under the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), a
Federal agency must receive approval from the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB) before it collects certain information from the public and
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. In compliance with these requirements, this notice announces
that the following information collection request will be submitted
OMB.

    Title: Older Driver Rearview Video Systems.
    OMB Control Number: 2127-0731.
    Form Number: Forms 1398 and 1399.
    Type of Request: Reinstatement with modification of a previously
approved information collection (OMB Control No. 2127-0731).
    Type of Review Requested: Regular.
    Length of Approval Requested: Three years (except for certain
research projects).
    Summary of the Collection of Information: The National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration of the U.S. Department of Transportation
is seeking approval to reinstate an information collection to recruit
120 older licensed drivers, 60 between ages 60 and 69 and 60 age 70 and
older, for a one-time voluntary research study to assess whether
training on the use of Rear Video Systems (RVS) improves the ability of
older drivers to back safely. NHTSA expects 180 volunteers will
complete screening over the telephone or in-person to determine their
eligibility for the study. Recruiting participants for the reinstated
collection has an estimated burden of 15 hours (five minutes per
respondent). NHTSA expects that among the 180 who are screened, 120
will be eligible and willing to participate in the study. These 120
participants will complete informed consent forms (15 minutes per
participant or 30 burden hours), participate in either RVS training or
an equal-time placebo group (30 minutes per participant or 60 burden
hours), and complete a series of backing tasks on a closed test-track
(60 minutes per participant or 120 burden hours). The overall expected
burden for screening (15 hours) and the experiment (210 hours) is 225
hours.
    NHTSA previously obtained clearance from OMB to conduct the
information collections for this one-time study. However, NHTSA was
unable to complete the study as a result of the public health emergency
in 2020 and 2021. The requested reinstatement is 125 fewer burden hours
than the previous information collection request because the
reinstatement is for 120 rather than 200 participants. The
reinstatement requests fewer burden hours because NHTSA previously
completed the first part of this collection by observing older drivers
while backing for the development of training. NHTSA is now requesting
a reinstatement to allow it to complete the second part, assessing the
effects of the training. NHTSA will use the information to produce a
technical report containing summary statistics and tables. No
identifying information or individual responses will be reported. The
technical report will be made available to a variety of audiences
interested in improving highway safety through the agency website and
the National Transportation Library. This project involves approval by
an institutional review board, which the contractor will obtain before
contacting potential participants. This collection will inform the
development of behavioral safety countermeasures to improve older
driver safety, particularly older driver training.
    Description of the Need for the Information and Proposed Use of the
Information: Older adults comprise an increasing proportion of the
driving population.\1\ The independent mobility that driving confers
improves older adults' access to the goods and services they need and
enhances their ability to take part in community and family activities
that support quality of life. New vehicle technologies, like RVS, may
help compensate for some age-related deficits and keep older adults
driving safely.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ National Center for Statistics and Analysis. (2022, July).
2020 older population fact sheet. (Traffic Safety Facts. Report No.
DOT HS 813 341). National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.
Available at https://crashstats.nhtsa.dot.gov/Api/Public/ViewPublication/812372.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The theory underpinning the assumption that older drivers have an
elevated safety risk associated with backing crashes is based upon
known age-related deficits. Many older drivers have musculoskeletal
difficulties that limit their ability to turn and scan behind the
vehicle. For example, Chen et al. (2015) found that older drivers had
less neck and trunk rotation and were less successful in detecting
targets requiring body rotation in a driving simulator.\2\ Aging also
diminishes the visual search, visual information processing, and
divided attention capabilities needed to be alert to possible conflicts
from cross traffic when backing from a driveway or parking space.
Deficits in visual scanning among older drivers have been reported in
numerous studies. For example, Pollatsek et al. (2012) found that older
drivers were less likely to focus their visual attention on areas with
potential hazards than younger experienced drivers at intersections in
a simulator and on-the-road.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Chen, K. B., Xu, X., Lin J. H., & Radwin, R. G. (2015).
``Evaluation of older driver head functional range of motion using
portable immersive virtual reality.'' Experimental gerontology, 70,
150-156. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.exger.2015.08.010.
    \3\ Pollatsek, A., Romoser, M. R., & Fisher, D. L. (2012).
``Identifying and remediating failures of selective attention in
older drivers.'' Current directions in psychological science, 21(1),
3-7. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721411429459.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    An analysis of NHTSA's Non-Traffic Surveillance from 2012 through
2014 indicated that older drivers were involved in an estimated 19,000
backing crashes a year that resulted in death or injury. This
represented 22% of all non-traffic backing crashes. Older drivers
represented 17% of all licensed drivers but accounted for 22% of all
non-traffic backing crashes during this period, indicating an over-
representation in non-traffic backing crashes per licensed driver.
Studies have found that the most frequent error among older drivers
involved in crashes is failure to yield the right-of-way. For example,
Cicchino and McCartt (2015) found that ``the most frequent error made
by crash-involved drivers ages 70 and older was inadequate
surveillance, which included looking but not seeing and failing to
look.'' \4\ The fact that older drivers are at elevated risk of crashes
due to inadequate surveillance compared to younger drivers may explain
their over-representation in backing crashes per licensed driver.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Cicchino, J. B. and McCartt, A. T. (2015). ``Critical older
driver errors in a sample of serious U.S. crashes.'' Accident
analysis and prevention, 80, 211-219. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aap.2015.04.015.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    RVS is expected to offer more potential benefits to older drivers
than younger drivers because older drivers have more room for
improvement due to the age-related decline in the ability to rotate
one's body. It may also compensate for the fact that older drivers are
more likely to have inadequate surveillance or scanning than younger
drivers. A recently published article addressed this question. Cichino
(2017) found that RVS reduced backing crash involvement among drivers
70 and older by 36% compared to 16% for drivers younger than 70, but
the difference was not statistically significant. The study also found
that backing sensors reduced backing crash involvement for drivers 70
and older by 38% compared to no effectiveness for drivers younger than
70, which was a statistically significant difference.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Cichino, J. B. (2017). ``Effects of rearview cameras and
rear parking sensors on police-reported backing crashes.'' Traffic
injury prevention, 18(8), 859-865. https://doi.org/10.1080/15389588.2017.1317758.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

