[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 27 (Monday, February 10, 2014)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 7584-7587]
[FR Doc No: 2014-02196]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[Docket Number-USCG-2013-0994]
RIN 1625-AA87

Security Zone; Mississippi River, New Orleans, LA

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Temporary final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Captain of the Port of New Orleans (COTP New Orleans),
under the authority of the Magnuson Act, established a Moving Security
Zone on the Mississippi river from mile marker 90.0 to mile marker
106.0 above head of passes (AHP), extending 100 yards in all directions
from vessels being escorted by one or more Coast Guard asset or other
federal, state, or local law enforcement agency assets. The COTP New
Orleans will inform the public of the existence or status of the
security zones around escorted vessels in the regulated area by Marine
Safety Information Bulletins or Broadcast Notice to Mariners. This
moving security zone is necessary to protect vessels deemed to be in
need of escort protection by the COTP New Orleans for security reasons.

DATES: This rule is effective in the Federal Register on February 10,
2014 and effective with actual notice for purposes of enforcement on
December 31, 2013 through April 14, 2014.

ADDRESSES: Documents indicated in this preamble are parts of docket
[USCG-2013-0994] and are available online at www.regulations.gov. They
are also available for inspection or copying at the Docket Management
Facility (M-30), U.S. Department of Transportation, West Building
Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC
20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this
temporary rule, call Lieutenant Commander (LCDR) Kelly Denning, Sector
New Orleans, at<PHONE_NUMBER> or<EMAIL_ADDRESS>If you have
questions on viewing the docket, call Cheryl F. Collins, Program
Manager, Docket Operations, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Acronyms

AHP Above Head of Passes
COTP Captain of the Port

DHS Department of Homeland Security
FR Federal Register
MM Mile Marker
NPRM Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

A. Regulatory History and Information

    The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary final rule without prior
notice and opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section
4(a) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This
provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and
opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those
procedures are ``impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public
interest.'' Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good
cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM)
with respect to this rule. Certain vessels qualifying as vessels
requiring security escorts will transit through the COTP New Orleans
area of responsibility. Minimal notice regarding vessel escort
operations is customary for security purposes. Based on risk
evaluations completed, and information gathered after evaluating the
security needs for escorted vessels during a period of high activity on
and around the waterway, the Coast Guard determined that a security
zone is required, beginning December 31, 2013. This security zone is
needed to protect persons and property, surrounding and including
escorted vessels and their personnel from destruction, loss, or injury
from sabotage or other subversive acts, accidents, or other causes of a
similar nature during vessel escort operations. The NPRM process would
be contrary to public interest by delaying the effective date or
foregoing the necessary protections required for persons and property,
surrounding and including escorted vessels and their personnel.
Immediate action is necessary to provide both waterway and waterside
security and protection for persons and property, surrounding and
including escorted vessels and their personnel in this portion of the
Lower Mississippi River during the listed time period.
    For the same reasons, under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard
finds that good cause exists for making this rule effective less than
30 days after publication in the Federal Register. Providing a full 30
day notice would be contrary to the public interest because immediate
action is needed to provide both waterway and waterside security and
protection during vessel escort operations.

B. Basis and Purpose

    The purpose of this rule is to provide enhanced protections related
to escorted vessels transiting a portion of the Lower Mississippi River
during times of increased activity on and around the waterway. During
these times, certain vessels, including high capacity passenger
vessels, vessels carrying certain dangerous cargoes as defined in 33
CFR part 60, tank vessels constructed to carry oil or hazardous
materials in bulk, and vessels carrying liquefied hazardous gas as
defined in 33 CFR part 127 have been deemed by the COTP New Orleans to
require escort protection while transiting the Lower Mississippi River
between MM 90.0 to MM 106.0 AHP.
    As an additional protective measure for all those transiting the
waterway during the vessels escorts, the Coast Guard is establishing a
temporary security zone restricting navigation in portions of the Lower
Mississippi River in New Orleans, LA to provide both waterway and
waterside security and protection from MM 90.0 to MM 106.0 AHP. This
security zone is necessary to protect persons and property, surrounding
and including escorted vessels and their personnel from destruction,
loss or injury from sabotage or other subversive acts, accidents or
other causes of a similar nature.
    The legal basis and authorities for this rule are found in 33
U.S.C. 1231, 46 U.S.C. Chapter 701, 3306, 3703; 50 U.S.C. 191, 195; 33
CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-6, and 160.5; Public Law 107-295, 116 Stat.
2064; and Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1, which
collectively authorize the Coast Guard to establish and define
regulatory security zones.

C. Discussion of the Final Rule

    The Coast Guard has established a moving security zone extending
100 yards in all directions from each escorted vessel as it transits
the Lower Mississippi River between MM 90.0 and MM 106.0 AHP. Vessel
escorts will be performed by Coast Guard assets or other Federal, State
or local law enforcement agency assets and will be clearly identified
by lights, vessel markings, or with agency insignia. Persons and
vessels will not be allowed to remain in or transit through this
security zone without the permission of the COTP New Orleans or the on-
scene Coast Guard or enforcement agency asset. A vessel may request
permission of the COTP New Orleans or the on-scene Coast Guard or
enforcement agency asset to deviate from the requirements of this rule.
Deviations from this rule may be requested from the COTP New Orleans
through the on-scene Coast Guard or enforcement agency asset, via VHF
Ch. 67. If permitted to enter the security zone, a vessel must proceed
at the minimum safe speed and must comply with the order of the COTP
New Orleans or the on-scene asset. Vessels permitted to transit through
the security zone shall maintain a distance of at least 50 yards from
the escorted vessel.
    The COTP New Orleans will inform the public through broadcast
notices to mariners of each security zone, the enforcement period for
the security zone as well as any changes in the planned schedule.

D. Regulatory Analyses

    We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and
executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses
based on a number of these statutes or executive orders.

1. Regulatory Planning and Review

    This rule is not a significant regulatory action under section 3(f)
of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, as
supplemented by Executive Order 13563, Improving Regulation and
Regulatory Review, and does not require an assessment of potential
costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of Executive Order 12866 or
under section 1 of Executive Order 13563. The Office of Management and
Budget has not reviewed it under those Orders. It is not
``significant'' under the regulatory policies and procedures of the
Department of Homeland Security (DHS). Due to its duration and location
the impacts on routine navigation are expected to be minimal.
    This rule is not a significant regulatory action because the rule
will be in effect for short periods of time and notifications to the
marine community will be made through broadcast notices to mariners.
Deviation from this rule may be requested and will be considered on a
case-by-case basis by the COTP New Orleans or the on-scene Coast Guard
or enforcement agency asset. Approved deviations will allow other
vessels transiting the area to transit through the outer 250 yards of
the security zone. Additionally, the security zone is located within
the New Orleans Harbor Vessel Service Area where vessels are required
to check in when entering the area or departing berth. This check in
requirement can assist in early review and granting of permission to
deviate from the rule. Therefore, the impacts on routine navigation are
expected to be minimal.

2. Impact on Small Entities

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as
amended, requires federal agencies to consider the potential impact of
regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term ``small
entities'' comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations
that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their
fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than
50,000.
    The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will
not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities.
    This rule will affect the following entities, some of which may be
small entities: The owners or operators of vessels, intending to
transit within 100 yards of an escorted vessel between MM 90.0 and MM
106.0 of the Lower Mississippi River. This security zone will not have
significant impact on a substantial number of small entities because of
its location and short durations and notifications to the marine
community will be made through broadcast notices to mariners. Deviation
from this rule may be requested and will be considered on a case-by-
case basis by the COTP New Orleans or the on-scene Coast Guard or
enforcement agency asset. Approved deviations will allow other vessels
transiting the area to transit through the outer 250 yards of the
security zone. Additionally, the security zone is located within the
New Orleans Harbor Vessel Service Area where vessels are required to
check in when entering the area or departing berth. This check in
requirement can assist in early review and granting of permission to
deviate from the rule.
    If you are a small business entity and are significantly affected
by this regulation please contact Lieutenant Commander (LCDR) Kelly
Denning, Sector New Orleans, at<PHONE_NUMBER> or
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
3. Assistance for Small Entities

    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small
entities in understanding this rule. If the rule would affect your
small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have
questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please
contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section, above.
    Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal
employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal
regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory
Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory
Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and
rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to
comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR
(1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small
entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or
action of the Coast Guard.

4. Collection of Information

    This rule will not call for a new collection of information under
the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).

5. Federalism

    A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132,
Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect 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. We have analyzed this rule under that Order and determined
that this rule does not have implications for federalism.

6. Protest Activities

    The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters.
Protesters are asked to contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section to coordinate protest activities so that
your message can be received without jeopardizing the safety or
security of people, places, or vessels.

7. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538)
requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary
regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may
result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in
the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for
inflation) or more in any one year. Though this rule will not result in
such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere
in this preamble.

8. Taking of Private Property

    This rule will not cause a taking of private property or otherwise
have taking implications under Executive Order 12630, Governmental
Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property
Rights.

9. Civil Justice Reform

    This rule meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2)
of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize litigation,
eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden.

10. Protection of Children

    We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13045, Protection
of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks. This rule
is not an economically significant rule and does not create an
environmental risk to health or risk to safety that may
disproportionately affect children.

11. Indian Tribal Governments

    This rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order
13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments,
because it does 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.

12. Energy Effects

    This action is not a ``significant energy action'' under Executive
Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect
Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use.

13. Technical Standards

    This rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we did not
consider the use of voluntary consensus standards.

14. Environment

    We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security
Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which
guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental
Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have concluded
this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or
cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This
rule is categorically excluded, under figure 2-1, paragraph (34)(g), of
the Commandant Instruction. An environmental analysis checklist and a
categorical exclusion determination will be made available as indicated
under ADDRESSES.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165

    Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, Waterways.

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends
33 CFR part 165 as follows:

PART 165--REGULATED NAVIGATION AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS

0
1. The authority citation for part 165 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  33 U.S.C. 1231; 46 U.S.C. Chapter 701, 3306, 3703;
50 U.S.C. 191, 195; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-6, and 160.5; Pub.
L. 107-295, 116 Stat. 2064; Department of Homeland Security
Delegation No. 0170.1.

PART 165--REGULATED NAVIGATION AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS

0
2. Add Sec.  165.T08-0994 to read as follows:

Sec.  165.T08-0994  Security Zone; Mississippi River, New Orleans, LA.

    (a) Location. Lower Mississippi River, from mile marker 90.0 to
mile marker 106.0 above head of passes, extending 100 yards in all
directions of escorted vessels.
    (b) Effective date. This rule is effective in the Federal Register
on February 10, 2014 and effective with actual notice for purposes of
enforcement on December 31, 2013 through April 14, 2014.
    (c) Periods of Enforcement. This rule will be enforced during
vessel escorts performed by Coast Guard assets or other Federal, State
or local law enforcement agency assets clearly identified by lights,
vessel markings, or agency insignia. The Captain of the Port (COTP) New
Orleans or a COTP New Orleans designated representative will inform the
public through broadcast notices to mariners of security zone
enforcement periods as well as any changes that may occur.
    (d) Regulations. (1) In accordance with the general regulations in
Sec.  165.33 of this part, remaining in, entry into, or transiting
within this security zone is prohibited. Section Sec.  165.33 also
contains other general requirements.
    (2) Vessels requiring deviation from this rule must request
permission from the COTP New Orleans through the on-scene Coast Guard
or other agency asset, via VHF Ch. 67.
    (i) Requests for deviation may include requests to enter, remain
in, or transit through certain parts of the security zone. If a
deviation from the rule results in permission to enter, remain in, or
transit through the security zone, all vessels shall operate at the
minimum speed necessary to maintain a safe course, unless required to
maintain speed by the Navigation Rules, and shall proceed as directed
by the Coast Guard.
    (ii) If authorized to operate within the security zone, no vessel
or person is allowed within 50 yards of the escorted vessel. A specific
request for deviation from this rule to operate within 50 yards of the
escorted vessels must be requested and will be considered on a case-by-
case basis by the COTP New Orleans.
    (3) All persons and vessels shall comply with the instructions of
the COTP New Orleans and designated personnel. Designated personnel
include commissioned, warrant and petty officers of the U.S. Coast
Guard, and local, state, and federal law enforcement officers on
clearly identified law enforcement agency vessels.
    (4) Informational Broadcasts. The Captain of the Port or a
designated representative will inform the public through marine safety
information bulletins or broadcast notices to mariners of the
enforcement of the security zone.

    Dated: December 30, 2013.
P.C. Schifflin,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Acting Captain of the Port New Orleans.
[FR Doc. 2014-02196 Filed 2-7-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 236 (Thursday, December 9, 2010)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 76636-76646]
[FR Doc No: 2010-30357]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

49 CFR Part 572

[Docket No. NHTSA-2010-0147]
RIN 2127-AK34

Anthropomorphic Test Devices; Hybrid III 6-Year-Old Child Test
Dummy, Hybrid III 6-Year-Old Weighted Child Test Dummy

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Department of
Transportation.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This final rule makes two changes to the agency's
specifications for the Hybrid III six-year-old child dummy, and the
Hybrid III six-year-old weighted child test dummy. First, to improve
the durability of the dummies' femurs we are changing the design of and
material used for the femur assembly. Second, we correct the drawings
for the abdomen insert so that the abdominal insert dimensions on the
drawings reflect actual parts in the field. The correction responds to
a petition for rulemaking submitted by Denton ATD and First Technology
Safety Systems.

DATES: The effective date of this final rule is June 7, 2011. The
incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in the
regulations is approved by the Director of the Federal Register as of
June 7, 2011.
    Petitions for reconsideration: Petitions for reconsideration of
this final rule must be received not later than January 24, 2011.
    Privacy Act: Anyone is able to search the electronic form of all
submissions received into any of our dockets by the name of the
individual submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted
on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may
review DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement in the Federal Register
published on April 11, 2000 (Volume 65, Number 70; Pages 19477-78).

ADDRESSES: Petitions for reconsideration of this final rule must refer
to the docket and notice number set forth above and be submitted to the
Administrator, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590. (A copy of the petition will
be placed in the docket.)

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For non-legal issues, you may call
Peter Martin, NHTSA Office of Crashworthiness Standards (telephone 202-
366-5668) (fax<PHONE_NUMBER>). For legal issues, you may call Deirdre
Fujita, NHTSA Office of Chief Counsel (telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>) (fax
202-366-3820). The mailing address for these officials is the National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE.,
Washington, DC 20590.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

I. Overview
II. Femur Improvements
    a. Femur Design Changes
    b. Analysis of the New Femur Design
    1. Stress Analysis of the Fillet Effect
    2. Dynamic Evaluation
    i. Comparing Test Results of the Modified HIII-6C Test in the
Marathon, Boulevard, and Decathlon Child Restraint Systems
    ii. Comparing the Results of the Britax Marathon Test of the
Modified HIII-6C (test H06337) to Those of a Test of an Original
HIII-6C Where Femur Failure Occurred (test H06120)
    iii. Effect on FMVSS No. 213 Injury Metrics
    iv. Effect on Dummy Kinematics
    v. Dummy Response Biofidelity
    vi. Hip Lock
III. Abdominal Insert
IV. Effective Date
V. Rulemaking Analyses and Notices

I. Overview

    This final rule makes two changes to the agency's specifications
for the Hybrid III six-year-old child dummy (HIII-6C) set forth in 49
CFR part 572, Subpart N, and for the Hybrid III six-year-old weighted
child test dummy (HIII-6CW) in 49 CFR part 572, Subpart S. The notice
of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) upon which this final rule is based was
published October 21, 2009, 74 FR 53987, Docket No. NHTSA-09-0166.
    First, to improve the durability of the dummies' femurs, we are
changing the design of and material used for the femur assembly. The
primary modifications include the addition of a [frac14]-inch (6.35
millimeter (mm)) fillet between the femur clamp and the connecting
segment (these components are described in detail in section II.b of
the NPRM preamble) of the machined femur, removal of material from the
connecting segment, and a material change from aluminum bronze to 4340
steel. These changes are made by replacing the drawings of the femur in

the drawing package specified in 49 CFR part 572, Subpart N (``Six-
year-old child test dummy'') and in Subpart S (``Six-year-old weighted
child test dummy''), the parts lists, and the ``Procedures for
Assembly, Disassembly, and Inspection'' (``PADI'') documents
incorporated by reference into those regulations.
    The second change corrects the drawings for the abdomen insert so
that the abdominal insert dimensions on the drawings reflect actual
parts in the field.
    The October 21, 2009 NPRM provided a detailed discussion of the
femur failures that were occurring with the HIII-6C dummy, the proposed
solution to those failures, and how the agency proposed to amend the
specifications for the HIII-6C and the HIII-6CW dummies.
    NHTSA received no comments on the October 21, 2009 NPRM. We are
adopting the changes proposed in the NPRM for the reasons discussed in
that document.

