Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 175 / Wednesday, September 10, 1997 / Notices 47715

12 15 U.S.C. 78f.

13 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2)

14 17 CFR 200.30–3(a)(12).

1 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).

2 17 CFR 240.19b–4.

assists in the prevention of fraudulent

and manipulative acts and practices by

providing investors with information

necessary to make an informed decision

when purchasing securities. Moreover,

by requiring the associated persons to

identify the firm for which he or she

works and the telephone number or

address at which the caller may be

contacted, the Rule encourages

responsible use of the telephone to

market securities.

The Commission further believes that

the addition of paragraph (c), which

creates exemptions from the time-of-day

disclosure requirements for telephone

calls by associated persons, or other

associated persons acting at the

direction of such persons, to certain

categories of ‘‘existing customer’’ is

appropriate. The Commission believes it

is appropriate to create an exemption for

calls to customers with whom there are

existing relationships in order to

accommodate personal and timely

contact with a broker who can be

presumed to know when it is

convenient for a customer to respond to

telephone calls. Moreover, such an

exemption also may be necessary to

accommodate trading with customers in

multiple time zones across the United

States. The Commission, however,

believes that the exemption from the

time-of-day and disclosure requirements

should be limited to calls to persons

with whom the broker has a minimally

active relationship. In this regard, the

Commission believes that paragraph (c)

achieves an appropriate balance

between providing protection for the

public and the members’ interests in

competing for customers.

Moreover, the Commission believes

that the addition of paragraph (e) to

Rule 9.24, requiring that a member or

associated person obtain from a

customer, and maintain for three years,

express written authorization when

submitting for payment a check, draft,

or other form of negotiable paper drawn

on a customer’s checking, savings, share

or similar account, is appropriate. The

Commission notes that requiring a

member or associated person to obtain

express written authorization from a

customer in the above-mentioned

circumstances assists in the prevention

of fraudulent and manipulative acts in

that it reduces the opportunity for a

member, or associated person to

misappropriate customers’ funds. In

addition, the Commission believes that

by requiring a member or associated

person to retain the authorization for

three years, subparagraph (e) protects

investors and the public interest in that

it provides interested parties with the

ability to acquire information necessary

to ensure that valid authorization was

obtained for the transfer of a customer’s

funds for the purchase of a security.

The Commission believes that the

amendment to paragraph (e) of Rule

9.21, adding telemarketing scripts to the

definition of sales literature thereby

requiring the retention of telemarketing

scripts for a period of three years is

appropriate. By requiring the retention

of telemarketing scripts for three years,

the Rule assists in the prevention of

fraudulent and manipulative acts and

practices and provides for the protection

of the public in that interested parties

will have the ability to acquire copies of

the scripts used to solicit the purchase

of securities to ensure that members and

associated persons are not engaged in

unacceptable telemarketing practices.

Finally, the Commission believes that

the proposed rule achieves a reasonable

balance between the Commission’s

interest in preventing members from

engaging in deceptive and abusive

telemarketing acts and the members’

interests in conducting legitimate

telemarketing practices.

The Commission finds good cause for

approving the proposed rule change,

prior to the thirtieth day after the date

of publication of notice thereof in the

Federal Register. The proposal is

identical to the NASD and MSRB rules,

which were published for comment and,

subsequently, approved by the

Commission. The approval of the

CBOE’s rules provides a consistent

standard across the industry. In that

regard, the Commission believes that

granting accelerated approval to the

proposed rule change is appropriate and

consistent with Section 6 of the Act.12

It is therefore ordered, pursuant to

Section 19(b)(2) of the Act, 13 that the

proposed rule change (SR–CBOE–97–

39) is approved on an accelerated basis.

For the Commission, by the Division of

Market Regulation, pursuant to delegated

authority.14

Margaret H. McFarland,

Deputy Secretary.

[FR Doc. 97–23954 Filed 9–9–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010–01–M

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE

COMMISSION

[Release No. 34–39009; File No. SR–NYSE–

96–16]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; New

York Stock Exchange, Inc.; Order

Granting Approval to Proposed Rule

Change Relating to Amendments to

Percentage Order Rules 13 and

123A.30

September 3, 1997.

