[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 155 (Tuesday, August 12, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 47165-47170]
[FR Doc No: 2014-18978]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-72777; File No. SR-MIAX-2014-39]

Self-Regulatory Organizations: Miami International Securities
Exchange LLC; Notice of Filing of a Proposed Rule Change To List and
Trade Options on Shares of the Market Vectors ETFs

August 6, 2014.
    Pursuant to the provisions of Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice
is hereby given that on July 28, 2014, Miami International Securities
Exchange LLC (``MIAX'' or ``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission (``SEC'' or ``Commission'') a proposed rule change
as described in Items I, II, and III below, which Items have been
prepared by the Exchange. The Commission is publishing this notice to
solicit comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange is filing a proposal to list and trade on the Exchange
options on shares of the Market Vectors Brazil Small-Cap ETF (``BRF''),
Market Vectors Indonesia Index ETF (``IDX''), Market Vectors Poland ETF
(``PLND''), and Market Vectors Russia ETF (``RSX'').
    The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's
Web site at http://www.miaxoptions.com/filter/wotitle/rule_filing, at
MIAX's principal office, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to list for trading on the Exchange options
on the shares of the Market Vectors Brazil Small-Cap ETF,\3\ Market
Vectors Indonesia Index ETF, Market Vectors Poland ETF, and Market
Vectors Russia ETF \4\ (collectively the ``Market Vector ETFs''). MIAX
Rule 402 establishes the Exchange's initial listing standards for
equity options (the ``Listing Standards''). The Listing Standards
permit the Exchange to list options on the shares of open-end
investment companies, such as the Market Vectors ETFs, without having
to file for approval with the Commission.\5\ The Exchange submits that
each of the Market Vectors ETFs substantially meet all of the initial
listing requirements. In particular, all of the requirements set forth
in Rule 402(i) for each of the Market Vectors ETFs are met except for
the requirement concerning the existence of a comprehensive
surveillance sharing agreement (``CSSA''). However, as explained below,
the Exchange submits that sufficient mechanisms exist in order to
provide adequate surveillance and regulatory information with respect
to the portfolio securities of each of the Market Vectors ETFs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Options on Market Vectors Brazil Small-Cap ETF are currently
listed on Chicago Board Options Exchange, Inc. (``CBOE''),
International Securities Exchange (``ISE''), and NASDAQ OMX PHLX
(``PHLX'').
    \4\ Options on Market Vectors Russia ETF are currently listed on
BATS Options Exchange (``BATS''), BOX Options Exchange (``BOX''),
CBOE, PHLX, NYSE AMEX Options (``AMEX''), NYSE ARCA Options
(``ARCA''), ISE, and ISE Gemini.
    \5\ MIAX Rule 402(i) provides the Listing Standards for shares
or other securities (``Exchange-Traded Fund Shares'') that are
traded on a national securities exchange and are defined as an ``NMS
stock'' under Rule 600 of Regulation NMS.

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

Market Vectors Brazil Small-Cap ETF (``BRF'')
    BRF is registered pursuant to the Investment Company Act of 1940 as
a management investment company designed to hold a portfolio of
securities which track the Market Vectors Brazil Small-Cap Index
(``Brazil Index'').\6\ The Brazil Index consists of stocks traded
primarily on BM&FBOVESPA. BRF employs a ``passive'' or indexing
approach to track the Brazil Index by investing in a portfolio of
securities that generally replicates the Brazil Index.\7\ Van Eck
Associates Corporation (the ``Adviser'') expects BRF to closely track
the Brazil Index so that, over time, a tracking error of 5%, or less,
is exhibited. BRF will normally invest at least eighty percent (80%) of
its assets in the securities comprising the Brazil Index. The Exchange
believes that these policies prevent BRF from being excessively
weighted in any single security or small group of securities and
significantly reduce concerns that trading in BRF could become a
surrogate for trading in unregistered securities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Market Vectors Index Solutions created and maintains the
Market Vectors Brazil Small-Cap Index.
    \7\ As of March 20, 2014, BRF was comprised of 82 securities.
CIA HERING had the greatest individual weight at 3.39%. The
aggregate percentage weighting of the top 5 and 10 securities in the
Fund were 15.04% and 27.66%, respectively.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Shares of the BRF (``BRF Shares'') are issued and redeemed, on a
continuous basis, at net asset value (``NAV'') in aggregation size of
50,000 shares, or multiples thereof (a ``Creation Unit''). Following
issuance, BRF Shares are traded on an exchange like other equity
securities. BRF Shares trade in the secondary markets in amounts less
than a Creation Unit and the price per BRF Share may differ from its
NAV which is calculated once daily as of the regularly scheduled close
of business of NYSE Arca.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ The regularly scheduled close of trading on NYSE Arca is
normally 4:00 p.m. Eastern Time (``ET'') and 4:15 p.m. for ETFs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Bank of New York Mellon is the custodian, and transfer agent for
BRF. Detailed information on BRF can be found at www.vaneck.com.
    The Exchange has reviewed BRF and determined that the BRF Shares
satisfy the initial listing standards, except for the requirement set
forth in MIAX Rule 402(i)(5)(ii)(B) which requires BRF to meet the
following condition:
     Component securities of an index or portfolio of
securities on which the Exchange-Traded Fund Shares are based for which
the primary market is in any one country that is not subject to a
comprehensive surveillance agreement do not represent 20% or more of
the weight of the index.

The Exchange currently does not have in place a surveillance agreement
with BOVESPA.
    The Exchange submits that the Commission, in the past, has been
willing to allow a national securities exchange to rely on a memorandum
of understanding entered into between regulators in the event that the
exchanges themselves cannot enter into a CSSA. The Exchange notes that
BM&FBOVESPA is under the regulatory oversight of the Comissao de
Valores Mobiliarios (``CMV''), which has the responsibility for both
Brazilian exchanges and over-the-counter markets. The Exchange further
notes that the Commission executed a memorandum of understanding with
the CMV dated as of July 24, 2012 (``Brazil-US MOU''), which provides a
framework for mutual assistance in investigatory and regulatory issues.
Based on the relationship between the SEC and CMV and the terms of the
Brazil-US MOU, the Exchange submits that both the Commission and the
CMV could acquire information from and provide information to the other
similar to that which would be required in a CSSA between exchanges.
Moreover, the Commission could make a request for information under the
Brazil-US MOU on behalf of an SRO that needed the information for
regulatory purposes. Thus, should MIAX need information on Brazilian
trading in the Brazil Index component securities to investigate
incidents involving trading of BRF options, the SEC could request such
information from the CMV under the Brazil-US MOU. While this
arrangement certainly would be enhanced by the existence of direct
exchange to exchange surveillance sharing agreements, it is nonetheless
consistent with other instances where the Commission has explored
alternatives when the relevant foreign exchange was unwilling or unable
to enter into a CSSA.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See, e.g., Securities Exchange Act Release No. 36415
(October 25, 1995), 60 FR 55620 (November 1, 1995) (SR-CBOE-95-45)
(Order Approving Proposed Rule Change Relating to the Listing and
Trading of Options on the CBOE Mexico 30 Index).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The practice of relying on surveillance agreements or MOUs between
regulators when a foreign exchange was unable, or unwilling, to provide
an information sharing agreement was affirmed by the Commission in the
Commission's New Product Release (``New Product Release'').\10\ The
Commission noted in the New Product Release that if securing a CSSA is
not possible, an exchange should contact the Commission prior to
listing a new derivative securities product. The Commission also noted
that the Commission may determine instead that it is appropriate to
rely on a memorandum of understanding between the Commission and the
foreign regulator.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 40761 (December 8,
1998), 63 FR 70952, 70959 at fn. 101 (December 22, 1998).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange has recently contacted BM&FBOVESPA with a request to
enter into a CSSA. Until the Exchange is able to secure a CSSA with
BM&FBOVESPA, the Exchange requests that the Commission allow the
listing and trading of options on BRF without a CSSA, upon reliance of
the Brazil-US MOU entered into between the Commission and the CMV. The
Exchange believes this request is reasonable and notes that the
Commission has provided similar relief in the past. For example, the
Commission approved the Philadelphia Stock Exchange, Inc. (``PHLX'') to
rely on an MOU between the Commission and the CMV instead of a direct
CSSA with BM&FBOVESPA in order to list and trade options on Telebras
Portoflio Certicate American Depository Receipts.\11\ Additionally, the
Commission approved, on a pilot basis, proposals of competing exchanges
to list and trade options on the iShares MSCI Emerging Markets Fund
\12\ and the iShares MSCI Mexico Indext Fund.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 40298 (August 3,
1998), 63 FR 43435 (August 13, 1998) (SR-Phlx-1998-33).
    \12\ See Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 53824 (May 17,
2006), 71 FR 30003 (May 24, 2006) (SR-Amex-2006-43); 54081 (June 30,
2006), 71 FR 38911 (July 10, 2006) (SR-Amex-2006-60); 54553
(September 29, 2006), 71 FR 59561 (October 10, 2006) (SR-Amex-2006-
91); 55040 (January 3, 2007), 72 FR 1348 (January 11, 2007) (SR-
Amex-2007-01); and 55955 (June 25, 2007), 72 FR 36079 (July 2, 2007)
(SR-Amex-2007-57); 56324 (August 27, 2007), 72 FR 50426 (August 31,
2007) (SR-ISE-2007-72).
    \13\ See Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 72213 (May 21,
2014), FR 30699 (May 28, 2014) (SR-MIAX-2014-19); 56778 (November 9,
2007), 72 FR 65113 (November 19, 2007) (SR-Amex-2007-100); 57013
(December 20, 2007), 72 FR 73923 (December 28, 2007) (SR-CBOE-2007-
140); 57014 (December 20, 2007), 72 FR 73934 (December 28, 2007)
(SR-ISE-2007-111).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission's approval of this request to list and trade options
on the BRF would otherwise render BRF compliant with all of the
applicable Listing Standards.
    The Exchange shall continue to use its best efforts to obtain a
CSSA with BM&FBOVESPA, which shall reflect the following: (1) Express
language addressing market trading activity, clearing activity, and
customer identity; (2) BM&FBOVESPA's reasonable ability to obtain
access to and produce