II. Femur Improvements

    The present design of the HIII-6C femur is specified in 49 CFR part
572, Subpart N.1 2 The HIII-6C machined femur, which is one
of the femur assembly parts, is illustrated in Figure 1 below. This
one-piece part is machined from bar stock and serves to couple the main
femur shaft to a smaller shaft protruding from the femur ball (a
representation of a human femur head). The portion of the part that is
attached to the femur shaft is referred to as the ``femur clamp'' and
the portion that is attached to the ball shaft is referred to as the
``connecting segment.'' The femur ball shaft, retaining flange, and
femur ball connect the machined femur to the dummy's pelvis. Similar to
a human hip joint, the ball in the HIII-6C femur assembly allows for
rotation of the dummy hip joint. The flange is used to attach the femur
assembly to the pelvis. The entire femur assembly is found within the
lower torso, and the material specification for this assembly,
including the machined femur, shaft, flange and ball was originally
Aluminum Bronze C-624 AMC0-18. (The femur load cell, the response of
which is discussed in the ``dynamic evaluation'' section below, is
located in the distal portion of the upper leg (i.e., farther from the
pelvis) and not in the area of the machined femur.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Complete drawings for the current HIII-6C femur can be found
in Docket No. NHTSA-2002-12541.
    \2\ The HIII-6CW is based on the HIII-6C, with weight added (10
pounds) to represent larger children. The femur assembly is the same
for both the HIII-6CW and the HIII-6C dummies. The discussion set
forth in this section applies to the HIII-6CW as well, unless
otherwise noted.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR09DE10.031

    Failures of the HIII-6C femur appear to have initiated at a sharp
corner between the femur clamp and connecting segment sections of the
machined femur. The approximate location of the femur failure is
depicted in Figure 1. The fracture was observed from this corner to the
bolt hole within the femur clamp, at an angle of approximately 45[deg].
The failure continued through the thin section of material directly
beneath the bolt hole, causing complete separation of the machined
femur. Additionally, in one failed component, small indents on the
inner diameter of the retaining flange were observed, indicating
potential contact between the flange and shaft. Pictures of a fractured
part can be found in the technical report docketed with the NPRM
(Docket NHTSA-09-0166-0007.1).

a. Femur Design Changes

    The modification made today to improve the femur's durability
increases the strength and durability of the femur assembly by
fabricating the machined femur and shaft from 4340 steel, which has a
higher yield strength than the original material, Aluminum Bronze C-624
AMC0-18, while keeping the ball and retaining flange as the original
aluminum bronze material. A \1/4\-inch (6.35 mm) fillet is added
between the

femur clamp and the connecting segment to eliminate stress risers that
were present on the original femur, and a portion of the connecting
segment material near the femur clamp is removed. The weight of the
modified femur is only 0.002 lb (0.001 kilograms (kg)) heavier than the
original femur. Table 1 below compares the weights and material
properties of the original femur and the new femur.

              Table 1--Weight and Material Properties for the Original and New HIII-6C Femur Design
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                       Femur design measured               Material and yield strength
                                               weight
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Original..........................  0.532 lb (0.241 kg).......  Aluminum Bronze C-624 AMC0- 48,000 psi
                                                                 18.
New...............................  0.534 lb (0.242 kg).......  4340 Steel................  114,000 psi
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To implement this change in femur design and material, the
following changes are made to the materials describing the HIII-6C in
49 CFR part 572. Drawings 127-3017-1&-2, ``6 YR H3-FEMUR MACHINED'' is
replaced with drawings 127-3017-1S&-2S, which show the new machined
femur.\3\ The femur assembly drawings (127-3016-1&-2) are also replaced
due to the new femur design, with new part numbers 127-3016-1S&-2S.
Higher assembly drawings including 127-3000, ``LOWER TORSO ASSEMBLY''
and the complete assembly drawings (127-0000) are amended to show the
modified part. These revisions are noted on drawing SA572-127DRL-2. The
PADI is also updated so that it shows the new machined femur in
figures, and reports the proper lower torso assembly and total weight
for the dummy. Finally, the part numbers for the machined femur and the
femur assembly are changed in the Parts/Drawings list, along with the
revision letters for higher assembly drawings, as appropriate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The femur shaft, drawing 127-3021, with material
specification Aluminum Bronze 3/8 rnd C-624 AMC0-18, is replaced
with drawing 127-3021S with material specification 4340 Steel.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Copies of the HIII-6C drawing package, PADI, and Parts/Drawings
list that include the change in femur design can be obtained online at
http://www.regulations.gov, in the same docket as this final rule.

b. Analysis of the New Femur Design

    NHTSA has determined that the changes to the femur prevent the
femur from failing and do not compromise the utility of the test dummy.
This determination is based on an analysis showing the stress is
reduced by the addition of the fillet, and on an analysis of dynamic
test results, as discussed below.
1. Stress Analysis of the Fillet Effect
    The one-piece HIII-6C machined femur--which couples the main femur
shaft to the femur ball shaft--forms a ninety-degree angle where the
femur clamp intersects the connecting segment. Originally, the corner
radius at this intersection was very sharp. This sharp corner led to
high stresses when the femur was loaded. We have estimated that adding
a fillet to increase the corner radius will reduce stresses by
approximately 1.6 to two times those in the femur without the fillet.
It is noted that this is only an estimate, as the loading conditions
present in the femur during a FMVSS No. 213 type sled test were highly
simplified in order to provide a rough estimate of the fillet benefit.
Details about the stress reduction approximation can be found in the
technical report accompanying the NPRM (Docket NHTSA-09-0166-0007.1).
Because the fillet design results in substantially reduced stress in
the femur of the dummy, we believe that adding the fillet and using the
4340 steel material will avoid femur failure.
2. Dynamic Evaluation
    NHTSA evaluated the new femur in April 2006 at the MGA testing
facility. To assess the effect of the component modification, we tested
a HIII-6C with the new femurs (which we refer to as a ``modified HIII-
6C'' or ``modified dummy'') in a Britax Marathon child restraint,
Britax Boulevard and Britax Decathlon to the FMVSS No. 213 test
conditions, and compared the results.\4\ To obtain a greater
understanding of the loading experienced by the femur assembly,
instrumentation was added to the dummy to allow measurement of triaxial
accelerations in the pelvis and forces and moments in the femurs.
Additionally, to determine the effect of the new femur, we compared
test results from a test in which the femur had failed to those of a
test with a modified dummy, under conditions that had previously caused
failure, i.e., the modified HIII-6C dummy was tested in the Britax
Marathon to the FMVSS No. 213 sled pulse.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ The Boulevard and Decathlon models were each tested with a
modified HIII-6C and with a HIII-6CW with the modified femur design.
No femur failure occurred in any of the tests. For simplicity and
because the test results of the HIII-6CW are not comparable to those
of the HIII-6C, tests of the HIII-6CW dummy are not generally
discussed in this preamble. However, results for all tests of the
HIII-6CW are discussed in the technical report accompanying the NPRM
(Docket NHTSA-09-0166-0007.1), including test numbers, maximum head,
chest and pelvis accelerations and left and right femur maximum
moments and forces.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In all tests of the new femurs, there were no femur failures. In
addition, test data relating to left and right femur moments, FMVSS No.
213 injury measures, dummy kinematics, and other factors concerning the
performance of the dummy raised no concerns about the new femur design.
The testing indicated that use of the new femur in the HIII-6C and the
HIII-6CW will not affect FMVSS testing, except to make the dummies more
durable.
i. Comparing Test Results of the Modified HIII-6C Test in the Marathon,
Boulevard, and Decathlon Child Restraint Systems
    NHTSA measured and compared maximum forces and moments measured in
the femur load cells (over both legs) of the modified HIII-6C dummy in
the Britax Marathon, Boulevard, and Decathlon. The Marathon and
Boulevard showed similar maximum forces, while the Decathlon had a
higher maximum femur force. All maximum forces occurred along the Z-
axis, and all maximum moments were about the Y-axis.

 Table 2--Maximum forces and Moments Measured in the Femur Load Cells of
     Modified HIII-6C Dummies in a FMVSS No. 213 Compliance Testing
                               Environment
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                      Britax       Britax       Britax
          Femur measure             Marathon *  Decathlon *   Boulevard
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Max Force (N)....................       1492.9       2264.7       1578.4
Max Moment (Nm)..................          -78        -63.9          -70
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Marathon: Restraint changed from upright to reclined during test.
  Decathlon: Top tether webbing separated at the attachment clip and the
  restraint changed position from upright to reclined.

    At the time of maximum moment there were visible differences in the
degree of knee extension (test video pictures are provided in the
technical report accompanying the NPRM, Docket NHTSA-09-0166-0007.1).
These visual differences in response are consistent with the
differences in force and moment magnitude seen in the tests.
    Maximum left and right femur forces from the tests of the modified
HIII-6C dummy with the new femur are displayed in Figure 2, while
Figure 3 shows the maximum moments measured in the left and right legs
during each test. In general, force and moment measurements made in the
left and right femurs were similar, though not identical. This may give
some insight into why failures were observed in the left leg, right
leg, or both legs in any given test. We believe that the failures were
caused by stresses exceeding the material strength of the femur, so the
occurrence of one femur failure, rather than both, may be due to the
fact that the forces present during the test were unevenly distributed.