60-Day Notice

    A Federal Register notice with a 60-day comment period soliciting
public comments on the following information collection was published
on 01/12/2023 (88 FR 2168-70). One organization, the National
Association of Mutual Insurance Companies (NAMIC) submitted comments.
NAMIC noted

support for the project, specifically that the proposed information
collection is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of
NHTSA and indicated that there is every reason the believe that the
results of the study will have great practical utility. NAMIC went on
to recommend that NHTSA ``continue to seek input from the insurance
industry,'' as they may be able to provide input on metric, performance
indicators, and measures of success. They added that NAMIC would be
interested in working with NHTSA on these areas of study and analysis.
While NHTSA has not worked with NAMIC on this project, under Part 1 of
the project, the contractors conducted a literature review of research
in older driver safety that focused on performance in backing
maneuvers. That review included research from the Insurance Institute
for Highway Safety. This review, combined with analyses of older
adults' backing performance collected in Part 1 of the project informed
both the training and data collection protocols.
    Affected Public: The potential respondent universe is comprised of
all residents of the New River Valley and Roanoke Valley regions in
Virginia who are age 60 and older. From this universe, the new data
collection screening questionnaire will be administered to an estimated
180 potential participants to qualify a total sample of 120 volunteer
drivers, 60 between ages 60 and 69 and 60 who are 70 and older.
    Estimated Number of Respondents: The study anticipates screening
180 potential participants to obtain 120 older drivers who meet study
inclusion criteria. NHTSA expects to collect information either over
the telephone or in-person from up to 180 potential participants to
determine their eligibility for the study. Based upon previous research
experience in the study area, an estimated 120 potential participants
(65% of those who respond to screener questions) will be eligible and
interested. The 120 participants are expected to consent and complete
the study.
    Frequency: This study is a one-time information collection, and
there will be no recurrence.
    Number of Responses: 180.
    Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 225 hours.
    Estimated Total Annual Burden Cost: $6,558.
    The contractor will use a screening questionnaire (Form 1398) to
identify 120 drivers (60 between ages 60 and 69 and 60 age 70 and
older) who are properly qualified and choose to participate in the
study. Participants will answer the screening questionnaire items
either over the phone or in person to determine if they qualify for the
study. Respondents are expected to take an estimated average of 5
minutes to complete the initial screening resulting in 15 burden hours
for screening up to 180 potential participants. It is estimated that
65% of those who begin the screening process will be eligible and
interested in participating. As such, we anticipate screening up to 180
individuals to recruit an estimated 120 potential participants for the
consenting process. The consenting process includes an overview of the
study and an explanation of the form (Form 1399). Respondents are
expected to take an average of 15 minutes for the consenting process
including reviewing and completing the form resulting in 30 burden
hours. The 120 participants will complete study activities with an
estimated burden of 90 minutes per participant for a total estimated
burden of 180 hours.
    Table 1 describes the calculation of the estimated burden hours for
a total of 225 annual hours. To calculate the opportunity cost to
participants in this study, NHTSA used the average (mean) hourly
earnings from employers in all industry sectors in the State of
Virginia, which the Bureau of Labor Statistics lists at $28.92.\6\
NHTSA estimated the opportunity cost for each form (and associated
study activities) and arrived at a total opportunity cost of $6,558.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ May 2021. See https://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes_va.htm#00-0000.

                                            Table 1--Burden Estimates
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                      Burden
                                                   (minutes) per        New          New total       New total
                                                    respondent      respondents    burden hours     labor costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Form 1398:
    Telephone Screening.........................               5             180              15            $434
Form 1399
    Informed Consent............................              15             120              30            $868
    Backing Performance Evaluation..............              60             120             120          $3,470
    Training Protocol/Placebo...................              30             120              60          $1,735
                                                 ---------------------------------------------------------------
        Total Form 1399.........................  ..............  ..............             210          $6,073
        Total estimated burden hours............  ..............  ..............             225          $6,558
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Public Comments Invited: You are asked to comment on any aspects of
this information collection, including (a) whether the proposed
collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of
the functions of the agency, including whether the information will
have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of
the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the
validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (c) ways to enhance
the quality, utility and clarity of the information to be collected;
and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on
respondents, including the use of appropriate automated, electronic,
mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms
of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of
responses.
    Authority: The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995; 44 U.S.C. Chapter
35, as amended; 49 CFR 1.49; and DOT Order 1351.29A.

    Issued in Washington, DC.
Nanda Narayanan Srinivasan,
Associate Administrator, Research and Program Development.
[FR Doc. 2023-07521 Filed 4-10-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 81 (Thursday, April 26, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 18364-18366]
[FR Doc No: 2018-08733]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-83085; File No. SR-MRX-2018-12]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Nasdaq MRX, LLC; Notice of Filing
and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Incorporate by
Reference The Nasdaq Stock Market LLC's Consolidated Audit Trail Rules
Into the Rules of Nasdaq MRX

April 20, 2018.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that
on April 10, 2018, Nasdaq MRX, LLC (``MRX'' or ``Exchange'') filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'') the proposed
rule change as described in Items I and II below, which Items have been
prepared by the Exchange. The Commission is publishing this notice to
solicit comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange proposes to incorporate by reference The Nasdaq Stock
Market LLC's (``Nasdaq'') rule at General 7, entitled ``Consolidated
Audit Trail Compliance'' into MRX's General 7.
    The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's
website at http://nasdaqmrx.cchwallstreet.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 Exchange included statements
concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and
discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The
text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in
Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in
sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such
statements.

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to incorporate by reference Nasdaq's rule at
General 7, entitled ``Consolidated Audit Trail Compliance'' into MRX's
General 7. The rule sets are identical.\3\ MRX proposes to remove the
current rule text from General 7 and replace that rule text with the
following text: \4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 82601 (January 30,
2018), 83 FR 4949 (February 2, 2018) (SR-Phlx-2018-11); 82604
(January 30, 2018), 83 FR 5154 (February 5, 2018) (SR-NASDAQ-2018-
007); 82597 (January 30, 2018), 83 FR 4942 (February 2, 2018) (SR-
BX-2018-007); 82599 (January 30, 2017), 83 FR 4947 (February 2,
2018) (SR-ISE-2018-09); 82598 (January 30, 2018), 83 FR 4936
(February 2, 2018) (SR-GEMX-2018-02); and 82600 (January 30, 2018),
83 FR 4934 (February 2, 2018) (SR-MRX-2018-03).
    \4\ MRX shall include a hyperlink to Nasdaq's General 7 for ease
of reference.

    The rules contained in The Nasdaq Stock Market LLC General 7, as
such rules may be in effect from time to time (the ``General 7
Rules''), are hereby incorporated by reference into this Nasdaq MRX
General 7, and are thus Nasdaq MRX Rules and thereby applicable to
Nasdaq MRX Members. Nasdaq MRX Members shall comply with the General
7 Rules as though such rules were fully set forth herein. All
defined terms, including any variations thereof, contained in the
General 7 Rules shall be read to refer to the Nasdaq MRX related
meaning of such term. Solely by way of example, and not in
limitation or in exhaustion: the defined term ``Exchange'' in the
General 7 Rules shall be read to refer to the Nasdaq MRX Exchange;
the defined term ``Rule'' in the General 7 Rules shall be read to
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
refer to the Nasdaq MRX Rule.