requested information; and (3) based on the CSSA and other information
provided by the BM&FBOVESPA, the absence of existing rules, law or
practices that would impede the Exchange from obtaining foreign
information relating to market activity, clearing activity, or customer
identity, or in the event such rules, laws, or practices exist, they
would not materially impede the production of customer or other
information.
Market Vectors Indonesia Index ETF (``IDX'')
    IDX is registered pursuant to the Investment Company Act of 1940 as
a management investment company designed to hold a portfolio of
securities which track the Market Vectors Indonesia Index (``Indonesia
Index'').\14\ The Indonesia Index consists of stocks traded primarily
on the Indonesia Stock Exchange. IDX employs a ``passive'' or indexing
approach to track the Indonesia Index by investing in a portfolio of
securities that generally replicates the Indonesia Index.\15\ The
Adviser expects IDX to closely track the Indonesia Index so that, over
time, a tracking error of 5%, or less, is exhibited. IDX will normally
invest at least eighty percent (80%) of its assets in the securities
comprising the Indonesia Index. IDX may concentrate its investments in
a particular industry or group of industries to the extent that the
Indonesia Index concentrates in an industry or group of industries. The
Exchange believes that these requirements and policies prevent the IDX
from being excessively weighted in any single security or small group
of securities and significantly reduce concerns that trading in IDX
could become a surrogate for trading in unregistered securities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ Market Vectors Index Solutions created and maintains the
Market Vectors Indonesia Index.
    \15\ As of June 30, 2014, IDX was comprised of 52 securities.
ASTRA INTERNATIONAL had the greatest individual weight at 8.05%. The
aggregate percentage weighting of the top 5 and 10 securities in the
Fund were 35.65% and 54.01%, respectively.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Shares of the IDX (``IDX Shares'') are issued and redeemed, on a
continuous basis, at NAV in aggregation size of 50,000 shares, or
multiples thereof (a ``Creation Unit''). Following issuance, IDX Shares
are traded on an exchange like other equity securities. IDX Shares
trade in the secondary markets in amounts less than a Creation Unit and
the price per IDX Share may differ from its NAV which is calculated
once daily as of the regularly scheduled close of business of NYSE
Arca.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ See supra note 8.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Bank of New York Mellon is the custodian, and transfer agent for
IDX. Detailed information on IDX can be found at www.vaneck.com.
    The Exchange has reviewed IDX and determined that the IDX Shares
satisfy the initial listing standards, except for the requirement set
forth in MIAX Rule 402(i)(5)(ii)(B) which requires IDX to meet the
following condition:
     Component securities of an index or portfolio of
securities on which the Exchange-Traded Fund Shares are based for which
the primary market is in any one country that is not subject to a
comprehensive surveillance agreement do not represent 20% or more of
the weight of the index.
    The Exchange currently does not have in place a surveillance
agreement with the Indonesia Stock Exchange. The Exchange submits that
the Commission, in the past, has been willing to allow a national
securities exchange to rely on a memorandum of understanding entered
into between regulators in the event that the exchanges themselves
cannot enter into a CSSA. The Exchange notes that the Indonesia Stock
Exchange is under the regulatory oversight of the Indonesia Financial
Services Authority (``FSA''), which has the responsibility for
Indonesian stock exchanges. The Exchange further notes that both the
Commission and FSA are signatories to the International Organization of
Securities Commissions (``IOSCO'') Multilateral Memorandum of
Understanding (``MMOU''), which provides a framework for mutual
assistance in investigatory and regulatory issues. Based on the
relationship between the SEC and FSA and the terms of the MMOU, the
Exchange submits that both the Commission and the FSA could acquire
information from and provide information to the other similar to that
which would be required in a CSSA between exchanges. Moreover, the
Commission could make a request for information under the MMOU on
behalf of an SRO that needed the information for regulatory purposes.
Thus, should MIAX need information on Indonesian trading in the
Indonesia Index component securities to investigate incidents involving
trading of IDX options, the SEC could request such information from the
FSA under the MMOU. While this arrangement certainly would be enhanced
by the existence of direct exchange to exchange surveillance sharing
agreements, it is nonetheless consistent with other instances where the
Commission has explored alternatives when the relevant foreign exchange
was unwilling or unable to enter into a CSSA.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ See supra note 9.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The practice of relying on surveillance agreements or MOUs between
regulators when a foreign exchange was unable, or unwilling, to provide
an information sharing agreement was affirmed by the Commission in the
New Product Release.\18\ The Commission noted in the New Product
Release that if securing a CSSA is not possible, an exchange should
contact the Commission prior to listing a new derivative securities
product. The Commission also noted that the Commission may determine
instead that it is appropriate to rely on a memorandum of understanding
between the Commission and the foreign regulator.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ See supra note 10.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange has recently contacted the Indonesia Stock Exchange
with a request to enter into a CSSA. Until the Exchange is able to
secure a CSSA with the Indonesia Stock Exchange, the Exchange requests
that the Commission allow the listing and trading of options on IDX
without a CSSA, upon reliance of the MMOU entered into between the
Commission and the FSA. The Exchange believes this request is
reasonable and notes that the Commission has provided similar relief in
the past. Additionally, the Commission approved, on a pilot basis,
proposals of competing exchanges to list and trade options on the
iShares MSCI Emerging Markets Fund \19\ and the iShares MSCI Mexico
Index Fund.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ See supra note 12.
    \20\ See supra note 13.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission's approval of this request to list and trade options
on the IDX would otherwise render IDX compliant with all of the
applicable Listing Standards.
    The Exchange shall continue to use its best efforts to obtain a
CSSA with the Indonesia Stock Exchange, which shall reflect the
following: (1) Express language addressing market trading activity,
clearing activity, and customer identity; (2) the Indonesia Stock
Exchange's reasonable ability to obtain access to and produce requested
information; and (3) based on the CSSA and other information provided
by the Indonesia Stock Exchange, the absence of existing rules, law or
practices that would impede the Exchange from obtaining foreign
information relating to market activity, clearing activity, or customer
identity, or in the event such rules, laws, or practices exist, they
would not materially impede the