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR09DE10.032

ii. Comparing the Results of the Britax Marathon Test of the Modified
HIII-6C (test H06337) to Those of a Test of an Original HIII-6C Where
Femur Failure Occurred (test H06120)
    Both tests were performed using the same dummy (S/N 158).\5\ In
test H06120 (with the original femurs), the left femur failed and
detached completely. The right knee of this dummy was in a fully
extended position, which could have resulted from the change in
kinematics due to loss of one leg. In test H06337 (modified dummy),
there were no femur failures and both legs remained attached to the
dummy.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Both tests were performed using the same dummy (S/N 158).
However, because FMVSS No. 213 does not require measurement of
femoral loads, no femoral force data was available for test H06120
with the original femurs. Therefore, comparisons were made between
pre- and post-test positioning, head and chest measurements, and
dummy position throughout the test, as indicated by the test videos.
This is discussed in the technical report accompanying the NPRM.
    \6\ We note that in test H06337 (modified dummy), the child
restraint had multiple cracks in its base following the test, and
during the test the restraint position shifted from upright to
reclined. However, these factors are not likely linked to the
performance of the new femur.>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

iii. Effect on FMVSS No. 213 Injury Metrics
    In these two tests, we compared the maximum head and chest
accelerations.

As seen in Figure 4, these measures were similar for both tests,
suggesting that the new femur does not affect the dummy head or chest
response significantly. Specifically, peak chest resultant
acceleration, an FMVSS No. 213 injury criterion, increased only 2.42
percent from 41.4 g with the current Part 572 femur to 42.4 g with the
new femur. However, we note that the maximum head Z and resultant
accelerations occurred after the time of femur failure in test H06120.
Therefore, it is possible that the acceleration magnitude or response
in time was affected by the loss of one limb.
    We also compared the 36 millisecond (ms) head injury criterion
(HIC) values. These values are displayed in Table 3 and Figure 5, along
with the previously-discussed peak chest accelerations (Figure 6). The
response measured in the modified HIII-6C resulted in a 5.65 percent
decrease in HIC over the response of the original HIII-6C. These
relatively low changes in response suggest that HIC and chest g's are
not significantly altered by the femur replacement.
    Table 3: HIC 36 and peak chest acceleration values for matched
FMVSS No. 213 tests. (These results are presented in Figures 5 and 6,
below.)
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR09DE10.033

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR09DE10.034

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR09DE10.035

iv. Effect on Dummy Kinematics
    We have determined that use of the new femur does not change the
dummy's kinematic response. We analyzed test video comparing the
kinematics of the dummy in tests H06337 (modified dummy) and H06120
(femur failure). (Photographs from the video are presented in the
technical report accompanying the NPRM, Docket NHTSA-09-0166-0007.1.)
Until the time of maximum femur force, the position of the dummy in
each test is fairly similar. At maximum force, the dummy's knees in
H06337 (modified dummy) are only slightly more extended and lower than
the knees in H06120 (femur failure). Although at the approximate time
of femur failure in test H06120 the positions of the two dummies are
different, they are only slightly so, and the fully extended left knee
of the dummy in test H06120 (femur failure) and the additional
excursion of the leg (as noted by the position of the knee marker) may
be indicative of the failing femur component. Similarly, after femur
failure at 100 ms, there are slight differences in dummy position which
could be attributable to the loss of one leg in the test H06120. All in
all, there is no indication that the new femur significantly alters
dummy response.
v. Dummy Response Biofidelity
    Since the new femur has the same geometry as the original femurs
where it interfaces with the pelvis, the new femur does not behave any
differently than the original femur. As discussed in the previous
sections, little difference in head and chest measurements and dummy
kinematics was observed in the dummy with the new versus the current
Part 572 femur. There is no indication that the slight modification in
femur design and material affects dummy biofidelity.
vi. Hip Lock
    The new femur was inspected for indications of susceptibility to
hip lock. Hip lock is a condition where flexion of the dummy's hip
joint is mechanically limited due to contact between the femur and the
retaining ring or other pelvis structure.\7\ There was no evidence of
excessive wear near the retaining ring/ball joint of the new femurs.
Some wear was noticed on the upper leg of dummy S/N 155 where the femur
clamp was fastened to the upper leg weldment. However, because this
wear is located at a fastening site, metal-to-metal contact is
inevitable and is not indicative of hip lock.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ Hip lock in the HIII-50th percentile male femur led to
design modifications that prevented ``hard'' (i.e., metal-to-metal
contact) hip lock from occurring (61 FR 67953, Dec. 26, 1996). In
that adult dummy, hard hip lock was characterized by spikes in the
unfiltered pelvis and chest accelerometer readings, high and
sharply-pointed chest z acceleration traces, non-unimodal chest x
and resultant accelerations, and a high tension component in the
lumbar z force (Klinich et al, ``Evaluation of a Proposed Hybrid III
Hip Modification,'' Stapp Paper No. 952730, 1995).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Abdominal Insert

    This final rule changes Drawing No. 127-8210 of the HIII-6C drawing
package, which depicts the abdominal insert for the dummy. It makes a
similar change to the HIII-6CW drawing package.\8\ This change responds
to a petition from FTSS and Denton. Both manufacturers sought to revise
the abdomen insert drawing to match the part mold dimensions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ The HIII-6CW is the HIII-6C with weight added (10 pounds) to
represent larger children. The abdominal insert drawing is the same
for both the HIII-6CW and the HIII-6C dummies. Thus, the discussion
set forth in this section applies to the HIII-6CW as well.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the NPRM, the agency granted the request but proposed to revise
the drawing of the abdominal insert based on dimensions of actual
abdominal inserts, rather than dimensions of the mold for the inserts.
Nearly all changes were in agreement with the petitioners' mold-based
dimensions.
    Table 4 shows the changes this final rule makes to key abdomen
dimensions. ``Fig. Ref'' numbers in the table refer to Figure 7, which
shows the original dimensions.

                 Table 4--HIII-6C Key Abdomen Dimensions
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                               Adopted
            Description                     Fig. ref.           spec.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Overall height (in.)...............  1.....................  3.81 +/-.20
Ledge height (in.).................  2lt...................  1.53 +/-.20

                                     3rt...................  1.53 +/-.20
Depth excl.plug (in.)..............  4.....................  2.80 +/-.20
Depth incl. plug (in.).............  5.....................  2.80 +/-.20
Taper angle of cone (degrees)......  6lt...................      121/129
                                     7rt...................      121/129
Notch Half Width (in.).............  8.....................  1.50 +/-.20
Notch Depth (in.)..................  9.....................  1.40 +/-.20
Width Bottom of Cone (in.).........  10....................  5.40 +/-.40
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                             [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR09DE10.036

IV. Effective Date

    The changes to the femur design of the HIII-6C and HIII-6CW are
effective 180 days after publication of this final rule. The changes to
the abdomen insert drawing are effective on the same date. Although the
NPRM proposed that the corrections to the abdomen insert drawing be
effective 45 days after publication of a final rule, the agency has
decided to make all the changes to the drawing package effective on the
same date to simplify the incorporation by reference of the changed
drawings in the drawing package.

V. Rulemaking Analyses And Notices

Executive Order 12866 and DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures

    This rulemaking action is not considered a significant regulatory
action under Executive Order 12866 or the Department of
Transportation's (DOT's) regulatory policies and procedures (44 FR
11034, February 26, 1979).
    This rule will only affect the HIII-6C and HIII-6CW test dummies by
adding a \1/4\-inch fillet between the femur clamp and the connecting
segment of the machined femur, removing material from the connecting
segment, and changing the material from Aluminum Bronze C-624 AMC0-18
to 4340 steel. We stated in the final rule \9\ that adopted the HIII-6C
into 49 CFR part 572 that the cost of an uninstrumented HIII-6C dummy
is approximately $30,000 and that instrumentation will add
approximately $25,000 to $40,000 to the cost, depending on the number
of data channels the user chooses to collect. We do not expect the
amendments of this final rule to significantly affect the cost of the
dummy.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 65 FR 2059; January 13, 2000; Docket NHTSA-99-6714.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Further, this final rule does not impose any requirements on
anyone. NHTSA will only use HIII-6C and HIII-6CW dummies for compliance
testing that meet all of the criteria specified in this rule, but the
agency does not require manufacturers to test with the Part 572 test
dummies. Businesses will only be indirectly affected by this final
rule, to the extent that they choose to manufacture or test with the
dummy. Because the economic impacts of this final rule are so minimal,
no further regulatory evaluation is necessary.