I. Introduction

On June 28, 1996, the New York Stock

Exchange, Inc. (‘‘NYSE’’ or ‘‘Exchange’’)

submitted to the Securities and

Exchange Commission (‘‘SEC’’ or

‘‘Commission’’), pursuant to Section

19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act

of 1934 (‘‘Act’’)1 and Rule 19b–4

thereunder,2 a proposed rule change to

amend its rules relating to percentage

orders.

The proposed rule change was

published for comment in Securities

Exchange Act Release No. 37495 (July

30, 1996), 61 FR 40699 (August 5, 1996).

No comments were received on the

proposal. This order approves the

proposed rule change.

II. Description

NYSE Rule 13 defines a percentage

order as ‘‘a limited price order to buy (or

sell) fifty percent of the volume of a

specified stock after its entry.’’ A

percentage order is essentially a

memorandum entry left with a

specialist, specifying the total number of

shares to be bought or sold and the limit

price, which becomes a ‘‘live’’ order

capable of execution in one of two ways:

(i) all or part of the order can be

‘‘elected’’ as a limit order on the

specialist’s book based on trades in the

market; or (ii) all or part of the order can

be ‘‘converted’’ into a limit order to

make a bid or offer or to participate

directly in a trade.

A. The Election Process

1. Current Practice

Under the election process, as trades

occur at the percentage order’s limit

price or better, an equal number of

shares of the percentage order are

‘‘elected’’ and become a limit order on

the specialist’s book. This limit order

takes its place behind other limit orders

on the specialist’s book at the same

price. The percentage order then is

reduced by the number of elected shares

until the entire order has been satisfied.
47716 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 175 / Wednesday, September 10, 1997 / Notices

3A straight limit percentage order carries a limit

price equal to the percentage order limit price.

4A buy minus-sell plus percentage order operates

in the same fashion as a straight limit percentage

order, except that it places the additional

requirement that elected portions of buy (sell)

percentage orders be elected at a price on minus or

zero-minus ticks (plus or zero plus ticks) from the

previous sale.

5The various types of percentage orders differ

only in terms of execution, and not the process by

which they are elected. See supra notes 3 and 4.

6 In the event that a portion of a percentage order

is elected at the same price as a previously elected,

but still unexecuted, portion of the same percentage

order, the previously-elected portion will neither be

cancelled nor lose its priority on the limit order

book. In such situations, however, the

subsequently-elected portion will not gain priority

over previously-entered orders on the book at that

price. Telephone conversation between Donald

Siemer, Director of Market Suveillance, NYSE, Mel

Hanton, Senior Counsel, NYSE, and Jon Kroeper,

Attorney, SEC, on August 30, 1996.

7See NYSE Rule 123A.30; Securities Exchange

Act Release No. 24505 (May 22, 1987), 52 FR 20484

(June 1, 1987) (order approving amendment to Rule

123A.30 permitting conversion of percentage orders

on destabilizing ticks under certain restrictions).

8 15 U.S.C. 78f(b) and 78k(b).

9See H. Rep. No. 1383, 73d Cong., 2d Sess. 22;

S. Rep. 792, 73d Cong., 2d Sess. 18 (1934).

10See e.g., SEC, Special Study of the Securities

Markets, H.R. Doc. No. 95, 88th Cong., 1st Sess.,

Part 2, 72 (1963) (‘‘Special Study’’) (nothing that

‘‘Section 11(b)* * * prohibits, without exception, a

specialist’s effecting any transaction except upon a

market or limit order’’).

Currently, there are three types of

percentage orders: last sale percentage

orders, straight limit percentage orders,3

and buy minus-sell plus percentage

orders.4 The Exchange has indicated

that most percentage orders are entered

as last sale percentage orders, meaning

that they are elected to the book at the

price of the elecing sale and may be

executed at such price, or at a better

price.5 These orders may not, however,

be executed at an inferior price to the

electing sale even if that inferior price

is still within the limit price on the

order.

For example, assume that the

specialist receives a last sale percentage

order to purchase 5,000 shares with a

limit price of 30. If a trade of 500 shares

takes place at 291⁄2, 500 shares of the

percentage order would be placed on

the specialist’s book as a limit order at

291⁄2. This order could be executed at a

price of 291⁄2 or lower, but could not be

executed at a higher price, even though

the limit price on the percentage order

was 30.