production of customer or other information.
Market Vectors Poland Index ETF (``PLND'')
    PLND is registered pursuant to the Investment Company Act of 1940
as a management investment company designed to hold a portfolio of
securities which track the Market Vectors Poland Index (``Poland
Index'').\21\ The Poland Index consists of stocks traded primarily on
the Warsaw Stock Exchange. PLND employs a ``passive'' or indexing
approach to track the Poland Index by investing in a portfolio of
securities that generally replicates the Poland Index.\22\ The Adviser
expects PLND to closely track the Poland Index so that, over time, a
tracking error of 5%, or less, is exhibited. PLND will normally invest
at least eighty percent (80%) of its assets in the securities
comprising the Poland Index. PLND may concentrate its investments in a
particular industry or group of industries to the extent that the
Poland Index concentrates in an industry or group of industries. The
Exchange believes that these requirements and policies prevent the PLND
from being excessively weighted in any single security or small group
of securities and significantly reduce concerns that trading in PLND
could become a surrogate for trading in unregistered securities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ Market Vectors Index Solutions created and maintains the
Market Vectors Poland Index.
    \22\ As of June 30, 2014, PLND was comprised of 30 securities.
PZU had the greatest individual weight at 8.13%. The aggregate
percentage weighting of the top 5 and 10 securities in the Fund were
36.20% and 60.49%, respectively.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Shares of the PLND (``PLND Shares'') are issued and redeemed, on a
continuous basis, at NAV in aggregation size of 50,000 shares, or
multiples thereof (a ``Creation Unit''). Following issuance, PLND
Shares are traded on an exchange like other equity securities. PLND
Shares trade in the secondary markets in amounts less than a Creation
Unit and the price per PLND Share may differ from its NAV which is
calculated once daily as of the regularly scheduled close of business
of NYSE Arca.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ See supra note 8.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Bank of New York Mellon is the custodian, and transfer agent for
PLND. Detailed information on PLND can be found at www.vaneck.com.
    The Exchange has reviewed PLND and determined that the PLND Shares
satisfy the initial listing standards, except for the requirement set
forth in MIAX Rule 402(i)(5)(ii)(B) which requires PLND to meet the
following condition:
     Component securities of an index or portfolio of
securities on which the Exchange-Traded Fund Shares are based for which
the primary market is in any one country that is not subject to a
comprehensive surveillance agreement do not represent 20% or more of
the weight of the index.

The Exchange currently does not have in place a surveillance agreement
with the Warsaw Stock Exchange.
    The Exchange submits that the Commission, in the past, has been
willing to allow a national securities exchange to rely on a memorandum
of understanding entered into between regulators in the event that the
exchanges themselves cannot enter into a CSSA. The Exchange notes that
the Warsaw Stock Exchange is under the regulatory oversight of the
Polish Financial Supervision Authority (``KNF''), which has the
responsibility for Polish stock exchanges. The Exchange further notes
that both the Commission and KNF are signatories to the IOSCO MMOU,
which provides a framework for mutual assistance in investigatory and
regulatory issues. Based on the relationship between the SEC and KNF
and the terms of the MMOU, the Exchange submits that both the
Commission and the KNF could acquire information from and provide
information to the other similar to that which would be required in a
CSSA between exchanges. Moreover, the Commission could make a request
for information under the MMOU on behalf of an SRO that needed the
information for regulatory purposes. Thus, should MIAX need information
on Polish trading in the Poland Index component securities to
investigate incidents involving trading of PLND options, the SEC could
request such information from the KNF under the MMOU. While this
arrangement certainly would be enhanced by the existence of direct
exchange to exchange surveillance sharing agreements, it is nonetheless
consistent with other instances where the Commission has explored
alternatives when the relevant foreign exchange was unwilling or unable
to enter into a CSSA.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ See supra note 9.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The practice of relying on surveillance agreements or MOUs between
regulators when a foreign exchange was unable, or unwilling, to provide
an information sharing agreement was affirmed by the Commission in the
New Product Release.\25\ The Commission noted in the New Product
Release that if securing a CSSA is not possible, an exchange should
contact the Commission prior to listing a new derivative securities
product. The Commission also noted that the Commission may determine
instead that it is appropriate to rely on a memorandum of understanding
between the Commission and the foreign regulator.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ See supra note 10.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange has recently contacted the Warsaw Stock Exchange with
a request to enter into a CSSA. Until the Exchange is able to secure a
CSSA with the Warsaw Stock Exchange, the Exchange requests that the
Commission allow the listing and trading of options on PLND without a
CSSA, upon reliance of the MMOU entered into between the Commission and
the KNF. The Exchange believes this request is reasonable and notes
that the Commission has provided similar relief in the past.
Additionally, the Commission approved, on a pilot basis, proposals of
competing exchanges to list and trade options on the iShares MSCI
Emerging Markets Fund \26\ and the iShares MSCI Mexico Index Fund.\27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ See supra note 12.
    \27\ See supra note 13.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission's approval of this request to list and trade options
on the PLND would otherwise render PLND compliant with all of the
applicable Listing Standards.
    The Exchange shall continue to use its best efforts to obtain a
CSSA with the Warsaw Stock Exchange, which shall reflect the following:
(1) Express language addressing market trading activity, clearing
activity, and customer identity; (2) the Warsaw Stock Exchange's
reasonable ability to obtain access to and produce requested
information; and (3) based on the CSSA and other information provided
by the Warsaw Stock Exchange, the absence of existing rules, law or
practices that would impede the Exchange from obtaining foreign
information relating to market activity, clearing activity, or customer
identity, or in the event such rules, laws, or practices exist, they
would not materially impede the production of customer or other
information.
Market Vectors Russia Index ETF (``RSX'')
    RSX is registered pursuant to the Investment Company Act of 1940 as
a management investment company designed to hold a portfolio of
securities which track the Market Vectors Russia Index (``Russia
Index'').\28\ The Russia Index consists of stocks traded primarily on
the Moscow Exchange. RSX employs

a ``passive'' or indexing approach to track the Russia Index by
investing in a portfolio of securities that generally replicates the
Russia Index.\29\ The Adviser expects RSX to closely track the Russia
Index so that, over time, a tracking error of 5%, or less, is
exhibited. RSX will normally invest at least eighty percent (80%) of
its assets in the securities comprising the Russia Index. The Exchange
believes that these requirements and policies prevent the RSX from
being excessively weighted in any single security or small group of
securities and significantly reduce concerns that trading in RSX could
become a surrogate for trading in unregistered securities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ Market Vectors Index Solutions created and maintains the
Market Vectors Russia Index.
    \29\ As of June 30, 2014, RSX was comprised of 51 securities.
GAZPROM OAO-SPON ADR had the greatest individual weight at 8.38%.
The aggregate percentage weighting of the top 5 and 10 securities in
the Fund were 35.90% and 60.25%, respectively.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Shares of the RSX (``RSX Shares'') are issued and redeemed, on a
continuous basis, at NAV in aggregation size of 50,000 shares, or
multiples thereof (a ``Creation Unit''). Following issuance, RSX Shares
are traded on an exchange like other equity securities. RSX Shares
trade in the secondary markets in amounts less than a Creation Unit and
the price per RSX Share may differ from its NAV which is calculated
once daily as of the regularly scheduled close of business of NYSE
Arca.\30\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \30\ See supra note 8.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Bank of New York Mellon is the custodian, and transfer agent for
RSX. Detailed information on RSX can be found at www.vaneck.com.
    The Exchange has reviewed RSX and determined that the RSX Shares
satisfy the initial listing standards, except for the requirement set
forth in MIAX Rule 402(i)(5)(ii)(B) which requires RSX to meet the
following condition:
     Component securities of an index or portfolio of
securities on which the Exchange-Traded Fund Shares are based for which
the primary market is in any one country that is not subject to a
comprehensive surveillance agreement do not represent 20% or more of
the weight of the index.
    The Exchange currently does not have in place a surveillance
agreement with the Moscow Exchange. The Exchange submits that the
Commission, in the past, has been willing to allow a national
securities exchange to rely on a memorandum of understanding entered
into between regulators in the event that the exchanges themselves
cannot enter into a CSSA. The Exchange notes that the Moscow Exchange
is under the regulatory oversight of the Federal Commission on
Securities Market of Russia (``FCSM''), which has the responsibility
for Russian stock exchanges. The Exchange further notes that Commission
executed a memorandum of understanding with the Federal Commission on
Securities and the Capital Market of the Government of the Russian
Federation (``FCSCM''), a forerunner of the FCSM, dated as of December
6, 1995 (``Russia-US MOU''). Based on the relationship between the SEC
and FCSM and the terms of the Russia-US MOU, the Exchange submits that
both the Commission and the FCSM could acquire information from and
provide information to the other similar to that which would be
required in a CSSA between exchanges. Moreover, the Commission could
make a request for information under the Russia-US MOU on behalf of an
SRO that needed the information for regulatory purposes. Thus, should
MIAX need information on Russian trading in the Russia Index component
securities to investigate incidents involving trading of RSX options,
the SEC could request such information from the FCSM under the Russia-
US MOU. While this arrangement certainly would be enhanced by the
existence of direct exchange to exchange surveillance sharing
agreements, it is nonetheless consistent with other instances where the
Commission has explored alternatives when the relevant foreign exchange
was unwilling or unable to enter into a CSSA.\31\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \31\ See supra note 9.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The practice of relying on surveillance agreements or MOUs between
regulators when a foreign exchange was unable, or unwilling, to provide
an information sharing agreement was affirmed by the Commission in the
New Product Release.\32\ The Commission noted in the New Product
Release that if securing a CSSA is not possible, an exchange should
contact the Commission prior to listing a new derivative securities
product. The Commission also noted that the Commission may determine
instead that it is appropriate to rely on a memorandum of understanding
between the Commission and the foreign regulator.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \32\ See supra note 10.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange has recently contacted the Moscow Exchange with a
request to enter into a CSSA. Until the Exchange is able to secure a
CSSA with the Moscow Exchange, the Exchange requests that the
Commission allow the listing and trading of options on RSX without a
CSSA, upon reliance of the Russia-US MOU entered into between the
Commission and the FCSM. The Exchange believes this request is
reasonable and notes that the Commission has provided similar relief in
the past. Additionally, the Commission approved, on a pilot basis,
proposals of competing exchanges to list and trade options on the
iShares MSCI Emerging Markets Fund \33\ and the iShares MSCI Mexico
Index Fund.\34\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \33\ See supra note 12.
    \34\ See supra note 13.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission's approval of this request to list and trade options
on the RSX would otherwise render RSX compliant with all of the
applicable Listing Standards.
    The Exchange shall continue to use its best efforts to obtain a
CSSA with the Moscow Exchange, which shall reflect the following: (1)
Express language addressing market trading activity, clearing activity,
and customer identity; (2) the Moscow Exchange's reasonable ability to
obtain access to and produce requested information; and (3) based on
the CSSA and other information provided by the Moscow Exchange, the
absence of existing rules, law or practices that would impede the
Exchange from obtaining foreign information relating to market
activity, clearing activity, or customer identity, or in the event such
rules, laws, or practices exist, they would not materially impede the
production of customer or other information.
2. Statutory Basis
    MIAX believes that its proposed rule change is consistent with
Section 6(b) of the Act \35\ in general, and furthers the objectives of
Section 6(b)(5) of the Act \36\ in particular, in that it is designed
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 facilitating transactions in
securities, to remove impediments to and perfect the mechanisms of a
free and open market and a national market system and, in general, to
protect investors and the public interest. In particular, the Exchange
believes listing and trading of options on the Market Vectors ETFs will
benefit investors by providing them with valuable risk management
tools.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \35\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \36\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange believes this proposed rule change will benefit
investors by providing additional methods to trade options on the
Market Vectors ETFs, and by providing them with valuable risk
management tools. Specifically, the

