[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 202 (Thursday, October 18, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 64167-64170]
[FR Doc No: 2012-25600]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-68042; File No. SR-NASDAQ-2012-117]

 Self-Regulatory Organizations; The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC;
Notice of Filing of Proposed Rule Change With Respect to INAV Pegged
Orders for ETFs

October 12, 2012.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given
that, on October 2, 2012, The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC (``NASDAQ'' or
``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I, II,
and III below, which Items have been substantially 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

    NASDAQ proposes to amend Rule 4751(f)(4) to include a new Intraday
Net Asset Value (``INAV'') Pegged Order for Exchange-Traded Funds
(``ETFs'') where the component stocks underlying the ETFs are U.S.
Component Stocks as defined by Rule 5705(a)(1)(C) and 5705(b)(1)(D)--
hereafter defined as ``U.S. Component Stock ETFs.''
    The text of the proposed rule change is set forth below. Proposed
new text is in italics and deleted text is in brackets.

4751. Definitions

    The following definitions apply to the Rule 4600 and 4750 Series
for the trading of securities listed on Nasdaq or a national securities
exchange other than Nasdaq.
    (a)-(e) No change.
    (f) The term ``Order Type'' shall mean the unique processing
prescribed for

designated orders that are eligible for entry into the System, and
shall include:
    (1)-(3) No change.
    (4) ``Pegged Orders'' are orders that, after entry, have their
price automatically adjusted by the System in response to changes in
either the Nasdaq Market Center inside bid or offer, [or] bids or
offers in the national market system, or in respect of Exchange Traded
Funds of U.S. Component Stocks (as defined in Rule 5705), changes in
the intraday net asset value (``INAV''), as appropriate. A Pegged Order
can specify that its price will equal the inside quote on the same side
of the market (``Primary Peg''), the opposite side of the market
(``Market Peg''), or the midpoint of the national best bid and offer
(``Midpoint Peg'') or, in the case of Exchange Traded Funds of U.S.
Component Stocks, the INAV (``INAV Peg''). A Pegged Order may have a
limit price beyond which the order shall not be executed. In addition,
the Primary Peg, [and] Market Peg and INAV Peg Orders may also
establish their pricing relative to the appropriate bids, [or] offers
or INAV by the selection of one or more offset amounts that will adjust
the price of the order by the offset amount selected. A Midpoint Peg
Order is priced based upon the national best bid and offer, excluding
the effect that the Midpoint Peg Order itself has on the inside bid or
inside offer. Midpoint Pegged Orders will never be displayed. A
Midpoint Pegged Order may be executed in sub-pennies if necessary to
obtain a midpoint price. A new timestamp is created for the order each
time it is automatically adjusted.
    (5)-(15) No change.
    (g)-(i) No change.
* * * * *
    The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's
Web site at http://nasdaq.cchwallstreet.com, at the principal office of
the Exchange, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    NASDAQ proposes to amend Rule 4751(f)(4) to establish INAV Pegged
Orders which will be available for U.S. Component Stock ETFs. This new
order type will serve market participants that utilize these ETFs as a
vehicle to invest or trade in addition to serving the needs and
interests of the Sponsors/Issuers of ETFs.
    The ETF INAV Pegged Order will be priced relative to the Intraday
Net Asset Value of the fund's underlying portfolio. The term ``INAV''
is synonymous with commonly used terms such as Intraday Indicative
Value (IIV), Intraday Optimized Portfolio Value (IOPV) and Intraday
Portfolio Value (IPV) amongst others. The INAV is intended to
approximate the fair value of the securities held in the portfolio by