2. Proposed Amendment to the Election

Process

The Exchange is proposing to amend

the definition of last sale percentage

order in Rule 13 to provide that if the

order is marked with the instruction

‘‘last sale-cumulative volume,’’ such

orders may be re-entered on the

specialist’s book after their initial

election at the price of subsequent

transactions, as long as the price is

within the limit price on the percentage

order. Thus, in the example noted

above, if there was a subsequent trade

of 500 shares at 295⁄8, 500 shares of a

percentage order marked last salecumulative volume would be elected on

to the specialist’s book at 295⁄8, and the

500 shares previously entered on to the

book at 291⁄2 would be cancelled and

reentered at 295⁄8, for a total of 1,000

shares of the percentage order on the

book at 295⁄8.6 If the order were simply

marked ‘‘last sale,’’ it would be handled

as today under the current rule.

B. The Conversion Process

1. Current Practice

The second way that a percentage

order can be activated into a limit order

is through the conversion process. Most

percentage orders contain the additional

instruction ‘‘CAP–D.’’ ‘‘CAP’’ is an

acronym meaning ‘‘convert and parity,’’

which instructs the specialist that he or

she may convert all or a portion of the

order into a limit order, and allows the

specialist to be on parity with the

converted percentage order, either to

participate directly in a trade or to make

a bid or offer (‘‘bettering the market’’).

The ‘‘D’’ notation instructs the specialist

that the order may be converted to

participate in destabilizing transactions

as well as stabilizing transactions.

The Exchange has stated that, as a

practical matter, it views CAP–D orders

as a necessary adjunct to the standard

election procedures because they allow

the specialist greater flexibility to match

the order with other buying and selling

interest in the market. CAP–D orders are

subject to a number of restrictions

intended to minimize the specialist’s

discretion in handling such orders.7

One such restriction codified in Rule

123A.30 provides that a percentage

order may be converted into a limit

order to make a bid (offer), but if a

higher bid (lower offer) is subsequently

made, the converted percentage order

bid (offer) is treated as cancelled, and

reverts to a memorandum entry with the

specialist, which is subject to further

conversion. This means that the bid or

offer loses whatever priority it has with

respect to other limit orders on the

specialist’s book.

For example, assume that the market

is quoted 20–201⁄4, 10,000 shares bid

and offered, with the bid at 20

representing 10,000 shares of a

converted percentage order. Under the

current rule, if the specialist then

receives an order to buy 5,000 shares at

20, and an order to buy 200 shares at

201⁄8, when the specialist changes the

quotation to 201⁄8–201⁄4, 200 shares bid

and 10,000 offered, the converted

percentage order bid of 20 for 10,000 is

cancelled, and the 5,000 share order

now has priority on the specialist’s book

at 20. If a transaction took place at 201⁄8,

and the quotation reverted to 20–201⁄4,

the percentage order, although it can be

re-converted to add to a bid at 20, would

have lost its priority on the book.

2. Proposed Amendments to the

Conversion Process

The Exchange is proposing to amend

Rule 123A.30 to allow the converted

percentage order to retain its priority on

the book when a higher bid (lower offer)

is made. However, if a transaction is

effected at that higher bid (lower offer),

and a bid or offer is made that is higher

(lower) than the price of such

transaction, the converted percentage

order would be cancelled, subject to reconversion. The order would not be

cancelled, however, regardless of

subsequent trades in the market, if it

was converted at its maximum limit

price.

In addition, the Exchange is

proposing to amend Rule 123A.30 to

include a provision that a specialist

must document the status of a converted

percentage order on the specialist’s book

as a limit order at the price it was

converted.

III. Discussion

The Commission has considered

carefully whether the NYSE’s proposal

is consistent with the Act. Specifically,

the Commission has considered whether

the proposal is consistent with the

requirements set forth in Sections 6(b)

and 11(b) of the Act.8 In reviewing

previous proposals involving percentage

orders, the Commission has been

concerned whether such orders provide

the specialist with ‘‘discretion’’ in

violation of Section 11(b) of the Act.