Exchange believes that market participants on MIAX would benefit from
the introduction and availability of options on the Market Vectors ETFs
in a manner that is similar to other exchanges and will provide
investors with yet another venue on which to trade these products. The
Exchange notes that the rule change is being proposed as a competitive
response to other competing options exchanges that already list and
trade options on the Market Vectors ETFs and believes this proposed
rule change is necessary to permit fair competition among the options
exchanges. For all the reasons stated above, the Exchange does not
believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on
competition not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes
of the Act, and believes the proposed change will enhance competition.

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

    Written comments were neither solicited nor received.

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

    Within 45 days of the date of publication of this notice in the
Federal Register or 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 shall: (a) By order approve
or disapprove 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 email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-MIAX-2014-39 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-MIAX-2014-39. 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-MIAX-2014-39 and should be
submitted on or before September 2, 2014.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\37\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \37\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2014-18978 Filed 8-11-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


IMPORTANT NOTE TO USER:

The margins and lines are NOT block protected, so you must fill the form with caution, paying attention to any shifting of the existing text. The following tips should make this a simple task:

 Fill in the spaces by using the type over command. Otherwise you'll have to delete a space for each letter you add.

 Use the same font ( Times New Roman 8pt).

 Do not change table lines ( although you can delete an extra space line to provide more space elsewhere.

 It is not recommended that you convert this form to WP5.1, some of these features are not available in WP5.1, so the text will scramble.

If you have any problems or questions, please call your OEI Desk Officer. PAPERWORK REDUCTION ACT SUBMISSION Please read the instructions before completing this form. For additional forms or assistance in completing this form, contact your agency's Paperwork Clearance Officer. Send two copies of this form, the collection instrument to be reviewed, the Supporting Statement and any additional documentation to: Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, Docket Library, Room 10102, 725 17th Street NW Washington, DC 20503.

1. Agency/ Subagency originating request U. S. EPA, Office of Water, Office of Ground Water & Drinking Water 2. OMB control number b. G None a 2 0 4 0  0 1 8 5 __ __ __ __

3. Type of information collection ( check one) a. G New collection b. G Revision of a currently approved collection c. X Extension of a currently approved collection d. G Reinstatement, without change, of a previously approved collection for which approval has expired e. G Reinstatement, with change, of a previously approved collection for which approval has expired f. G Existing collection in use without an OMB control number 4. Type of review requested ( check one) a. X Regular b. G Emergency  Approval requested by: / / c. G Delegated 5. Small entities Will this information collection have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities? G Yes X No For b f, note item A2 of Supporting Statement Instructions 6. Requested expiration date a. X Three years from approval date b. G Other Specify: / /___

7. Title Drinking Water State Revolving Fund Program 8. Agency form number( s) ( If applicable) EPA ICR No. 1803.04 9. Keywords Grant Programs Environmental Protection: Drinking Water System Assistance 10. Abstract States provide EPA with information on capitalization grants and how they administer and operate Drinking Water State Revolving Fund Programs. EPA uses the data to ensure National accountability, adequate public comments and review, fiscal integrity and consistent management to achieve public health and environmental objectives. Local respondents prepare applications for Drinking Water State Revolving Fund assistance which are reviewed and approved by the states.

11. Affected public ( Mark primary with " P" and all others that apply with " X") a. Individuals or households d. Farms b. X Business or other for profit e. X Federal Government c. X Not for profit institutions f. P State, Local or Tribal Government 12. Obligation to respond ( Mark primary with " P" and all others that apply with " X") a. X Voluntary b. P Required to obtain or retain benefits c. G Mandatory 13. Annual reporting and recordkeeping hour burden a. Number of respondents 1,428 b. Total annual responses 1,428 1. Percentage of these responses collected electronically 30 % c. Total hours requested 194,395 d. Current OMB inventory 192,950 e. Difference 1,445 f. Explanation of difference 1. Program Change 0 2. Adjustment 1,445 14. Annual reporting and recordkeeping cost burden ( in thousands of dollars)

a. Total annualized capital/ startup costs 0 b. Total annual costs ( O& M) 0 c. Total annualized cost requested 0 d. Current OMB inventory 0 e. Difference 0 f. Explanation of difference 1. Program change 0 2. Adjustment 0 15. Purpose of information collection ( Mark Primary With " P" and all others that apply with " X") a. P Application for benefits e. __ Program planning or management b. X Program evaluation f. __ Research c. __ General purpose statistics g. __ Regulatory or compliance d. X Audit 16. Frequency of recordkeeping or reporting ( check all that apply) a. Q Recordkeeping b. Q Third party disclosure c. X Reporting 1. Q On occasion 2. Q Weekly 3. Q Monthly 4. Q Quarterly 5. Q Semi annually 6. X Annually 7. X Biannually 8. Q Other ( describe)

17. Statistical methods Does this information collection employ statistical methods?

Q Yes X No 18. Agency contact ( person who can best answer questions regarding the content of this submission) Name: Vinh Nguyen Phone: 202 564 4631 OMB 83 I 10/ 95 19. Certification for Paperwork Reduction Act Submissions On behalf of this Federal agency, 1 certify that the collection of information encompassed by this request complies with' 5 CFR 1320.9.

NOTE: The text of 5 CFR 1320.9, and the related provisions of 5 CFR 1320.8( b)( 3), appear at the end of the instructions. The certification is to be made with reference to those regulatory provisions as set forth in the instructions.