the ETF and should closely represent the value of the fund during the
trading day. Pursuant to NASDAQ listing rules, the INAV for NASDAQ-
listed stocks is disseminated widely to vendors and their subscribers
via multiple data feeds, including UTP Level 1, NASDAQ Basic, NASDAQ
Level 2, and NASDAQ TotalView. INAVs are typically disseminated at
least once every 15 seconds. Rule 5705(a)(3)(C), for example, requires
that the IIV for NASDAQ listed portfolio depository receipts be
disseminated at least every 15 seconds.
    Typically, INAVs are calculated using the last sale prices of the
fund's components. INAVs can vary from the fund's market price and/or
can be valued outside of the fund's prevailing bid/ask spread as a
result of the supply and demand characteristics of the fund and/or
liquidity present in the marketplace. The INAV may remain unchanged for
a certain period of time if the underlying values do not change,
particularly in periods of low volatility. Additionally, the INAV may
become stale as a result of a compromised data feed or disruption to
the calculation and/or dissemination agent or other technology related
malfunction.
    The fair market price of an ETF is more objective than the market
price of a cash equity. Mainly, the price of an ETF is based upon the
price of the underlying portfolio of the ETF. Therefore, if the
components of the portfolio increase in value, so does the fund and,
conversely, if the components of the portfolio decrease in value, so
does the fund. In the cash equities marketplace, pricing is more
subjective in nature. Unfavorable executions occur in the ETF
marketplace and this can be as a result of market participants not
recognizing the liquidity characteristics of the product they are
trading. Executions can occur with drastic variance from the INAV,
usually as a result of participants relying on market orders for
execution. The INAV Pegged Order type will be available for all U.S.
Component Stock ETFs where there is dynamic INAV data and will offer
market participants a greater level of transparency as to fair value,
by bringing what has historically been a post-trade analytics tool into
the pre-trade environment. More importantly, the INAV Pegged Order
should minimize the disparity between the market execution price and
the underlying fund's value.
    Pegged Orders are orders that, once entered, adjust in price
automatically in response to changes in factors such as the NBBO,
depending upon the type of Pegged Order. An INAV Pegged Order will
specify that its price will equal (or, to the extent an offset is used,
be offset from) the prevailing INAV for the relevant ETF. As the INAV
changes, so move the INAV Pegged Orders. In the event that the INAV
data feed for a particular ETF were to be compromised or temporarily
stopped being disseminated, the use of the INAV Pegged Order type for
that ETF would be suspended (i.e., no new INAV Pegged Orders would be
accepted into the system) and orders utilizing the INAV pegged
functionality for that ETF already in the system would be cancelled.
The suspension of new INAV Pegged Orders would remain in effect until
such time as the Exchange was confident that the integrity of the INAV
data feed had been restored.
    The proposed rule change is in accordance with Rule 612 of
Regulation NMS,\3\ which governs sub-penny quoting of National Market
System stocks (``Sub-Penny Rule''). The proposed rule change would not
result in the display, rank, or acceptance of a bid or offer, an order,
quotation, or indication of interest in any NMS stock that is priced in
an increment smaller than $0.01 per share, unless the price of the bid
or offer, order, indication of interest is priced less than $1.00 per
share.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ 17 CFR 242.600 et seq. See also Securities Exchange Act
Release No. 51808 (June 9, 2005), 70 FR 37496 (June 29, 2005)
(``Regulation NMS Adopting Release'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NASDAQ intends to use an INAV as opposed to the end of day net
asset value (``ED NAV'') for a number of reasons. While the ED NAV is
more