    Should any rules which impact trading behavior be added to the
Consolidated Audit Trail Compliance Rules in Nasdaq General 7 in the
future, those rules shall not become subject to the incorporation by
reference and shall be placed elsewhere within MRX's Rulebook. The
incorporations by reference of Nasdaq General 7 into MRX's General 7
Rule are regulatory in nature.\5\ The Exchange notes that as a
condition of an exemption, which the Exchange will request and will
need to be approved by the Commission,\6\ MRX

agrees to provide written notice to its members whenever Nasdaq
proposes a change to its General 7 Rule.\7\ Such notice will alert MRX
members to the proposed Nasdaq rule change and give them an opportunity
to comment on the proposal. MRX will similarly inform its members in
writing when the SEC approves any such proposed change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ The General 7 Rules are categories of rules that are not
trading rules. See 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(76) (contemplating such
requests). In addition, several other SROs incorporate by reference
certain regulatory rules of another SRO and have received from the
Commission similar exemptions from Section 19(b) of the Exchange
Act. See e.g., Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 57478 (March 12,
2008), 73 FR 14521 (March 18, 2008), 53128 (January 13, 2006), 71 FR
3550 (January 23, 2006); 49260 (February 17, 2004), 69 FR 8500
(February 24, 2004).
    \6\ The Exchange will request an exemption pursuant to its
authority under Section 36 of the Exchange Act of 1934 (``Act'') and
Rule 0-12\6\ thereunder, from the Section 19(b) rule filing
requirements to separately file a proposed rule change to amend MRX
General 7.
    \7\ MRX will provide such notice via a posting on the same
website location where MRX posts its own rule filings pursuant to
Rule 19b-4 within the timeframe require by such Rule. The website
posting will include a link to the location on the Nasdaq website
where the applicable proposed rule change is posted.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Implementation
    The Exchange proposes that this rule change become operative at
such time as it receives approval for an exemption from the Securities
and Exchange Commission, pursuant to its authority under Section 36 of
the Exchange Act of 1934 (``Act'') and Rule 0-12 \8\ thereunder, from
the Section 19(b) rule filing requirements to separately file a
proposed rule change to amend MRX General 7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See 17 CFR 240.0-12; Exchange Act Release No. 39624
(February 5, 1998), 63 FR 8101 (February 18, 1998).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section
6(b) of the Act,\9\ in general, and furthers the objectives of Section
6(b)(5) of the Act,\10\ in particular, in that it is designed to
promote just and equitable principles of trade, to remove impediments
to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national
market system, and, in general to protect investors and the public
interest, by consolidating its rules into a single rule set. The
Exchange intends to also file similar proposed rule changes for the
Nasdaq PHLX LLC; Nasdaq GEMX, LLC; Nasdaq ISE, LLC; and Nasdaq MRX, LLC
markets so that the General 7 Rules which govern Consolidated Audit
Trail Compliance are conformed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \10\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Incorporating by reference the Nasdaq General 7 Rules into the MRX
General 7 Rules will provide an easy reference for Members seeking to
comply with Consolidated Audit Trail on multiple markets. As noted, the
Exchange intends to file similar proposed rule changes for other
affiliated markets so that Nasdaq General 7 is the source document for
all Nasdaq Consolidated Audit Trail rules. The Exchange notes that the
current rule is not changing and MRX members will be required to
continue to comply with the General 7 Rules as though such rules are
fully set forth in MRX's Rulebook. The Exchange desires to conform its
rules and locate those rules within the same location in each Rulebook
to provide Members the ability to quickly locate rules.

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 not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The Exchange believes that this
rule change does not impose an undue burden on competition because MRX
is merely incorporating by reference the rules of Nasdaq's General 7
into its own Rulebook. The current General 7 is not being amended and
therefore no Member is impacted.

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

    No written comments were either solicited or received.

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

    Because the foregoing 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, it has become
effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act \11\ and
subparagraph (f)(6) of Rule 19b-4 thereunder.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(iii).
    \12\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). In addition, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii)
requires the Exchange to give the Commission written notice of the
Exchange's intent to file the proposed rule change, along with a
brief description and 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 satisfied this requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule
change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule
change if it appears to the Commission that such action is: (i)
Necessary or appropriate in the public interest; (ii) for the
protection of investors; or (iii) otherwise in furtherance of the
purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the
Commission shall institute proceedings to determine whether the
proposed rule should be approved or disapproved.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and
arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule
change 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 protected]. Please include
File Number SR-MRX-2018-12 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-MRX-2018-12. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's internet website (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml).
Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written
statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with
the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed
rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those
that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions
of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for website viewing and printing in
the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC
20549, on official business days between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and
3:00 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available for inspection
and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All comments
received will be posted without change. Persons submitting comments are
cautioned that we do not redact or edit personal identifying
information from comment submissions. You should submit only
information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions
should refer to File Number SR-MRX-2018-12 and should be submitted on
or before May 17, 2018.

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

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

Eduardo A. Aleman,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2018-08733 Filed 4-25-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 247 (Friday, December 23, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 94437-94440]
[FR Doc No: 2016-30945]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

(Release No. 34-79599; File No. SR-NYSEMKT-2016-120]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE MKT LLC; Notice of Filing of
Proposed Rule Change Amending Rule 971.1NY and To Make Permanent the
Aspects of Customer Best Execution Auction That Are Subject to a Pilot

December 19, 2016.
    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 December 16, 2016, NYSE MKT LLC (the ``Exchange'' or
``NYSE MKT'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I, II,
and III below, which Items have been prepared by the 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 amend Rule 971.1NY and to make permanent
the aspects of Customer Best Execution Auction (``CUBE'') that are
subject to a pilot, as amended. 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 Exchange proposes to amend Rule 971.1NY to make permanent the
aspects of Customer Best Execution Auction (``CUBE'') that are subject
to a pilot. Currently, the provisions of Rule 971.1NY that govern
execution of CUBE Orders of fewer than 50 contracts are operating on a
pilot basis.\4\ The Exchange proposes to make these provisions
permanent and introduce an additional scenario when the Exchange would
reject a CUBE Order for fewer than 50 contracts.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See Commentary .01 to Rule 971.1NY and Rules
971.1NY(b)(1)(B) and (b)(8).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Background
    Rule 971.1NY sets forth an electronic crossing mechanism for
single-leg