The following is a summary of the topics, regarding the proposed collection of information, that the certification covers:

( a) It is necessary for the proper performance of agency functions;

( b) It avoids unnecessary duplication;

( c) It reduces burden on small entities;

( d) It uses plain, coherent, and unambiguous terminology that is understandable to respondents;

( e) Its implementation will be consistent and compatible with current reporting and recordkeeping practices;

( f) It indicates the retention periods for recordkeeping requirements;

( g) It informs respondents of the information called for under 5 CFR 1320.8( b)( 3): ( I) Why the information is being collected' ( ii) Use of information; ( iii) Burden estimate; ( iv) Nature of response ( voluntary, required for a benefit, or mandatory); ( v) Nature and extent of confidentiality; and ( vi) Need to display currently valid OMB control number;

( h) It was developed by an office that has planned and allocated resources for the efficient and effective management and use of the information to be collected ( see note in Item 19 of the instructions);

( I) It uses effective and efficient statistical survey methodology; and ( j) It makes appropriate use of information technology.

If you are unable to certify compliance with any of these provisions, identify the item below and explain the reason in Item 18 of the Supporting Statement.

Signature of Program Official William R. Diamond, Director Drinking Water Protection Division Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water Date Signature of Senior Official or designee Oscar Morales, Director Collection Strategies Division Office of Environmental Information Date OMB 83 I 10/ 95 Certification Requirement for Paperwork Reduction Act Submissions 5 CFR 1320.9 reads " As part of the agency submission to OMB of a proposed collection of information, the agency ( through the head of the agency, the Senior Official or their designee) shall certify ( and provide a record supporting such certification) that the proposed collection of information

"( a) is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including that the information to be collected will have practical utility;

"( b) is not unnecessarily duplicative of information otherwise reasonably accessible to the agency;

"( c) reduces to the extent practicable and appropriate the burden on persons who shall provide information to or for the agency, including with respect to small entities, as defined in the Regulatory Flexibility Act 5 U. S. C § 601( 6)), the use of such techniques as:

"( 1) establishing differing compliance or reporting requirements or timetables that take into account the resources available to those who are to respond; "( 2) the clarification, consolidation, or simplification of compliance and reporting requirements; or collection of information , or any part thereof; "( 3) an exemption from coverage of the collection of information, or any part thereof;

"( d) is written using plain, coherent, and unambiguous terminology and is understandable to those who are to respond;

"( e) is to be implemented in ways consistent and compatible, to the maximum extent practicable, with the existing reporting and recordkeeping practices of those who are to respond;

"( f) indicates for each recordkeeping requirement the length of time persons are required to maintain the records specified;

"( g) informs potential respondents of the information called for under § 1320.8( b)( 3); [ see below]

"( h) has been developed by an office that has planned and allocated resources for the efficient and effective management and use of the information to be collected, including the processing of the information in a manner which shall enhance, where appropriate, the utility of the information to agencies and the public;

"( I) uses effective and efficient statistical survey methodology appropriate to the purpose for which the information is to be collected; and "( j) to the maximum extent practicable, uses appropriate information technology to reduce burden and improve data quality, agency efficiency and responsiveness to the public."

NOTE: 5 CFR 1320.8( b)( 3) requires that each collection of information:

"( 3) informs and provides reasonable notice to the potential persons to whom the collection of information is addressed of: "( I) the reasons the information is planned to be and/ or has been used to further the proper performance of the functions of the agency; "( ii) the way such information is planned to be and/ or has been used to further the proper performance of the functions of the agency; "( iii) an estimate, to the extent practicable, of the average burden of the collection ( together with a request that the public direct to the agency any comments concerning the accuracy of this burden estimate and any suggestions for reducing this burden); "( iv) whether responses to the collection of information are voluntary, required to obtain or retain a benefit ( citing authority), or mandatory ( citing authority); "( v) the nature and extent of confidentiality to be provided, if any ( citing authority); and "( vi) the fact that any agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number."

OMB 83 I ( Instructions) 10/ 95


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 166 (Friday, August 26, 2016)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 58821-58823]
[FR Doc No: 2016-20374]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2016-8846; Directorate Identifier 2016-NM-046-AD;
Amendment 39-18624; AD 2016-17-11]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing Company Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule; request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain
The Boeing Company Model 787-8 airplanes. This AD requires a one-time
inspection of the engine pylon wiring bracket on the left wing for the
presence of an existing corner relief fillet, and corrective action if
necessary. This AD was prompted by a report indicating that the engine
pylon wiring bracket on certain airplanes was missing a corner relief
fillet, which could result in stress concentration and cracking in the
engine pylon wiring bracket. We are issuing this AD to detect and
correct cracking in the engine pylon wiring bracket. Such cracking
could result in damage to adjacent power feeders, subsequent electrical
arcing in a flammable leakage zone, and consequent uncontrollable fire.

DATES: This AD is effective September 12, 2016.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of September
12, 2016.
    We must receive comments on this AD by October 11, 2016.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR
11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.
     Hand Delivery: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, 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 service information identified in this final rule, contact
Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Data & Services Management,
P.O. Box 3707, MC 2H-65, Seattle, WA 98124-2207; telephone 206-544-
5000, extension 1; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; Internet https://www.myboeingfleet.com. You may view this referenced service information
at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW.,
Renton, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the
FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>. It is also available on the internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2016-
8846.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2016-
8846; or in person at the Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and
5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket
contains this AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and
other information. The street address for the Docket Office (phone:
800-647-5527) is in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available
in the AD docket shortly after receipt.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Fnu Winarto, Aerospace Engineer,
Systems and Equipment Branch, ANM-130S, FAA, Seattle Aircraft
Certification Office (ACO), 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-
3356; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

    We received a report indicating that the engine pylon wiring
bracket on certain airplanes is missing a corner relief fillet, because
the engineering graphics for the engine pylon wiring bracket located on
the left wing did not contain the corner relief fillet. A missing
corner relief fillet could result in stress concentration and cracking
in the bracket. The engineering graphics were subsequently revised to
add the corner relief fillet, but the engine pylon wiring bracket part
number was not changed. Therefore, brackets with and without an
existing corner relief fillet have the same bracket part number. We are
issuing this AD to prevent cracking in the engine pylon wiring bracket.
Such cracking could result in damage to adjacent power feeders,
subsequent electrical arcing in a flammable leakage zone, and
consequent uncontrollable fire.

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    We reviewed Boeing Alert Service Bulletin B787-81205-SB570012-00,
Issue 001, dated March 14, 2013. The service information describes
procedures for a one-time inspection of the engine pylon wiring bracket
on the left wing for the presence of existing corner relief fillets,
re-identification of any bracket with an existing corner relief fillet,
and replacement of any bracket without an existing corner relief
fillet. This service information is reasonably available because the
interested parties have access to it through their normal course of
business or by the means identified in the ADDRESSES section.

FAA's Determination

    We are issuing this AD because we evaluated all the relevant
information and determined the unsafe condition described previously is
likely to exist or develop in other products of the same type design.

AD Requirements

    This AD requires accomplishing the actions specified in the service
information described previously.

FAA's Justification and Determination of the Effective Date

    Currently, there are no domestic operators of the affected
airplanes on the U.S. Register. Therefore, we find that notice and
opportunity for prior public comment are unnecessary and that good
cause exists for making this amendment effective in less than 30 days.

Comments Invited

    This AD is a final rule that involves requirements affecting flight
safety and

was not preceded by notice and an opportunity for public comment.
However, we invite you to send any written data, views, or arguments
about this AD. Send your comments to an address listed under the
ADDRESSES section. Include the docket number and Directorate Identifier
2016-NM-046-AD at the beginning of your comments. We specifically
invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and
energy aspects of this AD. We will consider all comments received by
the closing date and may amend this AD because of those comments.
    We will post all comments we receive, without change, to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. We
will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we
receive about this AD.

Costs of Compliance

    Currently, there are no affected airplanes on the U.S. Register.
However, if an affected airplane is imported and placed on the U.S.
Register in the future, we estimate the following costs to comply with
this AD:

                                                 Estimated Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Cost per       Cost on U.S.
              Action                        Labor cost            Parts cost        product         operators
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Inspection........................  3 work-hours x $85 per                 $0             $255             $255
                                     hour = $255.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We estimate the following costs to do any necessary re-
identification or replacement that will be required based on the
results of the inspection. We have no way of determining the number of
aircraft that might need re-identification or replacement:

                                               On-Condition Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Cost per
                   Action                                 Labor cost                Parts cost        product
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Re-identification of bracket...............  2 work-hours x $85 per hour = $170.              $0            $170
Replacement of bracket.....................  8 work-hours x $85 per hour = $680.           1,173           1,853
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    According to the manufacturer, some of the costs of this AD may be
covered under warranty, thereby reducing the cost impact on affected
individuals. We do not control warranty coverage for affected
individuals. As a result, we have included all costs in our cost
estimate.