definitive in nature, it does not allow for an intraday fund valuation,
thus limiting one of the greatest advantages of the ETF structure,
mainly the ability to trade throughout the entire trading session, as
compared to the traditional Mutual Fund (which uses ED NAV based
execution). Conversely, use of the INAV, while only indicative of the
ETF's value, offers investors a trade execution tool which should lead
to a greater level of transparency as it relates to the ETF's current
value. Relative to the current intraday order entry/execution order
types, the INAV Pegged Order type would allow certainty of execution
with a greater correlation to the ETF's fair value for those seeking to
invest on a more informed basis. However, despite NASDAQ's rationale
for using the INAV, investors should note that the INAV is only an
estimation of a fund's value, and this might differ from the ED NAV
which is more definitive and disseminated on a daily basis at the end
of the trading day. Investors should also note that INAVs are only
calculated and disseminated during the regular market session.
    A Pegged Order may have a limit price beyond which the order shall
not be executed. Currently, Primary Peg and Market Peg Orders may
establish their pricing relative to the appropriate bids or offers by
selecting one or more offset amounts that will adjust the price of the
order by the offset amount selected. We propose to introduce this
functionality for the INAV Peg also.
    A Pegged Order (other than a Midpoint Peg Order) may be both
displayed or non-displayed. We propose to introduce this functionality
for the INAV Peg also. Where market participants see value in anonymity
they can utilize the non-displayed order type, though by doing so, they
will be placed lower in the priority queue within each price point.
Conversely, those that do not value anonymity can utilize a displayed
order type and benefit from a higher priority in the execution queue.
    The following examples illustrate how the proposed rule change
would operate (note that the price of the order updates in response to
changes in the INAV):

Example 1

     The best bid is $20.00 and the best offer is $20.06 at
10:00:00 a.m. INAV is updated and published as $20.03 at 10:00:02.
     An INAV Peg Order to buy entered at 10:00:04 would be
priced at $20.03.
     The best bid would update to $20.03 (at approximately
10:00:04).
     The best offer would remain at $20.06.

Example 2

     The best bid is $20.00 and the best offer is $20.06 at
10:00:00. INAV is updated and published as $19.98 at 10:00:02.
     An INAV Peg Order to sell entered at 10:00:04 would be
priced at $19.98 and subsequently execute at $20.00 (at approximately
10:00:04).

Example 3

     The best bid is $20.00 and the best offer is $20.10 at
10:00:00 a.m. INAV is updated and published as $20.03 at 10:00:02.
     An INAV Peg Order to buy with a +.03 offset entered at
10:00:04 would be priced at $20.06 ($20.03 +.03) (at approximately
10:00:04).
     The best bid would update to $20.06 (approximately
10:00:04).
     The best offer would remain at $20.10.
    INAV Peg Orders will allow the market participant to achieve a
greater sense of control over the execution price as it relates to the
fund's value by benchmarking to the estimated intraday fund's value.
This added value to the investing public will be strongly supported by
the ETF Sponsor community. ETF Sponsors routinely deal with investors
that have been subject to inferior executions. These complaints are
almost unanimously as a result of people using market orders where the
prevailing bid/ask in the market does not necessarily correlate to the
fund's value, and the quoted size does not meet the demand of the
order. The INAV Peg will also help to protect investors against any
unintended overpayment for the security.
2. Statutory Basis
    The proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b) of the
Act,\4\ in general, and furthers the objectives of Section 6(b)(5),\5\
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, and to
remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open
market and a national market system. The INAV Pegged Order will allow
market participants the option to enter an order without concern about
the value of the fund's underlying portfolio being drastically
different and therefore resulting in an inferior execution, as the
order will be dynamically repriced/updated throughout the life of the
order as the value of the underlying portfolio changes. Additionally,
it provides a more intelligent form of market order. Instead of having
the order execute at the prevailing price (regardless of what that
price might be relative to the fund's value) the INAV Pegged Order
gives participants the option to collar the execution at a price that
relates to the actual value of the fund's components. Whilst it is
acknowledged that there is an inherent lack of execution determinism
with a Pegged Order, market participants will be free to elect this
order type for U.S. Component Stock ETFs where there is dynamic INAV
data, but they will not be limited to this option, or required to use
this option. For those market participants who are more interested in
securing execution certainty, a conventional market order will still be
available.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange believes that the proposed change to Rule 4751(f)(4)
meets the requirements of Section 6(b)(5) of the Act \6\ in that it
will improve the stability, quality, and transparency of the national
market system. In the event that the INAV data feed were to be
compromised or temporarily stopped being disseminated, the use of the
INAV Pegged Order type would be suspended (i.e., no new INAV Pegged
Orders would be accepted into the system) until such time as the
Exchange was confident that the integrity of the INAV data feed had
been restored and orders utilizing the INAV pegged functionality
already in the system would be cancelled. In addition, the Exchange is
not aware of any circumstance where this order type could be used to
manipulate the underlying value of the fund, and Nasdaq MarketWatch
will perform all usual market surveillance activity on the use of the
INAV Pegged Order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
result in any burden on competition that is not necessary or
appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. To the contrary,
NASDAQ believes that the INAV Peg Order is pro-competitive in that it
will offer enhance [sic] the attractiveness of NASDAQ's listings and
trading venues.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See Form 19b-4 at 11.