orders with a price improvement auction on the Exchange, referred to as
the CUBE (or the ``CUBE Auction'').\5\ The CUBE Auction, which was
approved in April 2014, is designed to provide price improvement for
paired orders of any size.\6\ Two aspects of the CUBE were approved on
a pilot basis--Rule 971.1NY(b)(1)(B), which establishes the permissible
range of executions for CUBE Auctions for fewer than 50 contracts; and
Rule 971.1NY(b)(8), which establishes that the minimum size for a CUBE
Auction is one contract (together, the ``CUBE Pilot'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See generally Rule 971.1NY (Electronic Cross Transactions).
    \6\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 72025 (April 25,
2014), 79 FR 24779 (May 1, 2014) (NYSEMKT-2014-17) (the ``CUBE
Approval Order'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To commence an Auction, an ATP Holder (``Initiating Participant'')
may electronically submit for execution a limit order it represents as
agent on behalf of a public customer, broker dealer, or any other
entity (``CUBE Order''). The Initiating Participant would agree to
guarantee the execution of the CUBE Order by submitting a contra-side
order representing principal interest or interest it has solicited to
trade with the CUBE Order at a specified price (the ``single stop
price'') or by utilizing auto-match or auto-match limit.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See Rule 971.1NY(c)(1)(A)-(C). In addition, CUBE provides
for the automatic execution, under certain conditions, of a crossing
transaction where there is a public customer order in the same
options series on each side.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Rule 971.1NY(b)(1) sets forth the permissible range of executions
for a CUBE Order.\8\ Pursuant to the CUBE Pilot, a CUBE Order for fewer
than 50 contracts is subject to tighter ranges of execution than larger
CUBE Orders to maximize price improvement.\9\ Specifically, if the CUBE
Order is for fewer than 50 contracts, the range of permissible
execution will be equal to or better than the National Best Bid/Offer
(``NBBO''), provided that such price must be at least one cent better
than any displayed interest in the Exchange's Consolidated Book.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ Subject to specified exceptions, a CUBE Order to buy (sell)
may execute at prices equal to or between the initiating price as
the upper (lower) bound and the National Best Bid (``NBB'')
(National Best Offer (``NBO'')) as the lower (upper) bound. See Rule
971.1NY(b).
    \9\ See Rule 971.1NY(b)(1)(B). See also Rule 971.1NY(b)(8) (also
part of the CUBE Pilot, providing that the minimum size for a CUBE
Auction is one contract).
    \10\ See Rule 971.1NY(b)(1)(B).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The CUBE Pilot was initially approved for a one-year pilot, and has
since been extended for three subsequent years.\11\ Pursuant to
Commentary .01 to Rule 971.1NY, the CUBE Pilot would, if not amended or
made permanent, end on January 18, 2017.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See CUBE Approval Order, supra, note 6. The CUBE Pilot was
subsequently extended, most recently until January 18, 2017, to
align the expiration of the pilot period with that of other
competing options exchange that offer electronic price improvement
auctions similar to the CUBE. See Securities Exchange Act Release
Nos. 74695 (April 9, 2015), 80 FR 20274 (April 15, 2015) (SR-
NYSEMKT-2015-28); 75460 (July 15, 2015), 80 FR 43141 (July 21, 2015)
(SR-NYSEMKT-2015-48); 78324 (July 14, 2016), 81 FR 47196 (July 20,
2016) (SR-NYSEMKT-2016-69).
    \12\ In connection with the CUBE Pilot, the Exchange has
provided specified data to the Commission to provide supporting
evidence that, among other things, there is meaningful competition
for all size orders and that there is an active and liquid market
functioning on the Exchange outside of the CUBE Auction. See CUBE
Approval Order, supra note 6, 79 FR at 24785-86, fn. 94-95;
Commentary .01 to Rule 971.1NY. See also Securities Exchange Act
Release No. 78324 (July 14, 2016), 81 FR 47196 (July 20, 2016) (SR-
NYSEMKT-2016-69).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Proposal To Make CUBE Pilot Permanent
    The Exchange implemented the CUBE Auction to provide an electronic
crossing mechanism for single-leg orders with a price improvement
auction to create tighter markets and ensure that each order receives
the best possible price. The Exchange believes that the CUBE Pilot
attracts order flow and promotes competition and price improvement
opportunities for CUBE Orders of fewer than 50 contracts. The Exchange
therefore proposes to make permanent the CUBE Pilot before it expires
on January 18, 2017.
    In connection with the proposal to make the CUBE Pilot permanent,
the Exchange proposes to modify Rule 971.1NY to introduce an additional
scenario when a CUBE Order for fewer than 50 contracts would either be
rejected or require price improvement. Currently, Rule 971.1NY(b)(6)
provides that CUBE Orders for fewer than 50 contracts that are
submitted when the BBO is $0.01 wide will be rejected. The Exchange
proposes to amend this rule to provide that CUBE Orders for fewer than
50 contracts entered when the NBBO is $0.01 wide would be rejected
unless they are guaranteed a penny of price improvement. To reflect
this change, the Exchange proposes to amend Rule 971.NY(b)(6) to
provide that CUBE Orders for fewer than 50 contracts would be rejected
when (A) the BBO is $0.01 wide (i.e., the current requirement); or (B)
the NBBO is $0.01 wide, unless the Initiating Participant guarantees
the execution of the CUBE Order to buy (sell) at a price that is equal
to the NBO minus one cent (NBB plus one cent), utilizing a single stop
price, auto-match, or auto-match limit as specified in paragraphs
(c)(1)(A)-(C) of Rule 971.1NY. Accordingly, as proposed, the Exchange
would reject a CUBE Order for fewer than 50 contracts when the NBBO is
$0.01 wide unless the Initiating Participant guarantees a penny of
price improvement.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ The proposal would not alter the separate price improvement
requirement set forth in Rule 971.1NY(b)(1)(B), which establishes
the range of permissible execution prices for CUBE Orders of fewer
than 50 contracts will be equal to or better than the NBBO and at
least one cent better than any displayed interest in the Exchange's
Consolidated Book. See also Rule 971.1NY(b)(2)-(9) (delineating
reasons CUBE Orders would be rejected, none of which would be
altered by this proposal).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes this proposal would further the goal of the
CUBE Auction, as the CUBE Order would be ``guaranteed an execution
price of at least NBBO at the time the CUBE Auction commences and,
moreover, would be given an opportunity for price improvement beyond
the NBBO by being exposed to ATP Holders during the CUBE Auction.''
\14\ The proposal would guarantee price improvement in penny-wide
markets by requiring the Initiating Participant to guarantee to improve
the contra-side NBBO when the spread is $0.01 wide at the time the CUBE
Order for fewer than 50 contracts is submitted--such that the
Initiating Participant would agree to buy at the bid or sell at the
offer.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ See CUBE Approval Order, supra note 6 at 79 FR 24779, at
24787.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In connection with the proposal to make permanent the CUBE Pilot
(i.e., Rules 971.1NY(b)(1)(B) and 971.1NY(b)(8)), the Exchange proposes
to delete Commentary .01 to Rule 971.1NY, which describes the CUBE
Pilot and the Exchange's associated obligation to produce data, to hold
this paragraph as ``Reserved.'' \15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ See proposed Commentary .01 to Rule 971.1NY. The Exchange
notes that it would retain the text of Rules 971.1NY(b)(1)(B) and
971.1NY(b)(8).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange has analyzed the data gathered during the CUBE Pilot
(the ``CUBE Data'') and believes the CUBE Data indicates that there is
meaningful competition in CUBE Auctions for all size orders, regardless
of the size of the order or the bid/ask differential of the NBBO.\16\
Specifically, between January and June 2015, a total of 4,493,429
contracts were executed in CUBE Auctions. Market Makers and other
participants submitted competitive bids and offers during the CUBE
Auction's Response Time Interval, indicating interest in participating
in CUBE