Authority for This Rulemaking

    Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to
issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the
authority of the FAA Administrator. ``Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs''
describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
    We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in
Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: ``General
requirements.'' Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with
promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing
regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator
finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within
the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition
that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this
rulemaking action.

Regulatory Findings

    This AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order
13132. This AD will not have 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.
    For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:
    (1) Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive
Order 12866,
    (2) Is not a ``significant rule'' under DOT Regulatory Policies and
Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979),
    (3) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and
    (4) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or
negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

    Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by
reference, Safety.

Adoption of the Amendment

    Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the
Administrator, the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows:

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

0
1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.

Sec.  39.13   [Amended]

0
2. The FAA amends Sec.  39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness
directive (AD):

2016-17-11 The Boeing Company: Amendment 39-18624; Docket No. FAA-
2016-8846; Directorate Identifier 2016-NM-046-AD.

(a) Effective Date

    This AD is effective September 12, 2016.

(b) Affected ADs

    None.

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to The Boeing Company Model 787-8 airplanes,
certificated in any category, as identified in Boeing Alert Service
Bulletin B787-81205-SB570012-00, Issue 001, dated March 14, 2013.

(d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 57, Wings.

(e) Unsafe Condition

    This AD was prompted by a report indicating that the engine
pylon wiring bracket on certain airplanes was missing a corner
relief fillet, which could lead to stress concentration and cracking
in the engine

pylon wiring bracket. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct
cracking in the engine pylon wiring bracket. Such cracking could
result in damage to adjacent power feeders, subsequent electrical
arcing in a flammable leakage zone, and consequent uncontrollable
fire.

(f) Compliance

    Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified,
unless already done.

(g) One-Time Inspection and Corrective Actions

    Within 88 months after the effective date of this AD: Do a one-
time general visual inspection of the engine pylon wiring bracket on
the left wing for the presence of an existing corner relief fillet,
in accordance with Part 1 of the Accomplishment Instructions of
Boeing Alert Service Bulletin B787-81205-SB570012-00, Issue 001,
dated March 14, 2013. Within 88 months after the effective date of
this AD, do all applicable corrective actions specified in paragraph
(g)(1) or (g)(2) of this AD.
    (1) For airplanes on which the engine pylon wiring bracket has a
corner relief fillet, re-identify the part number of the engine
pylon wiring bracket, in accordance with Part 2 of the
Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin B787-
81205-SB570012-00, Issue 001, dated March 14, 2013.
    (2) For airplanes on which the engine pylon wiring bracket does
not have a corner relief fillet, replace the engine pylon wiring
bracket with a new bracket, in accordance with Part 3 of the
Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin B787-
81205-SB570012-00, Issue 001, dated March 14, 2013.

(h) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (1) The Manager, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office (ACO),
FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested
using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14
CFR 39.19, send your request to your principal inspector or local
Flight Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending
information directly to the manager of the ACO, send it to the
attention of the person identified in paragraph (i) of this AD.
Information may be emailed to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (2) Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate
principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager
of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding
district office.
    (3) An AMOC that provides an acceptable level of safety may be
used for any repair required by this AD if it is approved by the
Boeing Commercial Airplanes Organization Designation Authorization
(ODA) that has been authorized by the Manager, Seattle ACO, to make
those findings. For a repair method to be approved, the repair must
meet the certification basis of the airplane, and the approval must
specifically refer to this AD.

(i) Related Information

    For more information about this AD, contact Fnu Winarto,
Aerospace Engineer, Systems and Equipment Branch, ANM-130S, FAA,
Seattle ACO, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; phone:
425-917-6659; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
(j) Material Incorporated by Reference

    (1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the
incorporation by reference (IBR) of the service information listed
in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
    (2) You must use this service information as applicable to do
the actions required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise.
    (i) Boeing Alert Service Bulletin B787-81205-SB570012-00, Issue
001, dated March 14, 2013.
    (ii) Reserved.
    (3) For service information identified in this AD, contact
Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Data & Services Management,
P.O. Box 3707, MC 2H-65, Seattle, WA 98124-2207; telephone 206-544-
5000, extension 1; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; Internet https://www.myboeingfleet.com.
    (4) You may view this referenced service information at the FAA,
Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA.
For information on the availability of this material at the FAA,
call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (5) You may view this service information that is incorporated
by reference at the National Archives and Records Administration
(NARA). For information on the availability of this material at
NARA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>, or go to: http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on August 16, 2016.
Dorr M. Anderson,
Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2016-20374 Filed 8-25-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register: May 13, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 91)]
[Notices]
[Page 22615-22617]
[DOCID:fr13my09-98]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-59881; File No. SR-MSRB-2009-05]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Municipal Securities Rulemaking
Board; Notice of Filing of Proposed Rule Change Relating to the
Subscription Service for Continuing Disclosure Documents Through the
Electronic Municipal Market Access System (EMMA[supreg])

May 7, 2009.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the ``Exchange Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is
hereby given that on April 22, 2009, the Municipal Securities
Rulemaking Board (the ``MSRB'') filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission (the ``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described
in Items I, II, and III below, which Items have been prepared by the
MSRB. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on
the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The MSRB has filed with the Commission a proposed rule change to
establish a real-time subscription to the document collection of the
continuing disclosure service of the MSRB's Electronic Municipal Market
Access system (``EMMA'').\3\ The MSRB has requested approval of the
proposed rule change on or prior to July 1, 2009.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The Commission has previously approved the establishment of
the continuing disclosure service of EMMA, which will commence
operation on July 1, 2009. See Securities Exchange Act Release No.
59061 (December 5, 2008), 73 FR 75778 (December 12, 2008) (File No.
SR-MSRB-2008-05) (approving the continuing disclosure service of
EMMA with an effective date of July 1, 2009).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The text of the proposed rule change is available on the MSRB's Web
site at http://www.msrb.org/msrb1/sec.asp, at the MSRB's principal
office, 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 MSRB 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 MSRB has
prepared summaries, set forth in Sections A, B and C below, of the most
significant aspects of such statements.

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

1. Purpose
    The proposed rule change consists of a proposal to establish a
real-time subscription to the continuing disclosure document
collection. The real-time data stream subscription to the EMMA
continuing disclosure service to be provided through a Web service
would be made available for an annual fee of $45,000.\4\ The continuing
disclosure subscription service would make available to subscribers all
continuing disclosure documents and related information provided by
submitters through the EMMA submission process that is posted on the
EMMA portal. Such documents and information would be made available to
subscribers simultaneously with the posting thereof on the EMMA portal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ The proposed subscription price would cover a portion of the
administrative, technical and operating costs of the EMMA continuing
disclosure subscription service but would not cover all costs of
such subscription service or of the EMMA continuing disclosure
service. The MSRB has proposed establishing the subscription price
at a fair and reasonable level consistent with the MSRB's objective
that subscriptions be made available on terms that promote the broad
dissemination of documents and data throughout the marketplace.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Data with respect to the EMMA continuing disclosure service to be
provided through the real-time data stream would consist of the
following elements, among others and as applicable, as would be more
specifically set forth in the EMMA Continuing Disclosure Subscriber
Manual posted on the EMMA portal: (i) Submission data, including
submission ID and submission transaction date/time; (ii) disclosure
indexing data, including disclosure type, financial/operating
disclosure category, event disclosure category, other voluntary
disclosure description, disclosure dates, and CUSIP numbers; (iii)
contact information data, including contact organization type, contact
name, address, phone number, and e-mail address; and (iv) document
data, including document ID, document posting date, and document status
indicator.
    The EMMA Continuing Disclosure Subscriber Manual would set forth a
complete, up-to-date listing of all data elements made available
through the continuing disclosure subscription service, including
detailed definitions of each data element, specific data format
information, and information about technical data elements to support
transmission and data-integrity processes between EMMA and subscribers.
    Subscriptions would be provided through computer-to-computer data
streams utilizing XML files for data and files in a designated
electronic format (consisting of PDF files) for documents. Appropriate
schemas and other technical specifications for accessing the Web
services through which the real-time data stream is to be provided
would be set forth in the EMMA Continuing Disclosure Subscriber Manual.
    The MSRB would make the continuing disclosure subscription service
available on an equal and non-discriminatory basis. In addition, the
MSRB would not impose any limitations on or additional charges for
redistribution of such documents by subscribers to their customers,
clients or other end-users. Subscribers would be subject to all of the
terms of the subscription agreement to be entered into between the MSRB
and each subscriber, including proprietary rights of third parties in
information provided by such third parties that is made available
through the subscription. The MSRB would not be responsible for the
content of the information or documents submitted by submitters
distributed to subscribers through the continuing disclosure
subscription service.
2. Statutory Basis
    The MSRB has adopted the proposed rule change pursuant to Section
15B(b)(2)(C) of the Exchange Act, which provides that MSRB's rules
shall: Be designed 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 municipal securities, to remove
impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market in
municipal securities, and, in general, to protect investors and the
public interest.
    The MSRB believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with
the Exchange Act and will serve to promote the statutory mandate of the
MSRB to protect investors and the public interest. The EMMA continuing
disclosure subscription service would serve as a mechanism by which the
MSRB works toward removing impediments to and helping to perfect the
mechanisms of a free and open market in municipal securities. The
subscription service would make the indexed comprehensive collection of
continuing disclosure documents of the EMMA continuing disclosure
service available to marketplace participants for redissemination and
for use in creating value-added products and services. Such
redissemination and third-party use would provide market participants,
including investors and the general public, additional avenues for
obtaining these key disclosures and would make additional tools
available in making well-informed investment decisions. Broad access to
continuing disclosure documents through the subscription service, in
addition to the public access available through the EMMA Web portal,
should further assist in preventing fraudulent and manipulative acts
and practices by improving the opportunity for public investors to
access material information about issuers, their securities and the
prices at which such securities trade.
    Furthermore, broader re-dissemination and third-party use of
continuing disclosure documents should promote a more fair and
efficient municipal securities market in which transactions are
effected on the basis of material information available to all parties
to such transactions, which should allow for fairer pricing of
transactions based on a more complete understanding of the terms of the
securities (including any changes thereto), changes in circumstances of
issuers and obligated persons, and the potential investment risks
arising therefrom.