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

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-NASDAQ-2012-117 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-NASDAQ-2012-117.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-NASDAQ-2012-117 and should
be submitted on or before November 8, 2012.

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

    \8\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-25600 Filed 10-17-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: April 4, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 66)]
[Notices]
[Page 18549-18550]
[DOCID:fr04ap08-80]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[FEMA-1750-DR]

Georgia; Amendment No. 1 to Notice of a Major Disaster
Declaration

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice amends the notice of a major disaster declaration
for the State of Georgia (FEMA-1750-DR), dated March 20, 2008, and
related determinations.

EFFECTIVE DATE: March 22, 2008.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Peggy Miller, Disaster Assistance
Directorate, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street, SW.,
Washington, DC 20472,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The notice of a major disaster declaration
for the State of Georgia is hereby amended to include the Public
Assistance program for the following areas among those areas determined
to have been adversely affected by the catastrophe declared a major
disaster by the President in his declaration of March 20, 2008.

    Bartow, Burke, DeKalb, Floyd, Jefferson, and Polk Counties for
Individual Assistance.

    Burke and Jefferson Counties for Public Assistance.

    Fulton County for Public Assistance (already designated for
Individual Assistance.)

(The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers (CFDA)
are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030, Community
Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis Counseling;
97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster Unemployment
Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance Grant; 97.048,
Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and Households in
Presidential Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049, Presidential Declared
Disaster Assistance--Disaster Housing Operations for Individuals and
Households; 97.050, Presidential Declared Disaster Assistance to
Individuals and Households--Other Needs; 97.036, Disaster Grants--
Public Assistance (Presidentially

Declared Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant.)

R. David Paulison,
Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
 [FR Doc. E8-7045 Filed 4-3-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 9110-10-P


			  UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

		        DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

			  OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY

			          WASHINGTON, D.C.

Issued by the Department of Transportation on December 11, 2003

NOTICE OF ACTION TAKEN -- DOCKET OST 1996-1978

________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________

This serves as notice to the public of the action described below, taken
by the Department official indicated (no additional confirming order
will be issued in this matter).

Applicant:  AEROJETS CORPORATIVOS, S.A. de C.V.
            Date Filed:  November 25, 2003

Relief requested:  Exemption from 49 USC section 41301 to permit the
applicant to continue to conduct passenger charter operations between
Mexico and the United States, and other passenger charters in accordance
with 14 CFR Part 212, using small equipment.

If renewal, date and citation of last action:  December 3, 2002, in this
Docket.

Applicant representative:  Daniel Elizondo,<PHONE_NUMBER>        DOT
analyst:  Allen Brown,<PHONE_NUMBER>

Responsive pleadings:  None.

	DISPOSITION

Action:  Approved
                                            Action date:  December 11,
2003

Effective dates of authority granted:  December 11, 2003, through
December 11, 2004

Basis for approval (bilateral agreement/reciprocity):  United
States-Mexico Air Transport Services Agreement of August 15, 1960, as
amended and extended (Agreement).

Except to the extent exempted/waived, this authority is subject to the
terms, conditions, and limitations indicated:

     X  Standard exemption conditions.