Regulatory Flexibility Act

    Pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.,
as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act
(SBREFA) of 1996), whenever an agency is required to publish a proposed
or final rule, it must prepare and make available for public comment a
regulatory flexibility analysis that describes the effect of the rule
on small entities (i.e., small businesses, small organizations, and
small governmental jurisdictions), unless the head of the agency
certifies the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities. The Small Business
Administration's regulations at 13 CFR part 121 define a small
business, in part, as a business entity ``which operates primarily
within the United States.'' (13 CFR 121.105(a)).
    We have considered the effects of this rulemaking under the
Regulatory Flexibility Act. I hereby certify that this final rule will
not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities. Changing the femur design and correcting the abdominal insert
drawing will not impose any requirements on anyone. NHTSA does not
require anyone to manufacture or redesign the HIII-6C or HIII-6CW or to
test vehicles or child restraints with the devices.

National Environmental Policy Act

    NHTSA has analyzed this final rule for the purposes of the National
Environmental Policy Act and has determined that it will not have any
significant impact on the quality of the human environment.

Executive Order 13132 (Federalism)

    NHTSA has examined today's final rule pursuant to Executive Order
13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999) and concluded that no additional
consultation with States, local governments or their representatives is
mandated beyond the rulemaking process. The agency has concluded that
the final rule does not have federalism implications because the rule
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.'' This rule does not impose any requirements on anyone.
Businesses will be affected only if they choose to manufacture or test
with the HIII-6C or HIII-6CW dummies.
    Further, no consultation is needed to discuss the preemptive effect
of today's final rule. NHTSA's safety standards can have preemptive
effect in two ways. This final rule would amend 49 CFR part 572 and is
not a safety standard.\10\ This Part 572 final rule does not impose any
requirements on anyone.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ With respect to the safety standards, the National Traffic
and Motor Vehicle Safety Act contains an express preemptive
provision: ``When a motor vehicle safety standard is in effect under
this chapter, a State or a political subdivison of a State may
prescribe or continue in effect a standard applicable to the same
aspect of performance of a motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment
only if the standard is identical to the standard prescribed under
this chapter.'' 49 U.S.C. 30103(b)(1). Second, the Supreme Court has
recognized the possibility of implied preemption: State requirements
imposed on motor vehicle manufacturers, including sanctions imposed
by State tort law, can stand as an obstacle to the accomplishment
and execution of a NHTSA safety standard. When such a conflict
exists, the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution makes the
conflicting State requirements unenforceable. See Geier v. American
Honda Motor Co., 529 U.S. 861 (2000).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Civil Justice Reform

    With respect to the review of the promulgation of a new regulation,
section 3(b) of Executive Order 12988, ``Civil Justice Reform'' (61 FR
4729, February 7, 1996) requires that Executive agencies make every
reasonable effort to ensure that the regulation: (1) Clearly specifies
the preemptive effect; (2) clearly specifies the effect on existing
Federal law or regulation; (3) provides a clear legal standard for
affected conduct, while promoting simplification and burden reduction;
(4) clearly specifies the retroactive effect, if any; (5) adequately
defines key terms; and (6) addresses other important issues affecting
clarity and general draftsmanship under any guidelines issued by the
Attorney General. This document is consistent with that requirement.
Pursuant to this Order, NHTSA notes as follows.
    The issue of preemption is discussed above in connection with E.O.
13132. NHTSA notes further that there is no requirement that
individuals submit a petition for reconsideration or pursue other
administrative proceeding before they may file suit in court.

Paperwork Reduction Act

    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 control number from the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB). This final rule does not have any
requirements that are considered to be information collection
requirements as defined by the OMB in 5 CFR part 1320.

National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

    Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (NTTAA), Public Law 104-113, section 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272)
directs NHTSA to use voluntary consensus standards in its regulatory
activities unless doing so would be inconsistent with applicable law or
otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical
standards (e.g., materials specifications, test methods, sampling
procedures, and business practices) that are developed or adopted by
voluntary consensus standards bodies. The NTTAA directs NHTSA to
provide Congress, through OMB, explanations when the agency decides not
to use available and applicable voluntary consensus standards. There
are no voluntary

consensus standards relevant to this final rule.

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    Section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA),
Pub. L. 104-4, Federal requires agencies to prepare a written
assessment of the costs, benefits, and other effects of proposed or
final rules that include a Federal mandate likely to result in the
expenditure by State, local, or tribal governments, in the aggregate,
or by the private sector, of more than $100 million annually (adjusted
for inflation with base year of 1995). Before promulgating a NHTSA rule
for which a written statement is needed, section 205 of the UMRA
generally requires the agency to identify and consider a reasonable
number of regulatory alternatives and adopt the least costly, most
cost-effective, or least burdensome alternative that achieves the
objectives of the rule.
    This final rule would not impose any unfunded mandates under the
UMRA. This final rule does not meet the definition of a Federal mandate
because it does not impose requirements on anyone. It amends 49 CFR
part 572 by changing the femur design of two test dummies that the
agency uses, and corrects a drawing of an abdominal insert for the
dummies. This final rule affects only those businesses that choose to
manufacture or test with the dummies. It does not result in costs of
$100 million or more to either State, local, or tribal governments, in
the aggregate, or to the private sector.

Plain Language

    Executive Order 12866 requires each agency to write all rules in
plain language. Application of the principles of plain language
includes consideration of the following questions:

--Has the agency organized the material to suit the public's needs?
--Are the requirements in the rule clearly stated?
--Does the rule contain technical language or jargon that is not clear?
--Would a different format (grouping and order of sections, use of
headings, paragraphing) make the rule easier to understand?
--Would more (but shorter) sections be better?
--Could the agency improve clarity by adding tables, lists, or
diagrams?
--What else could the agency do to make this rulemaking easier to
understand?
    If you have any responses to these questions, please send them to
NHTSA.

Regulation Identifier Number

    The Department of Transportation assigns a regulation identifier
number (RIN) to each regulatory action listed in the Unified Agenda of
Federal Regulations. The Regulatory Information Service Center
publishes the Unified Agenda in April and October of each year. You may
use the RIN contained in the heading at the beginning of this document
to find this action in the Unified Agenda.

List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 572

    Motor vehicle safety, Incorporation by reference.

0
In consideration of the foregoing, NHTSA amends 49 CFR Part 572 as
follows:

PART 572--ANTHROPOMORPHIC TEST DUMMIES

0
1. The authority citation for Part 572 continues to read as follows:

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

Subpart N--Six-Year-Old Child Test Dummy, Beta Version

0
2. Section 572.120 is amended by revising the introductory paragraph of
(a)(1), paragraph (a)(1) through (a)(4), and paragraphs (b) and (c)(1),
to read as follows:

Sec.  572.120  Incorporation by reference.

    (a) * * *
    (1) A drawings and inspection package entitled, ``Parts List and
Drawings, Part 572 Subpart N, Hybrid III Six-Year Old Child Crash Test
Dummy (H-III6C, Beta Version), June 2009,'' consisting of:
    (i) Drawing No. 127-1000, 6-year H3 Head Complete, incorporated by
reference in Sec.  572.122,
    (ii) Drawing No. 127-1015, Neck Assembly, incorporated by reference
in Sec.  572.123,
    (iii) Drawing No. 127-2000, Upper Torso Assembly, incorporated by
reference in Sec.  572.124,
    (iv) Drawing No. 127-3000, Lower Torso Assembly, incorporated by
reference in Sec.  572.125,
    (v) Drawing No. 127-4000-1 and 4000-2, Leg Assembly, incorporated
by reference in Sec.  572.126,
    (vi) Drawing No. 127-5000-1 and 5000-2, Arm Assembly, incorporated
by reference in Sec. Sec.  572.121, 572.124, and 572.125 as part of a
complete dummy assembly, and,
    (vii) Parts List and Drawings, Hybrid III Six-year-old Child Test
Dummy (H-III6C, Beta Version), dated June 1, 2009, incorporated by
reference in Sec.  572.121;
    (2) A procedures manual entitled ``Procedures for Assembly,
Disassembly, and Inspection (PADI) of the Hybrid III 6-year-old Child
Crash Test Dummy (H-III6C), Beta Version, June 1, 2009,'' incorporated
by reference in Sec.  572.121;
    (3) SAE Recommended Practice J211-1995, ``Instrumentation for
Impact Tests--Parts 1 and 2, dated March, 1995,'' incorporated by
reference in Sec.  572.127;
    (4) SAE J1733 Information Report, titled ``Sign Convention for
Vehicle Crash Testing,'' dated December 1994, incorporated by reference
in Sec.  572.127.
    (b) The Director of the Federal Register approved the materials
incorporated by reference in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR
part 51. Copies of the materials may be inspected at the Department of
Transportation, Docket Operations, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey
Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, and at the
National Archives and Records Administration (NARA), and in electronic
format through Regulations.gov. For information on the availability and
inspection of this material at NARA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>, or go to:
http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_federal_regulations/ibr_locations.html. For information on the availability
and inspection of this material at Regulations.gov, call 1-877-378-
5457, or go to: http://www.regulations.gov.
    (c) * * *
    (1) The drawings and specifications package, the parts list, and
the PADI document referred to in paragraphs (a)(1), and (a)(2) of this
section, are available in electronic format through www.Regulations.gov
and in paper format from Leet-Melbrook, Division of New RT, 18810
Woodfield Road, Gaithersburg, MD 20879,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
* * * * *

0
3. Section 572.121 is amended by revising paragraph (a)(2) introductory
text (the table is not amended) to read as follows:

Sec.  572.121  General description.