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

    The MSRB does not believe that the proposed rule change would
impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Exchange Act.\5\ The

proposed rule change would make the continuing disclosure subscription
service available to all persons on an equal and non-discriminatory
basis. The documents and information provided through the subscription
service would be available to all subscribers simultaneously with their
availability through the EMMA Web portal. In addition to making the
documents and information available for free on the EMMA Web portal to
all members of the public, the MSRB would make continuing disclosure
documents and information available by subscription on an equal and
non-discriminatory basis without imposing restrictions on subscribers
from, or imposing additional charges on subscribers for, re-
disseminating such documents or otherwise offering value-added services
and products based on such documents on terms determined by each
subscriber.\6\ The MSRB believes that the proposed rule change would
promote increased competition among information services in the
marketplace resulting from the entry of additional commercial
enterprises.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ The MSRB previously stated in its filing with the Commission
in connection with the permanent EMMA continuing disclosure service
that it believes that the continuing disclosure service would
promote, rather than hinder, further competition, growth and
innovation in this area. See Securities Exchange Act Release No.
58256 (July 30, 2008) 73 FR 46161 (August 7, 2008) (File No. SR-
MSRB-2008-05) (proposing the establishment of the continuing
disclosure service of EMMA). See also Securities Exchange Act
Release No. 59061 (December 5, 2008), 73 FR 75778 (December 12,
2008) (File No. SR-MSRB-2008-05) (approving the continuing
disclosure service of EMMA with an effective date of July 1, 2009).
The MSRB stated that it believes that the benefits realized by the
investing public from the broader and easier availability of
disclosure information about municipal securities that would be
provided through the EMMA continuing disclosure service would
justify any potentially negative impact on existing enterprises from
the operation of EMMA.
    \6\ The MSRB notes that subscribers may be subject to
proprietary rights of third parties in information provided by such
third parties that is made available through the subscription.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    Written comments were neither solicited nor received on the
proposed rule change. However, in a notice published by the MSRB on
January 31, 2008, the MSRB described and sought comment on its plan for
implementing a continuing disclosure service that would be integrated
into other services to be offered through EMMA (the ``2008
Notice'').\7\ In particular, the MSRB stated its plan to institute the
continuing disclosure service to accept submissions of continuing
disclosure documents pursuant to continuing disclosure undertakings
consistent with Rule 15c2-12. In addition to making continuing
disclosures available at no cost through the EMMA portal, the MSRB
would make such disclosures available through a paid real-time data
stream subscription for redissemination or other use by subscribers.
One commentator asked whether periodic filings other than submissions
of annual financial information, such as quarterly or monthly financial
results, would be accepted.\8\ Another commentator stated that it
strongly believed that EMMA should be capable of housing all disclosure
documents, extending beyond those specifically required by Rule 15c2-
12, and could only support a system that allows access to other
pertinent information.\9\ The MSRB supports the dissemination of
additional continuing disclosures beyond the baseline established by
Rule 15c2-12 and is providing for such submission and dissemination in
this filing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See MSRB Notice 2008-05 (January 31, 2008). The comments
received on this notice are discussed in SR-MSRB-2008-05 (July 29,
2008). See also Securities Exchange Act Release No. 58256 (July 30,
2008), 73 FR 46161 (August 7, 2008) (File No. SR-MSRB-2008-05)
(proposing the establishment of the continuing disclosure service of
EMMA). Comments relating to voluntary filings of continuing
disclosure documents not contemplated under Exchange Act Rule 15c2-
12 are discussed herein.
    \8\ See letter from Robert Donovan and Stephen M. Fillebrown,
National Association of Health and Education Facilities Finance
Authorities, to Ernesto A. Lanza, Senior Associate General Counsel,
MSRB, dated March 3, 2008.
    \9\ \\ See letter from\\ Rob Yolland, Chairman, National
Federation of Municipal Analysts, to Mr. Lanza, dated March 10,
2008.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    Within 35 days of the date of publication of this notice in the
Federal Register or within such longer period (i) as the Commission may
designate up to 90 days of such date if it finds such longer period to
be appropriate and publishes its reasons for so finding or (ii) as to
which the self regulatory organization consents, the Commission will:
    (A) By order approve the proposed rule change, or
    (B) Institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule
change should be disapproved.
    The MSRB has requested that the Commission approve the proposed
rule change on or prior to July 1, 2009.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://
www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-MSRB-2009-05 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-MSRB-2009-05. 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, 100 F Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of 10
a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of the filing will also be available for
inspection and copying at the principal office of the MSRB. 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 No. SR-MSRB-2009-05 and should be
submitted on or before June 3, 2009.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.

[FR Doc. E9-11119 Filed 5-12-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 124 (Wednesday, June 27, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 30218-30220]
[FR Doc No: 2018-13830]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

[Docket No. NHTSA-2017-0063; Notice 2; Docket No. NHTSA-2017-0065;
Notice 2]

Autocar Industries, LLC and Autocar, LLC, Grant of Petitions for
Decision of Inconsequential Noncompliance

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

ACTION: Grant of petitions.

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

SUMMARY: Autocar Industries, LLC and Autocar, LLC (collectively
referred to as ``Autocar''), have determined that certain model year
(MY) 2014-2018 Autocar Xspotter and Xpeditor trucks do not fully comply
with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 101, Controls
and Displays. Autocar filed noncompliance reports dated June 12, 2017;
June 14, 2017; and later revised one of their reports on August 29,
2017. Autocar also submitted two petitions to NHTSA on June 19, 2017,
and submitted supplemental petitions on August 29, 2017, for a decision
that the subject noncompliance, present in each model, is
inconsequential as it relates to motor vehicle safety.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Joshua Campbell, Office of Vehicle
Safety Compliance, NHTSA, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, facsimile (202)
366-3081.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Overview

    Autocar has determined that certain MY 2014-2018 Autocar Xspotter
and Xpeditor trucks do not fully comply with Table 2 of FMVSS No. 101,
Controls and Displays (49 CFR 571.101). Autocar filed noncompliance
reports dated June 12, 2017; June 14, 2017; and later revised one of
their reports on August 29, 2017, pursuant to 49 CFR part 573, Defect
and Noncompliance Responsibility and Reports. Autocar also submitted
two petitions to NHTSA on June 19, 2017, and submitted supplemental
petitions on August 29, 2017, for an exemption from the notification
and remedy requirements of 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301 on the basis that this
noncompliance is inconsequential as it relates to motor vehicle safety,
pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 30118(d) and 30120(h) and 49 CFR part 556.
    Notices of receipt of the petitions were published with a 30-day
public comment period, on August 16, 2017, in the Federal Register (82
FR 38995) and (82 FR 38999). No comments were received.