Special conditions/Partial grant/Denial basis/Remarks:  In the conduct
of these operations, the carrier must adhere to all applicable
provisions of the U.S.-Mexico Agreement.  In the conduct of these
operations, the carrier may only use aircraft capable of carrying no
more than 60 passengers and having a maximum payload capacity of no more
than 18,000 pounds (small equipment).  The above grant includes
authority to conduct Third and Fourth Freedom charter operations.  While
we have subjected, consistent with the provisions of the Agreement,
Mexican carriers conducting charter operations with large aircraft to
prior approval or submission of notice for their Third and Fourth
Freedom charters, we determined that any such requirement was not
necessary on public interest grounds in this case, since the carrier
will be conducting these operations solely with small aircraft.  (Other
charter operations to/from the United States under this authority,
however, are subject to prior approval under 14 CFR Part 212.)  Further,
we are continuing to allow Mexican carriers conducting passenger
charters using small equipment to make stopovers in the United States in
the conduct of such operations.

Action taken by:   Paul L. Gretch, Director

		      Office of International Aviation

________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________

Under authority assigned by the Department in its regulations, 14 CFR
Part 385, we found that (1) our action was consistent with Department
policy; (2) the applicant was qualified to perform its proposed
operations; (3) grant of the authority was consistent with the public
interest; and (4) grant of the authority would not constitute a major
regulatory action under the Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975.
To the extent not granted/deferred/dismissed, we denied all requests in
the referenced Docket.  We may amend, modify, or revoke the authority
granted in this Notice at any time without hearing at our discretion.

Persons entitled to petition the Department for review of the action set
forth in this Notice under the Department’s regulations, 14 CFR
§385.30, may file their petitions within seven (7) days after the date
of issuance of this Notice.  This action was effective when taken, and
the filing of a petition for review will not alter such effectiveness.

An electronic version of this document is available on the World Wide
Web at:

http://dms.dot.gov//reports/reports_aviation.asp


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 231 (Friday, November 30, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 61717-61718]
[FR Doc No: 2018-26062]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

[Docket No. NHTSA-2018-0088; Notice 1]

Notice of Receipt of Petition for Decision That Nonconforming
Model Year 2015 Ferrari 458 Speciale Aperta Passenger Cars Are Eligible
for Importation

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

ACTION: Receipt of petition.

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

SUMMARY: This document announces receipt by the National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) of a petition for a decision that
certain model year (MY) 2015 Ferrari 458 Speciale Aperta Passenger Cars
(PCs) that were not originally manufactured to comply with all
applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS) are eligible
for importation into the United States because they are substantially
similar to vehicles that were originally manufactured for sale in the
United States and that were certified by their manufacturer as
complying with the safety standards (the U.S.-certified version of the
MY 2015 Ferrari 458 Speciale Aperta PCs) and are capable of being
readily altered to conform to the standards.

DATES: The closing date for comments on the petition is December 31,
2018.