    (a) * * *
    (2) Procedures for Assembly, Disassembly, and Inspection (PADI) of
the Hybrid III 6-year-old child crash test dummy (H-III6C), Beta
version, dated June 1, 2009, incorporated by reference in Sec.
572.120.
* * * * *

Subpart S--Hybrid III Six-Year-Old Weighted Child Test Dummy

0
4. Section 572.160 is amended by revising the introductory paragraph of
(a)(1), paragraph (a)(1)(iii), paragraph (a)(1)(v), (a)(2), and (a)(3),
to read as follows:

Sec.  572.160  Incorporation by reference.

    (a) * * *
    (1) A drawings and specifications package entitled, ``Parts List
and Drawings, Part 572 Subpart S, Hybrid III 6-Year-Old Child Weighted
Crash Test Dummy (H-III6CW),'' dated June 2009, incorporated by
reference in Sec.  572.161 and consisting of:
* * * * *
    (iii) Drawing No. 167-2020, Revision A, Spine Box Weight,
incorporated by reference in Sec. Sec.  572.161, 572.164, and 572.165
as part of a complete dummy assembly;
* * * * *
    (v) Drawing No. 167-3010, Revision A, Lumbar Weight Base,
incorporated by reference in Sec. Sec.  572.161 and 572.165 as part of
a complete dummy assembly; and
* * * * *
    (2) A procedures manual entitled, ``Procedures for Assembly,
Disassembly, And Inspection (PADI) of the Part 572 Subpart S, Hybrid
III 6-Year-Old Child Weighted Crash Test Dummy (H-III6CW), revised June
2009,'' incorporated by reference in Sec.  572.161;
    (3) The Director of the Federal Register approved the materials
incorporated by reference in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR
part 51. Copies of the materials may be inspected at the Department of
Transportation, Docket Operations, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey
Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, and at the
National Archives and Records Administration (NARA), and in electronic
format through Regulations.gov. For information on the availability and
inspection of this material at NARA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>, or go to:
http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_federal_regulations/ibr_locations.html. For information on the availability
and inspection of this material at Regulations.gov, call 1-877-378-
5457, or go to: http://www.regulations.gov.
* * * * *

0
5. Section 572.161 is amended by revising paragraph (a)(1) and
paragraph (a)(3) introductory text (the table is not amended), to read
as follows:

Sec.  572.161  General description.

    (a) * * *
    (1) ``Parts List and Drawings, Part 572 Subpart S, Hybrid III 6-
Year-Old Child Weighted Crash Test Dummy (H-III6CW),'' dated June 2009
(incorporated by reference, see Sec.  572.160);
* * * * *
    (3) ``Procedures for Assembly, Disassembly, And Inspection (PADI)
of the Part 572 Subpart S, Hybrid III 6-Year-Old Child Weighted Crash
Test Dummy (H-III6CW), revised June 2009'' (incorporated by reference,
see Sec.  572.160).
* * * * *

    Issued: November 26, 2010.
David L. Strickland,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2010-30357 Filed 12-8-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 232 (Monday, December 3, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 71650-71652]
[FR Doc No: 2012-29076]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-68301; File No. SR-CBOE-2012-111]

 Self-Regulatory Organizations; Chicago Board Options Exchange,
Incorporated; Notice of Filing and Order Granting Accelerated Approval
of Proposed Rule Change To Amend CBOE Rule 6.18 Concerning the
Exchange's Disaster Recovery Facility

November 27, 2012.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the ``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given
that on November 13, 2012, Chicago Board Options Exchange, Incorporated
(the ``Exchange'' or ``CBOE'') 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 substantially prepared
by the Exchange. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit
comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons and is
approving the proposal on an accelerated basis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \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 modify the text of Rule 6.18, ``Disaster
Recovery Facility,'' to clarify how the Exchange intends to continue to
operate in the event the Exchange's trading floor or trading systems
are compromised. The text of the proposed rule change is available on
the Exchange's Web site (www.cboe.com/AboutCBOE/CBOELegalRegulatoryHome.aspx), at the Exchange's Office of the
Secretary, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    CBOE Rule 6.18 (Disaster Recovery Facility) currently provides for
a disaster recovery site in the event that open outcry trading is not
available. In such an event, Trading Permit Holders (``TPHs'') are
required to utilize a floorless configuration of the trading system
similar to the electronic component of the Exchange's Hybrid System
platform, the primary difference being that this configuration is not
programmed to require open outcry. Because of a change in location of
the Exchange's back-up data center (the Exchange is moving its primary
data center to the East coast and will use its current Chicago data
center as the back-up data center), the Exchange is proposing to amend
Rule 6.18 in order to provide that (1) in the case the Exchange must
use the back-up data center, the Exchange's trading floor may still be
operable, and (2) TPHs will need to use the alternate trading system if
the Exchange's trading floor should become inoperable. Finally, the
Exchange is proposing to make conforming changes to the entire rule to
reflect this change in location by eliminating references to a
``Disaster Recovery Facility'' and eliminating portions of the rule
that are no longer relevant. This change in location of the Exchange's
primary and back-up data centers is anticipated to take effect on
December 3, 2012.
    First, the Exchange is proposing to modify Rule 6.18 to clarify
that when an event or other circumstance renders the Exchange's primary
electronic platform inoperable, assuming the trading floor has not been
affected, TPHs may still be able to utilize the Exchange's trading
floor. The Exchange's current Rule 6.18 specifies that if the Disaster
Recovery Facility were used, no open outcry trading would be available.
Because of the change of location of the back-up data center, this will
no longer be the case. In the event the Exchange back-up data center
must be utilized, the Exchange's trading floor may still be operable
and all Exchange rules associated with the trading floor, including
those codifying the integration of the electronic trading platform with
the trading floor, will remain in effect. As such, trading on the
Exchange would not change.
    Second, the Exchange is proposing to amend Rule 6.18 to clarify
that TPHs will need to use the floorless configuration in the event a
disaster or other unusual circumstance renders the Exchange trading
floor inoperable. In the current Exchange rules, TPHs must only utilize
a floorless configuration in the event the Disaster Recovery Facility
is utilized. In the proposed changes, TPHs will need to use this
configuration of the trading system if the trading floor is inoperable
which could be the case in an instance when the primary data center is
still operating. In this configuration, there will be no change in the
Exchange trading rules associated with electronic trading. TPHs will be
required to follow the same rules associated with electronic trading as
they would if the trading floor were operable. This proposed change is
also a result of the change in location of the Exchange's various data
centers.
    Finally, other conforming changes have been made throughout the
rule to eliminate references to a Disaster Recovery ``Facility'' to
reflect that dual locations may now be used in the event the Exchange
experiences an event or other circumstance rendering either the trading
floor or the primary data center inoperable. In addition, references to