Section 11(b) was designed, in part, to

address potential conflicts of interest

that may arise as a result of a specialist’s

dual role as agent and principal in

executing stock transactions. In

particular, Congress intended to prevent

specialists from unduly influencing

market trends through their knowledge

of market interest from the specialist

book and their handling of discretionary

agency orders.9 The Commission has

interpreted this section to mean that all

orders other than market or limit orders

are discretionary and therefore cannot

be accepted by a specialist.10

The Commission previously has

determined that it is appropriate to treat
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 175 / Wednesday, September 10, 1997 / Notices 47717

11See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 24505

(May 22, 1987), 52 FR 20484 (June 1, 1987) (File

No. SR-NYSE–85–1).

12The Commission notes that the floor broker

who entered the percentage order may instruct the

specialist to cancel the elected order from the book

at any time.

13The Commission notes, however, that a floor

broker maintains his or her best execution

obligations with regard to any percentage order that

he or she may leave with a specialist.

percentage orders as equivalent to limit

orders.11 With regard to the conversion

process in particular, while

acknowledging that it permits

specialists to employ their judgment to

a certain extent, the Commission

believed that the requirements imposed

on the specialist when converting a

percentage order for execution or

quotation purposes provided

sufficiently stringent guidelines to

ensure that the specialist only will

implement the conversion provisions in

a manner consistent with his or her

market making duties and Section 11(b).

Furthermore, the Commission

previously has determined that the

NYSE’s percentage order rules are

consistent with the standards set forth

under Section 6(b)(5) of the Act. This

section requires that the rules of an

exchange be designed to prevent

fraudulent and manipulative acts and

practices. The Commission determined

that the NYSE’s percentage order rules

contain various limiting and protective

provisions, to ensure that such rules

will not increase the possibility of

specialist abuse of the market.

As discussed in greater detail below,

the Commission finds that the proposed

rule change, in adding a last salecumulative volume instruction to the

election process and making a minor

modification to the conversion process,

does not adversely impact the protective

scheme that has been incorporated into

the percentage order rules. Accordingly,

the Commission finds that the proposed

rule change is consistent with Sections

6(b)(5) and 11(b) of the Act in that it

neither increases specialists’ ability to

engage in fraudulent and manipulative

practices nor allots discretion to

specialists in their handling of

percentage orders.

A. Adoption of the Last Sale-Cumulative

Volume Instruction

Currently, portions of last sale

percentage orders only may be elected

to the specialist’s book as limit orders at

the price of the electing transaction. If

the market subsequently moves away

from this place, such orders will remain

on the book without receiving an

execution.12 To address this situation,

the Exchange has proposed to add a last

sale-cumulative volume percentage

order instruction option to the

definition of last sale percentage order

in NYSE Rule 13. If a percentage order

entered with the specialist is marked

‘‘last sale-cumulative volume,’’ a

previously-elected portion of a

percentage order will be cancelled and

re-entered at the price of subsequent

transactions that are within the limit

price of the percentage order.

The Commission believes that the

adoption of the last sale-cumulative

volume instruction is appropriate in

that it comports with the underlying

rationale for the percentage order rule;

namely, to allow larger-sized orders to

trade along with the trend of the market

without requiring a floor broker to

remain in the trading crowd to work the

order. By cancelling and re-entering

previously-elected portions of a last sale

percentage order at the current market

price, the proposed instruction will

increase the likelihood that such orders

will be executed in accordance with the

trend of the market, instead of

remaining on the specialist’s book at an

elected price from which the market has

moved away. In the same regard, the

Commission notes that the proposed

instruction should facilitate the use of

last sale percentage orders by floor

brokers, as a floor broker will no longer

have to take the active step of cancelling

such orders from the specialist’s book

when the market moves away from the

price of the electing transaction.13

Further, the Commission believes that

the proposed instruction is appropriate

in that it should have the beneficial

effect of increasing the possibility of

interaction between last sale percentage

orders and contrasided market interest.

In addition, the Commission finds

that the proposed instruction is

consistent with the Act in that it does

not provide discretion to specialists in

the handling of last sale percentage

orders or increase the ability of

specialists to engage in fraudulent or

manipulative activity on the Exchange.