Auction trades. In addition, the Exchange believes the allocation of
orders executed in CUBE Auctions--either at a single price or multiple
prices--supports competitive bidding and offering.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ See Exhibit 3 (summary of the CUBE Data from January--June
2015).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange also believes that the CUBE Data reveals that there is
an active and liquid market functioning on the Exchange outside of the
CUBE Auction,\17\ Competitive bidding and offering occurs outside of
CUBE Auction and participants can submit bids/offers at improved prices
or join a bid or offer (thus improving liquidity at that price)
regardless of the bid/ask differential of the NBBO.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ From January 2015 through June 2015, the Exchange executed
a total of 152,193,516 contracts outside of CUBE Auctions, which the
Exchange believes is indicative of an active and liquid market
functioning on the Exchange outside of the CUBE Auctions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Although the Exchange continues to believe that the CUBE Auction
provides opportunities for price improvement of CUBE Orders (i.e., the
agency order) with a size of less than 50 contracts when the NBBO has a
bid/ask differential of $0.01 (e.g.because the market conditions may
change during the CUBE Auction), the data have not demonstrated
significant price improvement in this narrow circumstance. Between
January and June 2015, a total of 171,822 contracts were executed in
CUBE Auctions for fewer than 50 contracts when the NBBO had a bid/ask
differential of $0.01. Only 1,660 of those contracts received price
improvement of $0.01. Thus, consistent with the Exchange's view that
price improvement auctions should provide improvement, particularly for
small orders, the Exchange is proposing to require that Initiating
Participants guarantee price improvement for CUBE Orders for 50 or
fewer contracts in such market conditions.
    Further, the Exchange notes that CUBE Auctions for fewer than 50
contracts have served as a valuable tool in providing price improvement
when the NBBO has a bid/ask differential of greater than $0.01. For
example, for CUBE Auctions of this size, the CUBE Data indicates that
when the NBBO has a bid/ask differential between $0.02 and $0.05,
contracts executed in CUBE Auctions received on average a price
improvement of $0.0114. In wider markets (i.e., bid/ask differentials
greater than $0.05), contracts executed in CUBE Auctions received, on
average, price improvement of more than $0.0759.
    In the CUBE Approval Order, the Commission stated that ``the
Exchange's proposal [for the CUBE Pilot] should provide small customer
orders with the opportunity for price improvement in a manner that is
consistent with the Act.'' \18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ See CUBE Approval Order, supra note 6, 79 FR at 24787.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Based on a review of the CUBE Data, the Exchange believes that the
CUBE Auction, as modified herein, would allow the Exchange to continue
to provide meaningful competition for all size orders--including small
orders--as well as to continue to offer an active and liquid market
outside of the CUBE Auction. Thus, the Exchange believes it would be
beneficial to customers and to the options market to make the CUBE
Pilot permanent, as amended. Once permanent, the CUBE Auction would
continue to accept orders of fewer than 50 contracts, provided such
Orders comply with the modified CUBE rules, which should continue to
attract small orders and promote competition and price improvement
opportunities for such CUBE Orders.
Implementation
    Because of the technology changes associated with the proposed
amendment to Rule 971.1NY(b)(6), the Exchange proposes to announce the
implementation of the proposed change to the CUBE rules as well as the
change to make the CUBE Pilot permanent, via Trader Update. Pending
approval of this proposal by the Commission, the changes would be
implemented prior to the expiration of the CUBE Pilot (i.e., before
January 18, 2017).
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section
6(b) of the Act \19\ in general, and furthers the objectives of Section
6(b)(5) of the Act \20\ in particular, in that it is 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 a national market system,
and, in general, to protect investors and the public interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \20\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes the proposal to make permanent the CUBE Pilot
would remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and
open market and a national market system because the CUBE Pilot,
together with the proposal to amend CUBE herein, are reasonably
designed to create tighter markets and ensure that each order receives
the best possible price, which benefits investors by increasing
competition thereby maximizing opportunities for price improvement. In
particular, the proposal to require that Initiating Participants
guarantee improvement of $0.01 (by buying at the bid or selling at the
offer) on CUBE Orders for fewer than 50 contracts that are submitted
when the NBBO is $0.01 wide in order to participate in the CUBE
promotes just and equitable principles of trade as it would ensure that
small orders receive at least minimal price improvement, which may
encourage the submission and execution of more orders of fewer than 50
contracts in CUBE, thus providing an increased probability of price
improvement for smaller orders.
    The proposal to make permanent the CUBE Pilot would also allow the
applicable rules (Rules 971.1NY(b)(1)(B) and 971.1NY(b)(8) to remain in
effect, which would add certainty to Exchange rules and avoid any
potential investor confusion that could result from a suspension or
temporary interruption in the CUBE Pilot. Because the CUBE Pilot is
applicable to all CUBE Orders for fewer than 50 contracts, and the
requirement that the minimum size of the CUBE Auction is one contract,
the proposal to make the Pilot permanent merely acts to maintain status
quo on the Exchange, which promotes just and equitable principles of
trade and removes impediments to, and perfects the mechanism of, a free
and open market and a national market system.
    The Exchange believes the proposed rule changes promote just and
equitable principles of trade, remove impediments to and perfect the
mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system
because price improvement auctions are widely recognized by market
participants as invaluable, both as a tool to access liquidity and a
mechanism to help meet their best execution obligations. The Exchange
believes the proposed rule changes would further the ability of market
participants to carry out these strategies.
    Finally, the Exchange believes that it is subject to significant
competitive forces, as described below in the Exchange's statement
regarding the burden on competition. For these reasons, the Exchange
believes that the proposal is consistent with the Act.