ADDRESSES: Interested persons are invited to submit written data,
views, and arguments on this petition. Comments must refer to the
docket and notice number cited in the title of this notice and
submitted by any of the following methods:
     Mail: Send comments by mail addressed to the 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: Deliver comments by hand to the U.S.
Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building
Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC
20590. The Docket Section is open on weekdays from 10 a.m. to 5 p.m.
except for Federal holidays.
     Electronically: Submit comments electronically by logging
onto the Federal Docket Management System (FDMS) website at https://www.regulations.gov/. Follow the online instructions for submitting
comments.
     Comments may also be faxed to<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Comments must be written in the English language, and be no greater
than 15 pages in length, although there is no limit to the length of
necessary attachments to the comments. If comments are submitted in
hard copy form, please ensure that two copies are provided. If you wish
to receive confirmation that comments you have submitted by mail were
received, please enclose a stamped, self-addressed postcard with the
comments. Note that all comments received will be posted without change
to https://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information
provided.
    All comments, background documentation, and supporting materials
submitted to the docket may be viewed by anyone at the address and
times given above. The documents may also be viewed on the internet at
https://www.regulations.gov by following the online instructions for
accessing the dockets. The docket ID number for this petition is shown
in the heading of this notice.
    DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement is available for review in a
Federal Register notice published on April 11, 2000, (65 FR 19477-78).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Neil Thurgood, Office of Vehicle
Safety Compliance, NHTSA, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    I. History: Under 49 U.S.C. 30141(a)(1)(A), a motor vehicle that
was not originally manufactured to conform to all applicable FMVSS (49
CFR 571) shall be refused admission into the United States unless NHTSA
has decided that the motor vehicle is substantially similar to a motor
vehicle originally manufactured for importation into and sale in the
United States, certified under 49 U.S.C. 30115, and of the same model
year as the model of the motor vehicle to be compared, and is capable
of being readily altered to conform to all applicable FMVSS.
    Petitions for eligibility decisions may be submitted by either
manufacturers or importers who have registered with NHTSA, pursuant to
49 CFR part 592. As specified in 49 CFR 593.7, Processing of Petitions,
NHTSA publishes notice in the Federal Register of each petition that it
receives, and affords interested persons an opportunity to comment on
the petition. At the close of the comment period, NHTSA decides, on the
basis of the petition and any comments that it has received, whether
the vehicle is eligible for importation. The agency then publishes this
decision in the Federal Register.
    II. Summary of Petition: J.K. Technologies, LLC (JK), of Baltimore,
Maryland (Registered Importer R-90-006) has petitioned NHTSA to decide
whether nonconforming MY 2015 Ferrari 458 Speciale Aperta PCs are
eligible for importation into the United States. The vehicles that JK
believes are substantially similar are MY 2015 Ferrari 458 Speciale
Aperta PCs manufactured for sale in the United States, and certified by
their manufacturer as conforming to all applicable FMVSS.
    The petitioner submitted information with its petition intended to
demonstrate that the subject non-U.S.-certified vehicles, as originally
manufactured, conform to many applicable FMVSS in the same manner as
their U.S.-certified counterparts, or are capable of being readily
altered to conform to those standards.
    Specifically, the petitioner claims that the non-U.S.-certified MY
2015 Ferrari 458 Speciale Aperta PCs, as originally manufactured,
conform to: Standard Nos. 102 Transmission Shift Position Sequence,
Starter Interlock, and Transmission Braking Effect, 103 Windshield
Defrosting and Defogging Systems, 104 Windshield Wiping and Washing
Systems, 106 Brake Hoses, 113 Hood Latch System, 114 Theft Protection
and Rollaway Prevention, 116 Motor Vehicle Brake Fluids, 118 Power-
Operated Window, Partition, and Roof Panel Systems, 124 Accelerator
Control Systems, 126 Electronic Stability Control Systems for Light
Vehicles, 135 Light Vehicle Brake

Systems, 138 Tire Pressure Monitoring Systems, 201 Occupant Protection
in Interior Impact, 202 Head Restraints, 204 Steering Control Rearward
Displacement, 205 Glazing Materials, 206 Door Locks and Door Retention
Components, 207 Seating Systems, 209 Seat Belt Assemblies, 210 Seat
Belt Assembly Anchorages, 212 Windshield Mounting, 214 Side Impact
Protection, 216 Roof Crush Resistance; Applicable unless a Vehicle is
Certified to Sec.  571.216a, 219 Windshield Zone Intrusion, 301 Fuel
System Integrity, and 302 Flammability of Interior Materials.
    The petitioner also contends that the subject non-U.S.-certified
vehicles are capable of being readily altered to meet the following
standards in the manner indicated:
    Standard No. 101 Controls and Displays: Replacement of the
instrument cluster with the U.S.-model component and reprogramming of
its software as described in the petition.
    Standard No. 108 Lamps, Reflective Devices and Associated
Equipment: Installation of wiring and programming to activate the
required side marker lights.
    Standard No. 110 Tire Selection and Rims and Motor Home/Recreation
Vehicle Trailer Load Carrying Capacity Information for Motor Vehicles
with a GVWR of 4,536 Kilograms (10,000 Pounds) or Less: Installation of
the required tire information placard.
    Standard No. 111 Rear Visibility: Replacement of the passenger side
mirror with the U.S.-model Component, or inscription of the required
warning statement on the face of the existing mirror.
    Standard No. 208 Occupant Crash Protection: Replacement of several
components as described in the petition. Replacement of the sensor mat
in the passenger-side seat cushion, and activation of the SRS airbag
control module. Replacement of sun visors with U.S.-model components to
meet the labeling requirements of FMVSS No. 208.
    The petitioner further states that labels will be affixed to bring
the vehicle into conformity with the requirements of 49 CFR parts 565
and 567, VIN Content and Certification, respectively.
    III. Comments: All comments and supporting materials received
before the close of business on the closing date indicated above will
be filed in the docket and considered. Comments filed after the closing
date will also be considered to the fullest extent possible and
available for examination in the docket at the above addresses.
    Once the petition is granted or denied, notice of the decision will
be published in the Federal Register pursuant to the authority
indicated at the end of this notice.
    This notice of receipt of the subject petition does not represent
any agency decision or other exercise of judgment concerning the merits
of the petition. Notice of final action on the petition will be
published in the Federal Register pursuant to the authority indicated
below.