portions of the rule that are no longer relevant have been eliminated
from the rule text. More specifically, section (e) of the Rule has been
eliminated because the back-up data center in Chicago will have the
capacity to accommodate all TPHs.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The Commission notes that CBOE Rule 6.18(e) currently
authorizes the Exchange to restrict access to the Disaster Recovery
Facility if necessitated by system capacity limitations, and
priority access would have been afforded to TPHs subject to certain
conditions. See CBOE Rule 6.18(e).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    It should be noted, however, that no material changes are being
made to the Exchange Rule 6.18(b) which states that the Exchange will
announce, prior to the commencement of trading, all classes that will
continue to trade. Depending upon the specifics of the circumstances,
the Exchange's trading floor may or may not be operable. In this
announcement, the Exchange will clarify the current status of the
trading floor. In addition, pursuant to the current Exchange Rule
6.18(d), TPHs will still be required to maintain access to both the
primary electronic platform and the back-up data center in order to
continue trading in all circumstances.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with
the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to the
Exchange and, in particular, the requirements of Section 6(b) of the
Act.\4\ Specifically, the Exchange believes the proposed rule change is
consistent with the Section 6(b)(5) \5\ requirements that the rules of
an exchange be designed to promote just and equitable principles of
trade, to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts, to remove
impediments to and to perfect the mechanism for a free and open market
and a national market system, and, in general, to protect investors and
the public interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    In particular, the modification to Exchange Rule 6.18 fully
clarifies how TPHs can trade in the event that unforeseen circumstances
arise. The proposed changes promote just and equitable principles of
trading by putting all TPHs, and other market centers, on notice about
how the Exchange intends to operate in the event either the primary
data center or the trading floor becomes inoperable which also provides
for a free and open market for all TPHs. The proposed changes also
prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts on the Exchange as the changes
more clearly explain different venues available to the TPHs and alert
TPHs of how the Exchange will operate if such circumstance should
arise. Finally, it protects investors by alerting all TPHs to the
different trading alternatives if one of these events should occur so
they are aware of their options.
    The Exchange also believes the proposed rule change is consistent
with Section 6(b)(1) of the Act,\6\ which provides that the Exchange be
organized and have the capacity to be able to carry out the purposes of
the Act and to enforce compliance by the Exchange's TPHs and persons
associated with its TPHs with the Act, the rules and regulations
thereunder, and the rules of the Exchange. By clearly stating what will
happen in the event that normal trading venues are not available, the
Exchange is explicitly stating its capacity to operate in any unusual
or unpredictable circumstance that may arise. Thus, the Exchange is
preparing to exercise its obligations as a Self-Regulatory Organization
(``SRO'') under the Act in the event of unusual circumstances.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

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

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

III. 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-CBOE-2012-111 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-CBOE-2012-111. 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-CBOE-2012-111 and should be
submitted on or before December 24, 2012.

IV. Commission's Findings and Order Granting Accelerated Approval of
the Proposed Rule Change

    After careful consideration, the Commission finds that the proposed
rule change is consistent with the requirements of the Act, including
Section 6(b) of the Act,\7\ and the rules and regulations thereunder
applicable to a national securities exchange.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    In its filing, the Exchange requested that the Commission approve
the proposal on an accelerated basis pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of
the Act, so that the proposal may become operative in time to
accommodate the Exchange's planned transfer of its primary data center
to the East coast of the United States.\9\ The Commission finds good
cause, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act,\10\ for approving the

proposed rule change prior to the thirtieth day after the date of
publication of the notice of filing in the Federal Register. Currently,
CBOE's electronic systems and its floor are housed in close proximity
to one another and, as a result, in the event that one is rendered
inoperable or inaccessible, it is possible that the other could be
compromised as well. As CBOE notes above, CBOE's current Rule 6.18
acknowledges this by presuming that if the Disaster Recovery Facility
is used, no open outcry trading would be available. However, CBOE now
plans to relocate its primary electronic systems to a different
location on the East coast of the United States, and thus the primary
electronic systems and the physical floor will be in separate
locations. Accordingly, CBOE is proposing to clarify Rule 6.18 to
reflect that it may, to the extent possible, continue to operate its
physical trading floor in Chicago in the event that it needs to operate
in disaster recovery mode on account of its primary data systems on the
East coast being unavailable.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).
    \10\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    CBOE also has proposed to eliminate paragraph (e) of Rule 6.18, as
its new back-up systems will no longer necessitate that it retain the
ability to restrict access to its back-up data facility. Other than the
elimination of paragraph (e), CBOE has not proposed any material
changes to Rule 6.18, or how it would operate in recovery mode.
    Finally, CBOE's Rule 6.18 will continue to require TPHs to take
action to be able to accommodate CBOE's ability to trade options
through the back-up data center in the event that CBOE operates in
disaster recovery mode.
    Accordingly, the Commission believes that accelerated approval of
the proposed rule change to clarify the operation of CBOE Rule 6.18 in
light of CBOE's planned relocation of its primary data facility to the
East coast will allow CBOE to effectively revise its disaster recovery
rule without delay and thereby avoid any potential interruption to
CBOE's exchange operations. CBOE's proposed changes to Rule 6.18 are
not material and consist of technical updates to its rule to allow for
CBOE to resume operations on its physical floor in Chicago (along with
its back-up data center in Chicago) in the event of a disruption to its
primary data center on the East coast. Thus, accelerated approval of
this proposed rule change will grant CBOE the ability to continue its
operations to the fullest extent possible under its rules if a disaster
recovery situation were to occur between the time of transfer of its
primary data center to the East coast on December 3, 2012 and the time
that CBOE would have otherwise been able to obtain Commission action on
its proposed rule change under Section 19(b)(2) of the Act \11\ had the
Commission not granted accelerated approval to its proposal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2). As provided by Section 19(b)(2) of the
Act, the Commission must, within 45 days of the date of publication
of notice of a proposed rule change in the Federal Register (unless
such period is extended by the Exchange or the Commission) either:
(1) By order approve or disapprove such proposed rule change, or (2)
institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule change
should be disapproved. See id. Section 19(b)(2) also provides that
the Commission may not approve a proposed rule change earlier than
30 days after the date of publication unless it finds good cause for
doing so and publishes the reason for the finding. See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

V. Conclusion

    It is therefore ordered, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the
Act,\12\ that the proposed rule change (SR-CBOE-2012-111) be, and
hereby is, approved on an accelerated basis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ Id.

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

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

Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-29076 Filed 11-30-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: April 4, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 64)]
[Notices]
[Page 16839-16841]
[DOCID:fr04ap06-75]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-53563; File No. SR-Amex-2005-125]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; American Stock Exchange LLC;
Notice of Filing of Proposed Rule Change and Amendment No. 1 Thereto
Relating to Dual Listing

March 29, 2006.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the ``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given
that on December 5, 2005, the American Stock Exchange LLC (``Amex'' or
``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I, II,
and III below, which Items have been prepared by Amex. On March 21,
2006, Amex filed Amendment No. 1. The Commission is publishing this
notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change, as amended,
from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    Amex proposes to amend (i) Sections 140 and 141 of the Amex Company
Guide and the Amex Fee Schedule to reduce the listing fees for
companies listed on another securities market that dual list on the
Amex, and (ii) Amex Rule 118 to (a) include in the scope of the Rule
securities listed on the Nasdaq Capital Market (formerly referred to as
the Nasdaq SmallCap Market,) \3\ (``NCM'') and (b) accommodate the dual
listing of securities listed on the NCM and the Nasdaq National Market
(``NNM'').\4\ NNM and NCM are tiers of The Nasdaq Stock Market, which
is operated by The Nasdaq Stock Market, Inc. (NNM and NCM are
collectively referred to as ``Nasdaq.'') In addition, the Exchange
proposes minor, technical changes to Amex Rules 7, 24, 109, 115, 126,
128A, 131, 135A, 156, 170, 190 and 205, and Sections 142 and 950 of the
Company Guide to reflect the proposed changes to Amex Rule 118. The
text of the proposed rule change is available on the Amex's Web site at
http://www.amex.com, the Office of the Secretary, Amex, and at the

Commission's Public Reference Room.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 52489 (September 21,
2005), 70 FR 56948 (September 29, 2005)(SR-NASD-2005-108).
    \4\ The instant proposed rule change is similar to rules of the
Nasdaq and PCX Equities, Inc. (``PCXE'')(now known as NYSE Arca
Equities, Inc.), which address the dual listing of securities.
Nasdaq Rules 4510 and 4520 waive Nasdaq listing fees for New York
Stock Exchange listed companies that dual list on Nasdaq. PCXE's
Schedule of Fees and Charges for Exchange Services sets forth
reduced listing fees for dual listed securities, and PCXE Rule
1.1(aa) defines ``Nasdaq Security'' as any security designated as an
eligible security pursuant to the UTP Plan (as defined below) that
is either listed on PCXE or as to which UTP (as defined below) have
been granted.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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. The
text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in
Item IV below. Amex 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
    In order to encourage the listing on Amex of companies already
listed on another market, the Exchange proposes to reduce the listing
fees applicable to such dual listing issuers and to make appropriate
rule changes to accommodate the listing and trading on Amex of issuers
whose securities are also listed on Nasdaq.
    Specifically, the Exchange proposes to amend (i) Sections 140 and
141 of the Company Guide and the Fee Schedule to reduce the initial and
annual listing fees for companies that dual list on Amex, and (ii) Amex
Rule 118 to expand the scope of the Rule to cover NCM securities and
also to accommodate the dual listing of Nasdaq securities. The Exchange
will make an independent determination of whether dual listing issuers
satisfy all applicable listing requirements and will require such
issuers to meet all applicable Amex listing standards on a continuous
basis. Ultimately, the Exchange would