II. Vehicles Involved

    Approximately 644 MY 2014-2018 Autocar Xspotter trucks,
manufactured between September 12, 2013 and August 4, 2017, and
approximately 5,545 MY 2014-2018 Autocar Xpeditor trucks, manufactured
between September 3, 2013, and June 2, 2017, are potentially involved.

III. Noncompliance

    Autocar explains that the noncompliance is that the low brake air
pressure telltale for air brake systems displays the word ``BRAKE
PRESSURE'' along with a symbol specified in Canadian Motor Vehicle
Safety Standard (CMVSS) 101 rather than the words ``Brake Air'' as
specified in Table 2 of FMVSS No. 101. Autocar states that the telltale
is accompanied by an audible alert and pressure gauges.

IV. Rule Requirements

    Paragraphs S5 and S5.2.1 of FMVSS No. 101, include the requirements
relevant to this petition:
     Each passenger car, multipurpose passenger vehicle, truck
and bus that is

fitted with a control, a telltale, or an indicator listed in Table 1 or
Table 2 must meet the requirements of FMVSS No. 101 for the location,
identification, color, and illumination of that control, telltale or
indicator.
     Each control, telltale and indicator that is listed in
column 1 of Table 1 or Table 2 must be identified by the symbol
specified for it in column 2 or the word or abbreviation specified for
it in column 3 of Table 1 or Table 2.

V. Summary of Petition

    Autocar described the subject noncompliance and stated it believes
that the noncompliance is inconsequential as it relates to motor
vehicle safety.
    In support of Autocar's petitions, the company submitted the
following arguments:
    (a) Autocar notes that the purpose of the low brake air pressure
telltale is to alert the driver to a low air condition, consistent with
the requirements of FMVSS No. 121, S5.1.5 (warning signal). The words
``BRAKE PRESSURE'' instead of ``Brake Air,'' together with display of
the CMVSS required symbol and sounding of an audible alert that occurs
inside the subject vehicles would alert the driver to an air pressure
issue with the brake system. Once alerted, the driver can check the
actual air pressure by reading the primary and secondary air gauges and
by observing the contrasting color on the gauges indicating low
pressure.
    (b) NHTSA stated in a 2005 FMVSS No. 101 rulemaking that the reason
for including vehicles over 10,000 pounds GVWR in the application of
the standard is that drivers of heavier vehicles need to see and
identify their displays, just like drivers of lighter vehicles. See 70
FR 48295, 48298 (Aug. 17, 2005). Drivers of commercial vehicles conduct
pre-trip daily inspections. For vehicles with pneumatic brake systems,
the in-cab checks of the air-brake warning light and buzzer would
familiarize the driver with the specific telltale display and audible
warning in the event a low-air condition was to occur during operation.
    (c) There are two scenarios when a low brake air pressure condition
would exist: a parked vehicle and a moving vehicle. In both conditions,
the driver would be alerted to a low-air condition by the following
means:

 Red contrasting color of the telltale indicating ``BRAKE
PRESSURE''
 Audible alert to the driver as long as the vehicle has low air
 Air pressure gauges for the primary and secondary air
reservoirs clearly indicating the level of air pressure in the system
 Red contrasting color on the air gauges indicating pressure
below 60 PSI

    The functionality of both the parking brake system and the service
brake system remains unaffected by using ``BRAKE PRESSURE'' instead of
``Brake Air'' for the telltale in the subject vehicles.
    (d) NHTSA Precedents--Autocar notes that NHTSA has previously
granted petitions for inconsequential noncompliance for similar brake
telltale issues. See Docket No. NHTSA-2012-0004, 78 FR 69931 (November
21, 2013) (grant of petition for Ford Motor Company); Docket No. NHTSA-
2014-0046, 79 FR 78559 (December 30, 2014) (grant of petition for
Chrysler Group, LLC); and Docket No. NHTSA-2016-0103, 82 Federal
Register 17084 (April 7, 2017) (grant of petition for Daimler Trucks
North America). In all of these instances, the vehicles at issue did
not meet the exact requirements listed in FMVSS No. 101, Table 2. The
available warnings, however, were deemed sufficient to provide the
necessary driver warning. Autocar respectfully suggests that the same
is true for the subject vehicles: the red ``BRAKE PRESSURE'' telltale,
the audible alert, and the contrasting colors on the air pressure
gauges are fully sufficient to warn the driver of a low brake air
pressure situation.
    Autocar concluded by expressing their belief that the subject
noncompliance is inconsequential as it relates to motor vehicle safety,
and that NHTSA should grant Autocar's petitions to be exempted from
providing notification of the noncompliance, as required by 49 U.S.C.
30118, and a remedy for the noncompliance, as required by 49 U.S.C.
30120.
    Autocar's petitions and all supporting documents are available by
logging onto the Federal Docket Management System (FDMS) website at:
https://www.regulations.gov and following the online search
instructions to locate the docket numbers listed in the title of this
notice.

VI. NHTSA's Analysis

    NHTSA has considered the arguments presented in Autocar's petitions
and has determined that the subject noncompliance is inconsequential to
motor vehicle safety. NHTSA believes that the subject noncompliance
poses no risk to motor vehicle safety because multiple sources of
information, as described in the petition and discussed below, are
simultaneously activated to warn the driver of a low air condition.
    1. When a low air pressure situation exists, for both a parked or
moving vehicle, the ``BRAKE PRESSURE'' telltale will activate in red
letters with a black background. There are no requirements in FMVSS No.
101 for the color of the telltale, but Autocar's use of red, which is
an accepted color representing an urgent condition, provides a
definitive indication of a situation that needs attention.
    2. Simultaneous to illumination of the ``BRAKE PRESSURE'' telltale
is activation of an audible alert, further notifying the operator that
a malfunction exists requiring corrective action. Although the alert
would not in and of itself identify the problem, a driver would be
prompted by the warning tone to heed the telltale (i.e., ``BRAKE
PRESSURE'').
    3. In a low-pressure situation, the operator is provided additional
feedback by the primary and secondary instrument cluster air gauges
which are marked with numerical values in PSI units along with red
contrasting colors on the gauges during a low-pressure condition.
    4. Further, NHTSA agrees with Autocar's contention that the
functionality of the parking brake system and the braking performance
of the service brake system remain unaffected by use of the telltale
wording ``BRAKE PRESSURE'' instead of ``Brake Air'' on the subject
vehicles.
    5. Lastly, NHTSA believes that, as the affected trucks are
predominately used as commercial vehicles with professional drivers,
operators will monitor their vehicle's condition and take note of any
warning signs and gauge readings to ensure proper functionality of all
systems. Autocar states, and the agency agrees, that professional
drivers will be familiar with the meaning of telltales and other
warnings, and that the feedback provided to the driver in these
vehicles if a low brake pressure condition exists would be well
understood.
    NHTSA concludes that simultaneous activation of the red ``BRAKE
PRESSURE'' telltale with a black contrasting background, an audible
alert for a low air pressure condition, along with the primary and
secondary air gauge indicators, and the reduced drivability of the
vehicles under a low air pressure condition, provide adequate
notification to the operator that a brake malfunction exists. NHTSA
further concludes that the discrepancy with the telltale requirement is
unlikely to lead to any misunderstanding since other sources of correct
information beyond the ``BRAKE PRESSURE'' telltale are always provided.

VII. NHTSA's Decision

    In consideration of the foregoing, NHTSA finds that Autocar has met
its burden of persuasion that the FMVSS No. 101 noncompliance is, in
each case, inconsequential as it relates to motor vehicle safety.
Accordingly, Autocar's petitions are hereby granted, and Autocar is
consequently exempted from the obligation to provide notification of,
and remedy for, the subject noncompliance in the affected vehicles
under 49 U.S.C. 30118 and 30120.
    NHTSA notes that the statutory provisions (49 U.S.C. 30118(d) and
30120(h)) that permit manufacturers to file petitions for a
determination of inconsequentiality allow NHTSA to exempt manufacturers
only from the duties found in sections 30118 and 30120, respectively,
to notify owners, purchasers, and dealers of a defect or noncompliance
and to remedy the defect or noncompliance. Therefore, this decision
only applies to the subject vehicles that Autocar no longer controlled
at the time it determined that the noncompliance existed. However, the
granting of these petitions does not relieve vehicle distributors and
dealers of the prohibitions on the sale, offer for sale, or
introduction or delivery for introduction into interstate commerce of
the noncompliant vehicles under their control after Autocar notified
them that the subject noncompliance existed.

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

Michael A. Cole,
Acting Director, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance.
[FR Doc. 2018-13830 Filed 6-26-18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P