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 30141(a)(1)(A), (a)(1)(B), and (b)(1); 49
CFR 593.7; delegation of authority at 49 CFR 1.95 and 501.8.

Claudia W. Covell,
Acting Director, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance.
[FR Doc. 2018-26062 Filed 11-29-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-59-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 159 (Thursday, August 18, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 50854-50856]
[FR Doc No: 2022-17754]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2016-0223; FRL-8631-01-OCSPP]

Pesticide Registration Review; Dicamba Revised Human Health and
Draft Ecological Risk Assessments; Notice of Availability

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice announces the availability of EPA's revised human
health and draft ecological risk assessments for the registration
review of dicamba.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before October 17, 2022.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by docket identification
(ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2016-0223 for dicamba, by one of the following
methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the

online instructions for submitting comments. Do not submit
electronically any information you consider to be Confidential Business
Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted
by statute.
     Mail: OPP Docket, Environmental Protection Agency Docket
Center (EPA/DC), (28221T), 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC
20460-0001.
     Hand Delivery: To make special arrangements for hand
delivery or delivery of boxed information, please follow the
instructions at https://www.epa.gov/dockets/.
    Additional instructions on commenting or visiting the docket, along
with more information about dockets generally, are available at https://www.epa.gov/dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
    For pesticide specific information contact: Cathryn Britton, Branch
Chief, Pesticide Re-Evaluation Division (7508P), Office of Pesticide
Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW,
Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email
address: [email protected].
    For general questions on the registration review program, contact:
Melanie Biscoe, Pesticide Re-Evaluation Division (7508P), Office of
Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania
Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>;
email address: [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. Does this action apply to me?

    This action is directed to the public in general, and may be of
interest to a wide range of stakeholders including environmental, human
health, farm worker, and agricultural advocates; the chemical industry;
pesticide users; and members of the public interested in the sale,
distribution, or use of pesticides. Since others also may be
interested, the Agency has not attempted to describe all the specific
entities that may be affected by this action. If you have any questions
regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity,
consult the information under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

B. What should I consider as I prepare my comments for EPA?

    1. Submitting CBI. Do not submit this information to EPA through
regulations.gov or email. Clearly mark the part or all of the
information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information in a disk or
CD-ROM that you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD-ROM as
CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD-ROM the
specific information that is claimed as CBI. In addition to one
complete version of the comment that includes information claimed as
CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information
claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket.
Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with
procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2.
    2. Tips for preparing your comments. When preparing and submitting
your comments, see the commenting tips at https://www.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.
    3. Environmental justice. EPA seeks to achieve environmental
justice, the fair treatment and meaningful involvement of any group,
including minority and/or low- income populations, in the development,
implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and
policies. To help address potential environmental justice issues, the
Agency seeks information on any groups or segments of the population
who, as a result of their location, cultural practices, or other
factors, may have atypical or disproportionately high and adverse human
health impacts or environmental effects from exposure to the pesticides
discussed in this document, compared to the general population.