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 not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The Exchange believes that
making the

CUBE Pilot permanent would continue to foster competition among
liquidity providers and maintain execution quality on the Exchange. The
CUBE Auction for small orders, as modified herein, would continue to
operate to create tighter markets and ensure that each order receives
the best possible price, which benefits investors by increasing
competition thereby maximizing opportunities for price improvement.
    The Exchange notes that it operates in a highly competitive market
in which market participants can easily direct their orders to
competing venues. In such an environment, the Exchange must continually
review, and consider adjusting the services it offers and the
requirements it imposes to remain competitive with other exchanges. For
the reasons described above, the Exchange believes that the proposed
rule change reflects this competitive environment.

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

    Within 45 days of the date of publication of this notice in the
Federal Register or up to 90 days (i) as the Commission may designate
if it finds such longer period to be appropriate and publishes its
reasons for so finding or (ii) as to which the self-regulatory
organization consents, the Commission will:
    (A) By order approve or disapprove the proposed rule change, or
    (B) institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule
change should be disapproved.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and
arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule
change 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-NYSEMKT-2016-120 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-NYSEMKT-2016-120. This
file number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of
10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available
for inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All
comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does
not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should
submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All
submissions should refer to File Number SR-NYSEMKT-2016-120 and should
be submitted on or before January 13, 2017.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\21\
Eduardo A. Aleman,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2016-30945 Filed 12-22-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: April 16, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 73)]
[Notices]
[Page 20035-20036]
[DOCID:fr16ap10-151]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Railroad Administration

Petition for Waiver of Compliance

    In accordance with part 211 of title 49 Code of Federal Regulations
(CFR), notice is hereby given that the Federal Railroad Administration
(FRA) has received a request for a waiver of compliance from certain
requirements of its safety standards. The individual petition is
described below, including the party seeking relief, the regulatory
provisions involved, the nature of the relief being requested, and the
petitioner's arguments in favor of relief.

City of Jasper, Indiana

[Docket Number FRA-2009-0112]

    The City of Jasper, Indiana (Jasper) acquired a railroad passenger
car, number XCJI 200, built in 1947, and offers it for use in tourist/
excursion service over the Dubois County Railroad and the French Lick,
West Baden & Southern Railway. The railroad distance between Jasper and
French Lick, Indiana, is approximately 25 miles. The car is currently
equipped with automotive-type laminated glazing, which is non-compliant
with FRA safety requirements.
    Jasper petitioned FRA for a waiver of compliance from certain
provisions of the Safety Glazing Standards--Locomotives, Passenger Cars
and Cabooses, as prescribed by 49 CFR 223.15(c) Requirements for
existing passenger cars. Specifically, this waiver request applies to
only passenger car number XCJI 200 because all other cars operating on
the tourist/excursion train were built prior to 1946, and considered
``antiquated'' under Sec.  223.3 Application.
    Jasper states that the reason for the waiver request is the high
cost of compliant FRA Types I & II glazing material, and that the
automotive-type glass is similar to the glazing installed on other cars
operating over the French Lick, West Baden & Southern Railway. Further,
Jasper states in their petition, there have been no reported acts of
vandalism to the refurbished passenger cars.
    In summary, Jasper requests relief from the regulatory requirements
of 49 CFR 223.15(c) Requirements for existing passenger cars (including
the required four emergency windows) for one passenger car, built in
1947, used in tourist/excursion service at a maximum authorized speed
of 15 mph.
    Interested parties are invited to participate in these proceedings
by submitting written views, data, or comments. FRA does not anticipate
scheduling a public hearing in connection with these proceedings since
the facts do not appear to warrant a hearing. If any interested party
desires an opportunity for oral comment, they should notify FRA, in
writing, before the end of the comment period and specify the basis for
their request.
    All communications concerning these proceedings should identify the
appropriate docket number (e.g., Waiver Petition Docket Number FRA-
2009-0112) and may be submitted by any of the following methods:
     Web site: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online
instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: Docket Operations Facility, U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., W12-140, Washington, DC
20590.
     Hand Delivery: 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Room W12-140,
Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays.
    Communications received within 45 days of the date of this notice
will be considered by FRA before final action is taken. Comments
received after that date will be considered as far as practicable. All
written communications concerning these proceedings are available for
examination during regular business hours (9 a.m.-5 p.m.) at the above
facility. All documents in the public docket are also available for
inspection and copying on the Internet at the docket facility's Web
site at http://www.regulations.gov.
    Anyone is able to search the electronic form of any written
communications and comments received into any of our dockets by the
name of the individual submitting the document (or signing the
document, if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor
union, etc.). You may review DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement in
the Federal Register published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477) or at
http://www.dot.gov/privacy.html.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on April 13, 2010.
Grady C. Cothen, Jr.,
Deputy Associate Administrator for Safety Standards and Program
Development.
[FR Doc. 2010-8756 Filed 4-15-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-06-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 167 (Tuesday, August 28, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Page 52075]
[FR Doc No: 2012-21112]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Proposed Collection; Comment Request

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

Extension:
    Rule 17Ad-11; SEC File No. 270-261; OMB Control No. 3235-0274.

    Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction
Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.) (``PRA''), the Securities and
Exchange Commission (``Commission'') is soliciting comments on the
existing collection of information provided for in Rule 17Ad-11 (17 CFR
240.17Ad-11) under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78a
et seq.). The Commission plans to submit this existing collection of
information to the Office of Management and Budget (``OMB'') for
extension and approval.
    Rule 17Ad-11 requires all registered transfer agents to report to
issuers and the appropriate regulatory agency in the event that aged
record differences exceed certain dollar value thresholds. An aged
record difference occurs when an issuer's records do not agree with
those of security holders as indicated, for instance, on certificates
presented to the transfer agent for purchase, redemption or transfer.
In addition, the rule requires transfer agents to report to the
appropriate regulatory agency in the event of a failure to post
certificate detail to the master security holder file within five
business days of the time required by Rule 17Ad-10 (17 CFR 240.10).
Also, transfer agents must maintain a copy of each report prepared
under Rule 17Ad-11 for a period of three years following the date of
the report. These recordkeeping requirements assist the Commission and
other regulatory agencies with monitoring transfer agents and ensuring
compliance with the rule.
    Because the information required by Rule 17Ad-11 is already
available to transfer agents, any collection burden for small transfer
agents is minimal. Based on a review of the number of Rule 17Ad-11
reports the Commission, the Comptroller of the Currency, the Board of
Governors of the Federal Reserve System, and the Federal Deposit
Insurance Corporation received since 2009, the Commission estimates
that 10 respondents will file a total of approximately 12 reports
annually. The Commission staff estimates that, on the average, each
report requires approximately one-half hour to prepare. Therefore, the
Commission staff estimates that the total annual hourly burden to the
entire transfer agent industry is approximately six hours (30 minutes
multiplied by 12 reports). Assuming an average hourly rate of a
transfer agent staff employee of $25, the average total internal cost
of the report is $12.50. The total annual internal cost of compliance
for the approximate 10 respondents is approximately $150.00 (12 reports
x $12.50).
    Written comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed
collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of
the functions of the Commission, including whether the information
shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the Commission's
estimates of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (c)
ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to
be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of
information on respondents, including through the use of automated
collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Consideration will be given to comments and suggestions submitted in
writing within 60 days of this publication.
    The Commission may not conduct or sponsor a collection of
information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. No
person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a
collection of information subject to the PRA that does not display a
valid OMB control number.
    Please direct your written comments to: Thomas Bayer, Director/
Chief Information Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission, c/o Remi
Pavlik-Simon, 6432 General Green Way, Alexandria, VA 22312 or send an
email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
    Dated: August 22, 2012.
Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-21112 Filed 8-27-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