In this regard, the process whereby last

sale-cumulative volume percentage

orders are elected and may be cancelled

from the book and re-entered at the

price of subsequent transactions is a

purely mechanical one, determined

solely by the application of the

proposed instruction to the price of

subsequent trades on the Exchange. The

specialist is not provided with any

discretion over the process of cancelling

or re-entering elected orders.

Finally, the Commission believes that

the proposed instruction adequately

addresses the issue of the priority of

pre-existing orders on the specialist’s

book to subsequently-elected portions of

percentage orders. For example, assume

that the market is quoted at 20–201⁄2,

1000 shares bid and offered, the bid

composed of (in order of priority) a 500

share customer order and 500 shares of

an elected portion of a last salecumulative volume percentage order for

5000 shares with a limit price of 201⁄2.

The specialist then receives a customer

limit order to buy 1000 shares at 20 and

changes his or her quote to 20–201⁄4,

2000 shares bid and 1000 offered. If a

market order to sell 500 shares then

enters the market and is executed

against the customer order to buy 500

shares at 20, an additional 500 shares of

the percentage order will be elected to

the specialist’s book. However, this

subsequently-elected portion of the

percentage order will not be combined

with the previously-elected portion (as

would be the case if the transaction had

occurred at a higher price than 20) and

thereby gain priority over the customer

limit order for 1000 shares at 20.

Instead, the subsequently-elected

portion will be placed at the bottom of

the book, behind both the previouslyelected portion and the customer order

for 1000 shares in priority. As a result,

pre-existing customer interest will

maintain its priority over subsequentlyelected percentage orders at the same

price.

B. Amendments to the Conversion

Process

Presently, a percentage order to buy

(sell) that has been converted for

purposes of bettering the existing quote

must be cancelled and revert to a

percentage order if a higher bid (lower

offer) subsequently is made. As the

Exchange has noted, while the

converted percentage order would be

subject to re-conversion at the same

price, it would lose its priority on the

specialist’s book to other orders at that

price. The proposed rule change would

address this situation by requiring that

such converted percentage orders

remain in the specialist’s book at their

converted price unless a higher bid

(lower offer) is made, a transaction is

effected at that price, and a bid (offer)

is made at a price higher (lower) than

the price of the transaction. In such an

instance, the converted percentage order

would be cancelled, subject to

reconversion.

The Commission believes that the

proposed change to the conversion

process is appropriate in that it

adequately balances the interest of

permitting converted percentage orders

to retain their priority on the specialist’s

book over subsequently-arriving orders

at the same price with that of removing
47718 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 175 / Wednesday, September 10, 1997 / Notices

14At the same time, it should be noted that the

Commission has previously stated that a specialist

can utilize the conversion process to enable the

percentage order and the specialist trading for his

or her own account to receive an execution while

bypassing pre-existing trading crowd and limit

order book interest. See SEC, Report on the Practice

of Preferencing (April 11, 1997) at Part II.B.6.

15See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 24505,

supra note 11.

16 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).

17 17 CFR 200.30–3(a)(12).

such converted percentage orders from

the book when conditions strongly

indicate that the market has moved

away from the conversion price.14

Moreover, the Commission finds that

the proposal may have the additional

beneficial effect of increasing the

transparency of the market. Specifically,

the proposal will allow percentage

orders to buy (sell) to remain on the

book in the event of the entry of what

may be a short-lived higher bid (lower

offer) instead of reverting directly to a

memorandum entry that the specialist

may or may not decide to re-convert for

quotation purposes.

Moreover, in approving the adoption

of the CAP–D instruction, the

Commission stated that it ‘‘views as

important the cancellation provision of

the proposed bettering the market

rule.’’ 15 The significance of such a

provision is to provide a cancellation

mechanism that does not grant any

discretion to the specialist when

superior-priced same-sided interest

enters the market. Accordingly, the

Commission believes that the proposed

procedure is an appropriate replacement

for the existing cancellation provision in

that it serves this same purpose.

Finally, the Exchange proposes to add

to Rule 123A.30 a provision that a

specialist must document the status of

a converted percentage order on his or

her book as a limit order at the price it

was converted. The Commission finds

that this provision is appropriate in that

it provides specialists with a clearer

statement of their existing responsibility

to book converted percentage orders.