encourage dual listed issuers to transfer their listings to Amex.
    (i) Fees. The Exchange proposes to amend Section 140 (Original
Listing Fees) and Section 141 (Annual Listing Fees) of the Company
Guide and the Fee Schedule to provide for reduced fees for issuers
listed on other markets that also list on Amex. The discounted listing
fees for companies already listed on another market are proposed as an
incentive to companies to compare the services and quality of Amex
market without having to pay full listing fees on both markets. In
addition to providing an opportunity to compare the services and
quality of the Amex market with their current market, Amex believes
that dual listing on Amex with its auction system should benefit
investors and shareholders by increasing liquidity, reducing execution
time, and narrowing spreads. Amex believes the comparison between
executions on Amex and on the other markets will enable companies to
assess the benefit of an Amex listing.
    Amex believes that charging reduced fees to dual listed issuers is
warranted for a number of reasons. Listed companies are already
familiar with the regulatory and compliance requirements of a listing
regime. The Exchange will conduct a full and independent review of each
dual listed issuer's compliance with Amex listing standards, however,
the probability that an application from an issuer seeking to dually
list will raise regulatory and other compliance issues is lower than
for issuers not already listed elsewhere. The Exchange believes that
the review of listing applications of dually listed companies will in
most cases be less time-consuming and present fewer issues than the
review of an application from an issuer not already listed on another
market despite the fact that both reviews will be subject to the same
degree of regulatory scrutiny. Also, companies listed on another market
will already have paid initial listing fees and will be subject to
continued listing fees; Amex believes that a reduction in the fees the
Exchange charges will encourage these companies to apply for a listing
on Amex, which will, in turn, promote competition among markets
consistent with Section 11A(a)(1)(C)(ii) of the Act.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ 15 U.S.C. 78k-1(a)(1)(C)(ii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Currently, initial listing fees range from $40,000 to $65,000
depending on the issuer's aggregate total shares outstanding. In
addition, there is a one-time, non-refundable application processing
fee, which is $5,000, for companies that do not have a stock or warrant
issue listed on the Amex. For companies that dually list on Amex, the
Exchange proposes to charge 50% of the applicable initial listing fee
and application processing fee.\6\ As a result, for dual listed
companies, the maximum initial listing fee, including the application
processing fee, would be $35,000 instead of $70,000. As noted above,
the Exchange believes that applications from issuers already listed on
another U.S. market are likely to present fewer regulatory and
compliance issues based on their prior experience as a listed company
and therefore a lower fee is warranted.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ The $40,000 initial listing fee, including the application
processing fee, currently applicable to non-U.S. companies listed on
foreign stock exchanges, will not be affected by the proposed rule
change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Dual listed companies will be required to meet all applicable Amex
listing standards on a continuing basis. Annual fees currently range
from $16,500 to $34,000, depending on the issuer's aggregate total
shares outstanding. The Exchange proposes to charge 50% of the annual
fee for a period of five years from the date of initial listing for
companies that dually list on Amex. If, during the five-year period, a
dual listing issue subsequently lists exclusively on Amex, the Exchange
will assess the standard annual fee starting in the first full calendar
year following the change to an exclusive listing. At the end of the
five-year period, Amex will assess, on a pro-rated basis, the standard
annual fee for the balance of the then current calendar year.
Thereafter, Amex will assess the standard annual fee.
    The Exchange believes that it is appropriate to charge dually
listed issuers an annual fee to cover the cost of issuer services,
including regulatory oversight, but that reduced annual fees for dual
listed issuers are appropriate as it would be inequitable to charge
dually listed issuers the full annual fee as they are also paying these
fees to another market. The Exchange believes that such a reduction
serves as an incentive to issuers, which by listing on a second market
are taking on another set of regulations, to compare listing markets.
It also reflects the fact that dually listed issuers are already
subject to regulation by another market and, the Exchange believes, are
likely to raise fewer regulatory issues and therefore require less
staff time on an ongoing basis.
    (ii) Amex Rules and Trading Operations. While Amex rules do not
specifically contemplate dual listings, with respect to companies
listed on another registered national securities exchange, no changes
to the rules, or to trading operations, are required. Securities listed
on national securities exchanges (other than Nasdaq) are designated as
national market system securities under the Consolidated Quotation
Service (``CQ'') and Consolidated Tape Association (``CTA'') national
market system plans, just as are other Amex-listed securities, so the
dual listing on Amex of securities listed on such exchanges does not
conflict with existing Amex trading rules or operations. Nasdaq
securities, on the other hand, are subject to a different set of
trading rules from those designated as national market system
securities under the CQ and CTA plans.\7\ Amex proposes changes to
certain of its rules to clarify how trading and reporting of
transactions in Nasdaq securities would be accomplished.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ Based on the January 13, 2006 Commission release regarding
Nasdaq's registration as a national securities exchange, Nasdaq
anticipates commencing operations as an exchange on April 1, 2006.
See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 53128 (January 13, 2006), 71
FR 3550 (January 23, 2006)(10-131). Nasdaq has indicated that the
trading rules regarding its quotation and trading systems will
remain essentially the same following such registration as a
national securities exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Amex Rule 118 (Trading in Nasdaq National Market Securities)
currently provides for the trading of NNM securities pursuant to
unlisted trading privileges (``UTP''), in accordance with provisions of
the Joint Self-Regulatory Organization Plan Governing the Collection,
Consolidation and Dissemination of Quotation and Transaction
Information for Nasdaq-Listed Securities Traded on Exchanges on an
Unlisted Trading Privileges Basis (``UTP Plan''); however, Amex Rule
118 does not currently include NCM securities. Amex proposes to amend
the definition of NNM securities in Amex Rule 118 so that it will now
include (i) NCM securities and (ii) NNM and NCM securities that are
listed on the Amex. As a result, the same provisions applicable to NNM
securities traded on a UTP basis on Amex will cover NCM securities
traded on a UTP basis on Amex and NNM and NCM securities with dual
listings on Amex including Amex Rules 1, 3, 7, 24, 115, 118, 126, 170,
190 and 205, and Sections 142 and 950 of the Company Guide. For
example, Amex Rule 7 governing short sales will not apply to dually
listed NNM or NCM securities.
    The Exchange also proposes minor, technical changes to Amex Rules
7, 24, 109, 115, 126, 128A, 131, 135A, 156, 170, 190 and 205, and
Sections 142 and 950 of the Company Guide to reflect the revised
definition of NNM securities and changes to Rule 11Ac1-1 under the

Act.\8\ For example, the Exchange proposes to amend Commentary .02 to
Amex Rule 115 to remove the reproduced text of Rule 11Ac1-1 under the
Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 51808 (June 9,
2005); 70 FR 37496 (June 29, 2005)(S7-10-04). 17 CFR 242.602.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    Amex believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with
Section 6(b) of the Act,\9\ in general, and furthers the objectives of
Sections 6(b)(4) \10\ and 6(b)(5) of the Act,\11\ in particular, in
that it is designed to provide an equitable allocation of reasonable
dues, fees and other charges among members and issuers and other
persons using the Exchange's facilities, and to prevent fraudulent and
manipulative acts and practices, to promote just and equitable
principles of trade, to foster cooperation and coordination with
persons engaged in regulating, clearing, settling, processing
information with respect to, and facilitating transactions in
securities, 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; and is not designed to
permit unfair discrimination between customers, issuers, brokers, or
dealers, or to regulate by virtue of any authority conferred by the Act
matters not related to the purpose of the Act or the administration of
the Exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \10\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).
    \11\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    Amex believes the proposed rule change does not impose any burden
on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of
the purposes of the Act. Specifically, the Exchange believes that the
proposed rule change will enhance competition by allowing issuers
listed on other markets to add a listing on Amex without being required
to pay fees that are duplicative of the fees already paid to the other
market.

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 35 days of the date of publication of this notice in the
Federal Register or within such longer period (i) as the Commission may
designate up to 90 days of such date if it finds such longer period to
be appropriate and publishes its reasons for so finding or (ii) as to
which the Exchange consents, the Commission will:
    (A) By order approve such 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 e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include

File No. SR-Amex-2005-125 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

     Send paper comments in triplicate to Nancy M. Morris,
Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, Station Place, 100 F
Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.
    All submissions should refer to File Number SR-Amex-2005-125. This
file number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used.
To help the Commission process and review your comments more
efficiently, please use only one method. The Commission will post all
comments on the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/
 sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments,

all written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that
are filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating
to the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person,
other than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance
with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for inspection
and copying in the Commission's Public Reference Room. Copies of such
filing also will be available for inspection and copying at the
principal office of the Exchange. All comments received will be posted
without change; the Commission does not edit personal identifying
information from submissions. You should submit only information that
you wish to make available publicly. All submissions should refer to
File Number SR-Amex-2005-125 and should be submitted on or before April
25, 2006.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation,
pursuant to delegated authority.
Nancy M. Morris,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E6-4828 Filed 4-3-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010-01-P