Page 1 of 2 March 31, 2004 MEMORANDUM TO: EPA Air Docket OAR 2003 0012 FROM: William Charmley Office of Transportation and Air Quality U. S. EPA SUBJECT: Summary of Conference Calls with the Engine Manufacturers Association, March 4 and 12, 2004 regarding Nonroad Tier 4 Proposal On March 4 and March 12, 2004, representatives from EPA and the Engine Manufacturers Association ( EMA) participated in a series of conference call to discuss EPA's nonroad diesel Tier 4 proposal. A list of the participants for each of these calls is attached.

The following topics were discussed during each conference call;

March 4, 2004 Conference Call

averaging, banking and trading provisions for nonroad diesel engines;

carry over provisions for under the averaging, banking, and trading program's alternative family emission limit caps;

defect reporting requirements for engine companies March 12, 2004 Conference Call

defect reporting requirements for engine companies attachments: Attendees List Page 2 of 2 Attachment: Attendees List EPA Conference Call with Engine Manufacturers Association, March 4, 2004 EMA Member Attendees Jed Mandel, EMA EPA Attendees Chet France, Assessment & Standards Division, Office of Transportation & Air Quality Bill Charmley, Assessment & Standards Division, Office of Transportation & Air Quality EPA Conference Call with Engine Manufacturers Association, March 12, 2004 EMA Member Attendees Jed Mandel, EMA EPA Attendees Alan Stout, Assessment & Standards Division, Office of Transportation & Air Quality Bill Charmley, Assessment & Standards Division, Office of Transportation & Air Quality


[Federal Register: December 4, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 232)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 68072-68075]
[DOCID:fr04de07-7]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R07-OAR-2007-1055; FRL-8502-2]

Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; State of
Missouri; General Conformity

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Direct final rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is taking direct final action to approve a revision to the
Missouri State Implementation Plan (SIP) to amend the General
Conformity Rule to include de minimis emission levels for Particulate
Matter 2.5 (PM2.5). This update ensures consistency with the
Federal General Conformity Rule.

DATES: This direct final rule will be effective February 4, 2008,
without further notice, unless EPA receives adverse comment by January
3, 2008. If adverse comment is received, EPA will publish a timely
withdrawal of the direct final rule in the Federal Register informing
the public that the rule will not take effect.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R07-
OAR-2007-1055, by one of the following methods:

    1. http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line instructions for

submitting comments.
    2. E-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    3. Mail: Barbara Shepard, Environmental Protection Agency, Region
7, Air Planning and Development Branch, 901 North 5th Street, Kansas
City, KS 66101.
    4. Hand Delivery or Courier: Deliver your comments to Barbara
Shepard, Environmental Protection Agency, Region 7, Air Planning and
Development Branch, 901 North 5th Street, Kansas City, KS 66101.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R07-OAR-
2007-1055. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included
in the public docket without change and may be made available online at
http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information

provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit through http://www.regulations.gov
 or e-mail information that you consider to be CBI

or otherwise protected. The http://www.regulations.gov Web site is an

``anonymous access'' system, which means EPA will not know your
identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of
your comment. If you send an e-mail comment directly to EPA without
going through http://www.regulations.gov, your e-mail address will be

automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is
placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you
submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name
and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any
disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to
technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA
may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid
the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of
any defects or viruses.
    Docket: All documents in the electronic docket are listed in the
http://www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some

information is not publicly available, i.e., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such
as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be
publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket
materials are available either electronically in http://www.regulations.gov
 or in hard copy at the Environmental Protection

Agency, Region 7, Air Planning and Development Branch, 901 North 5th
Street, Kansas City, KS 66101. The Regional Office's official hours of
business are Monday through Friday, 8 to 4:30 excluding Federal
holidays. The interested persons wanting to examine these documents
should make an appointment with the office at least 24 hours in
advance.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Barbara Shepard at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or
by e-mail at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document whenever ``we,''
``us'' or ``our'' is used, we mean EPA. This SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION
section is arranged as follows:

I. General Conformity
II. Background for This Action
III. State Submittal and EPA Evaluation
IV. Public Comment and Final Action
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. General Conformity

    General conformity is required under section 176(c) of the Clean
Air Act (CAA or Act) to prevent the air quality impacts of Federal
actions from causing or contributing to a violation of the National
Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) or interfering with the purpose
of a SIP. Conformity currently applies to areas that are designated
nonattainment, and to certain areas that have been redesignated to
attainment after 1990 (maintenance areas).
    The general conformity regulation is found in 40 CFR part 93 and
provisions related to conformity SIPs are found in 40 CFR 51.390.

II. Background for This Action

    In the CAA, Congress recognized that actions taken by Federal
agencies could affect states', tribes', and local agencies' abilities
to attain and maintain the NAAQS. Section 176(c) of the CAA requires
Federal agencies ensure that their actions conform to the applicable
SIP for attaining and maintaining the NAAQS. EPA published the General
Conformity Regulations in 1993 to cover all Federal actions not related
to highway and mass transit funding and approval to implement a portion
of section 176(c). The General Conformity Regulations define NAAQS as
``those standards established pursuant to section 109 of the Act and
include standards for carbon monoxide, lead, nitrogen dioxide, ozone,
particulate matter, and sulfur dioxide.'' Since 1993, EPA has reviewed
and revised the NAAQS for particulate matter to include a new
PM2.5 standard (particulate matter with an aerodynamic
diameter of up to 2.5 microns). General conformity requirements are
applicable to areas designated nonattainment for this standard, and to
certain areas redesignated from nonattainment to attainment
(maintenance areas). In July 1997, EPA promulgated a new NAAQS
established pursuant to section 109 of the CAA for PM2.5. On
April 5, 2005, the EPA designated areas as nonattainment for
PM2.5, and subsequently proposed regulations to implement
the new particulate matter standard. Section 176(c)(6) states that the
conformity requirements of 176(c) do not apply to an area newly
designated nonattainment for a new NAAQS until one year after the
designation. The EPA made PM2.5 designations on April 5,
2005; thus, the applicable general conformity requirements were not
effective in these areas until April 5, 2006. The proposed rule
published on April 5, 2006, solicited comments on establishing 100 tons
per year of PM2.5 direct or precursor emissions as the de
minimis threshold for General Conformity applicability.
    On July 17, 2006, EPA published a final rule (71 FR 40420),
PM2.5 De Minimis Emission Levels for General Conformity
Applicability, which amended the regulations relating to the CAA
requirement that Federal actions conform to the appropriate state,
tribal or Federal implementation plan for attaining clean air
(``general conformity''). This action revised the tables in
subparagraphs (b)(1) and (b)(2) of 40 CFR 51.853 and 40 CFR 93.153 by
adding the de minimis emissions levels for PM2.5 and
established the previously proposed 100 tons per year as the de minimis
emission level for direct PM2.5 and each of its precursors
in nonattainment and maintenance areas.