IV. Conclusion

It is therefore ordered, pursuant to

Section 19(b)(2) of the Act,16 that the

proposed rule change (SR–NYSE–96–

16) is approved.

For the Commission, by the Division of

Market Regulation, pursuant to delegated

authority.17

Margaret H. McFarland,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 97–23955 Filed 9–9–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010–01–M

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Office of the Secretary

Reports, Forms and Recordkeeping

Requirements Agency Information

Collection Activity Under OMB Review

AGENCY: Office of the Secretary, DOT.

ACTION: Notice and request for

comments.

SUMMARY: In compliance with the

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44

U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), this notice

announces that the Information

Collection(ICR) abstracted below has

been forwarded to the Office of

Management and Budget (OMB) for

review and comment. The ICRs

describes the nature of the information

collection and their expected burden.

The Federal Register Notice with a 60-

day comment period soliciting

comments on the following collection of

information was published on March

17, 1997 [62 FR 12577–12678].

DATES: Comments must be submitted on

or before October 10, 1997.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Judith Street, ABC–100; Federal

Aviation Administration; 800

Independence Avenue SW.,

Washington, DC 20591, telephone

number (202) 267–9895.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA)

Title: Pilot Records Improvement Act

of 1996.

OMB Control Number: 2120–0607.

Type of Request: Extension of a

currently approved collection.

Affected Public: Air Carriers gathering

data on perspective pilots and the

airmen/pilots applying for positions

with the air carriers.

Abstract: Section 502 of the Pilot

Records Improvement Act of 1996,

Public Law 104–264, requires that an air

carrier (as defined in 49 U.S.C.

40102(a)(2)), before hiring an individual

as a pilot, request and receive FAA

Records, Air Carrier and other records,

and National Driver Register Records

concerning that individual. The

Administrator was directed to

promulgate standard forms for use by air

carriers in requesting those Pilot

Records. Upon receipt of any requested

records, an air carrier Amay use such

records only to assess the qualifications

of the individual in deciding whether or

not to hire the individual as a pilot.A

(Section 502(f)(11) of the Pilot Records

Improvement Act of 1996, Pub. L. 104–

264.)

Need: An air carrier may use the FAA

forms (numbers TBD) to request the

records of all applicants for the position

of pilot. The information collected on

the forms will be used to facilitate

search and retrieval of the requested

records. Air carriers then may use the

records to assess the qualifications of

the individual in deciding whether or

not to hire the individual as a pilot.

Estimated Annual Burden Hours:

5,899 hours.

Addressee: Send comments to the

Office of Information and Regulatory

Affairs, Office of Management and

Budget, 725–17th Street, NW.,

Washington, DC 20503, Attention DOT

Desk Officer.

Comments are Invited on: whether the

proposed collection of information is

necessary for the proper performance of

the functions of the Department,

including whether the information will

have practical utility; the accuracy of

the Department’s estimate of the burden

of the proposed information collection;

ways to enhance the quality, utility and

clarity of the information to be

collected; and ways to minimize the

burden of the collection of information

on respondents, including the use of

automated collection techniques or

other forms of information technology.

Issued in Washington, DC on September 4,

1997.

Vanester M. Williams,

Clearance Officer, United States Department

of Transportation.

[FR Doc. 97–23945 Filed 9–9–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–62–P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Railroad Administration

Petitions for Waivers of Compliance

In accordance with Part 211 of Title

49 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR),

notice is hereby given that the Federal

Railroad Administration (FRA) received

requests for waivers of compliance with

certain requirements of its safety

standards. The individual petitions are

described below, including the parties

seeking relief, the regulatory provisions

involved, the nature of the relief being

requested, and the petitioner’s

arguments in favor of relief.

Long Island Rail Road (Waiver Petition

Docket Number LI–97–2)

The Long Island Rail Road (LIRR)

seeks a waiver of compliance from

certain provisions of the Railroad

Locomotive Safety Standards, 49 CFR

229.29, for its M–1 and M–3 type MU

locomotives. Specifically, LIRR wants to

extend the required time intervals for

cleaning, repairing, and testing of MU