II. Background

    Registration review is EPA's periodic review of pesticide
registrations to ensure that each pesticide continues to satisfy the
statutory standard for registration, that is, the pesticide can perform
its intended function without unreasonable adverse effects on human
health or the environment. As part of the registration review process,
the Agency has completed comprehensive the revised human health and
draft ecological risk assessments for dicamba. After reviewing comments
received during the public comment period, EPA may issue a revised risk
assessment, explain any changes to the draft risk assessment, and
respond to comments and may request public input on risk mitigation
before completing a proposed registration review decision for dicamba.
Through this program, EPA is ensuring that each pesticide's
registration is based on current scientific and other knowledge,
including its effects on human health and the environment.

III. Authority

    EPA is conducting its registration review of dicamba pursuant to
section 3(g) of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act
(FIFRA) and the Procedural Regulations for Registration Review at 40
CFR part 155, subpart C. Section 3(g) of FIFRA provides, among other
things, that the registrations of pesticides are to be reviewed every
15 years. Under FIFRA, a pesticide product may be registered or remain
registered only if it meets the statutory standard for registration
given in FIFRA section 3(c)(5) (7 U.S.C. 136a(c)(5)). When used in
accordance with widespread and commonly recognized practice, the
pesticide product must perform its intended function without
unreasonable adverse effects on the environment; that is, without any
unreasonable risk to man or the environment, or a human dietary risk
from residues that result from the use of a pesticide in or on food.

IV. What action is the Agency taking?

    Pursuant to 40 CFR 155.58, this notice announces the availability
of EPA's revised human health and draft ecological risk assessments for
the pesticide shown in the following table and opens a 60-day public
comment period on the risk assessments.

                      Table--Draft Risk Assessments Being Made Available for Public Comment
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Registration review
 Registration review case name and No.                   Docket ID No.                    contact information
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dicamba, Case 0065.....................  EPA-HQ-OPP-2016-0223                          Cathryn Britton,
                                                                                [email protected],
<PHONE_NUMBER>.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Pursuant to 40 CFR 155.53(c), EPA is providing an opportunity,
through this notice of availability, for interested parties to provide
comments and input concerning the Agency's revised human health and
draft ecological risk assessments for dicamba. The Agency will consider
all comments received during the public comment period and

make changes, as appropriate, to the revised human health and draft
ecological risk assessment. EPA may then issue a revised risk
assessment, explain any changes to the draft risk assessment, and
respond to comments.
    Information submission requirements. Anyone may submit data or
information in response to this document. To be considered during a
pesticide's registration review, the submitted data or information must
meet the following requirements:
     To ensure that EPA will consider data or information
submitted, interested persons must submit the data or information
during the comment period. The Agency may, at its discretion, consider
data or information submitted at a later date.
     The data or information submitted must be presented in a
legible and useable form. For example, an English translation must
accompany any material that is not in English and a written transcript
must accompany any information submitted as an audio-graphic or video-
graphic record. Written material may be submitted in paper or
electronic form.
     Submitters must clearly identify the source of any
submitted data or information.
     Submitters may request the Agency to reconsider data or
information that the Agency rejected in a previous review. However,
submitters must explain why they believe the Agency should reconsider
the data or information in the pesticide's registration review.
    As provided in 40 CFR 155.58, the registration review docket for
each pesticide case will remain publicly accessible through the
duration of the registration review process; that is, until all actions
required in the final decision on the registration review case have
been completed.
    Authority: 7 U.S.C. 136 et seq.

    Dated: August 11, 2022.
Mary Reaves,
Director, Pesticide Re-Evaluation Division, Office of Pesticide
Programs.
[FR Doc. 2022-17754 Filed 8-17-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P