III. State Submittal and EPA Evaluation

    The SIP revision submitted to EPA on September 10, 2007, amends the
state rule, Conformity of General Federal Actions to State
Implementation Plans (10 Code of State Regulations (CSR) 10-6.300), to
be consistent with the Federal conformity requirements described above.
This revision added de minimis emissions levels for PM2.5 to
the state's rule and updated the state's tables for de minimis
emissions levels for direct PM2.5 and the relevant
precursors in nonattainment and maintenance areas.
    This Missouri rule implements Section 176(c) of the CAA, as amended
(42 U.S.C. 7401-7671q) and regulations under 40 CFR part 51, subpart W,
with respect to conformity of general Federal actions to the applicable
implementation plan. Missouri rule 10 CSR 10-6.300 at Subsection
(2)(B)26.C,

was revised to identify precursors of PM2.5 consistent with
the Federal rule. The state rule identifies the following precursors:
Sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides (unless the state and EPA have
determined they are not significant precursors), and volatile organic
compounds and ammonia (only where the state or EPA has determined they
are significant precursors). Rule 10 CSR 10-6.300, Subsection (3)(B)
was revised to add a requirement that a conformity determination must
be made for each criteria pollutant or precursor where the total of
direct and indirect emissions of the criteria pollutant or precursor in
a nonattainment or maintenance area caused by a Federal action would
equal or exceed any of the rates in paragraph (3)(B)1. or 2. of the
rule. Subsection (3)(B) of 10 CSR 10-6.300 revised tables in
subparagraphs (B)1. and (B)2. by incorporating the Federally
established 100 tons per year as the de minimis emission level for
direct PM2.5, and each of its precursors in nonattainment
and maintenance areas.
    The submittal documents public notice and hearing for this SIP
revision in compliance with CAA section 110(l) and 40 CFR 51.102.
    We have reviewed the submittal to assure consistency with the
current CAA, and EPA regulations (40 CFR part 93 and 40 CFR 51.390)
governing state procedures for general conformity and interagency
consultation and have concluded that the submittal is approvable.
Details of our review are set forth in a technical support document,
which has been included in the docket for this action.

IV. Public Comment and Final Action

    Under section 110(k) of the Act, and for the reasons set forth
above, EPA is taking action to approve the revision to the Missouri SIP
which adds de minimis emissions levels for PM2.5 and
precursors, for general conformity purposes.
    We do not expect objection to this approval, so we are finalizing
it without proposing it in advance. However, in the Proposed Rules
section of this Federal Register, we are simultaneously proposing
approval of the same submittal. If we receive adverse comments by
January 3, 2008, we will publish a timely withdrawal in the Federal
Register to notify the public that the direct final approval will not
take effect and we will address the comments in a subsequent final
action based on the proposal. If we do not receive timely adverse
comments, the direct final approval will be effective without further
notice on February 4, 2008. This will incorporate these general
conformity procedures into the Federally-enforceable SIP and thereby
replace the previous version. Please note that if EPA receives adverse
comment on an amendment, paragraph, or section of this rule and if that
provision may be severed from the remainder of the rule, EPA may adopt
as final those provisions of the rule that are not the subject of an
adverse comment.

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this
action is not a ``significant regulatory action'' and therefore is not
subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget. For this
reason, this action is also not subject to Executive Order 13211,
``Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy
Supply, Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001). This action
merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and imposes
no additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law.
Accordingly, the Administrator certifies that this rule will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities
under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.). Because
this rule approves pre-existing requirements under state law and does
not impose any additional enforceable duty beyond that required by
state law, it does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4).
    This rule also does not have tribal implications because it will
not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on
the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or
on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal
Government and Indian tribes, as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65
FR 67249, November 9, 2000). This action also does not have Federalism
implications because it does not have substantial direct effects on the
States, on the relationship between the national government and the
States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the
various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64
FR 43255, August 10, 1999). This action merely approves state law
implementing a Federal standard, and does not alter the relationship or
the distribution of power and responsibilities established in the CAA.
This rule also is not subject to Executive Order 13045 ``Protection of
Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks'' (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997), because it approves a state rule implementing a
Federal standard.
    In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state
choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. In this
context, in the absence of a prior existing requirement for the State
to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS), EPA has no authority to
disapprove a SIP submission for failure to use VCS. It would thus be
inconsistent with applicable law for EPA when it reviews a SIP
submission to use VCS in place of a SIP submission that otherwise
satisfies the provisions of the CAA. Thus, the requirements of section
12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995
(15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply. This rule does not impose an
information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).
    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other
required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2).
    Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review
of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for
the appropriate circuit by February 4, 2008. Filing a petition for
reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect
the finality of this rule for the purposes of judicial review nor does
it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be
filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action.
This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its
requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide,
Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen
dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter,

Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds.

    Dated: November 26, 2007.
William Rice,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 7.

0
Chapter I, Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as
follows:

PART 52--[AMENDED]

0
1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

Subpart AA--Missouri

0
2. In Sec.  52.1320 the table in paragraph (c) is amended by revising
the entry for 10-6.300 under Chapter 6 to read as follows:

Sec.  52.1320  Identification of Plan.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *

                                        EPA-Approved Missouri Regulations
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                               State
       Missouri  citation                 Title           effective date   EPA approval date      Explanation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                    Missouri Department of Natural Resources
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Chapter 6--Air Quality Standards, Definitions, Sampling and Reference Methods, and Air Pollution Control
                                      Regulations for the State of Missouri
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
10-6.300.......................  Conformity of General           9/30/07  12/04/07 [insert
                                  Federal Actions to                       FR page number
                                  State Implementation                     where the
                                  Plans.                                   document begins].

                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *

[FR Doc. E7-23484 Filed 12-3-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P