[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 166 (Friday, August 26, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 58989-58992]
[FR Doc No: 2016-20452]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-78622; File No. SR-MSRB-2016-11]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Municipal Securities Rulemaking
Board; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule
Change To Delay the Due Date for Certain Submissions Under Rule G-45
and Provide Guidance on the Application of Rules G-42 and G-44 to
Municipal Advisors to Sponsors or Trustees of Municipal Fund Securities

August 22, 2016.
    Pursuant to section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the ``Act'' or ``Exchange Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\
notice is hereby given that on August 12, 2016 the Municipal Securities
Rulemaking Board (the ``MSRB'' or ``Board'') filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission (the ``Commission'' or ``SEC'') the proposed
rule change as described in Items I and II 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 filed with the Commission a proposed rule change to delay
by two years, until August 29, 2018, the date on which submissions must
be made pursuant to Rule G-45, on reporting of information on municipal
fund securities, by underwriters of programs established to implement
the Stephen Beck, Jr., Achieving a Better Life Experience Act of 2014
(the ``ABLE Act''

and an ``ABLE program'').\3\ The submissions on Form G-45 from such
underwriters currently are due August 29, 2016. However, the current
due dates under Rule G-45 for submissions from underwriters of other
types of municipal fund securities, namely tax-advantaged college
savings plans established under section 529 of the Internal Revenue
Code of 1986, as amended (the ``Code'') (a ``529 college savings
plan''),\4\ would remain unchanged.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The ABLE Act was enacted on December 19, 2014 as part of The
Tax Increase Prevention Act of 2014 (Pub. L. 113-295).
    \4\ 26 U.S.C. 529(b)(1)(A)(ii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, the proposed rule change would provide guidance under
(i) Rule G-42, on duties of non-solicitor municipal advisors, that such
rule applies to municipal advisors that engage in municipal advisory
activities for sponsors or trustees of ABLE programs and (ii) Rule G-
44, on supervisory and compliance obligations of municipal advisors,
that such rule equally applies to municipal advisors that engage in
municipal advisory activities for sponsors or trustees of 529 college
savings plans, ABLE programs, and other municipal fund securities (the
amendment to Rule G-45 and guidance under Rules G-42 and G-44,
collectively the ``proposed rule change''). The MSRB proposes an
immediate effectiveness for the proposed rule change.
    The text of the proposed rule change is available on the MSRB's Web
site at www.msrb.org/Rules-and-Interpretations/SEC-Filings/2016-Filings.aspx, 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 MSRB proposes to delay by two years, until August 29, 2018, the
date the submissions are due under Rule G-45 on Form G-45 from
underwriters to ABLE programs. In addition, the MSRB proposes to
provide guidance under (i) Rule G-42, that such rule applies to
municipal advisors that engage in municipal advisory activities for
sponsors or trustees of ABLE programs and (ii) Rule G-44, that such
rule equally applies to municipal advisors that engage in municipal
advisory activities for sponsors or trustees of 529 college savings
plans, ABLE programs, and other municipal fund securities.
    The ABLE Act added section 529A to the Code to permit a state, or
an agency or instrumentality thereof, to establish and maintain a new
type of tax-advantaged savings program to help support individuals with
disabilities in maintaining health, independence, and quality of life.
Section 529A was modeled on section 529 of the Code.\5\ Section 529 of
the Code, in part, established 529 college savings plans to encourage
saving for future higher education costs.\6\ The SEC has determined
that interests offered by such 529 college savings plans are municipal
securities under section 3(a)(29) of the Act.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Report to accompany H.R. 647, Committee on Ways and Means,
H.R. Rept. No. 113-614, part 1 at 7 (2014).
    \6\ Section 529 also established prepaid tuition plans. 26
U.S.C. 529(b)(1)(A)(i). Under a prepaid tuition plan, an investor
may purchase tuition credits or certificates on behalf of a
designated beneficiary, which entitle the beneficiary to the waiver
or payment of qualified higher education expenses. Prepaid tuition
plans generally have residency requirements. Such credits or
certificates generally are not viewed as being municipal securities,
and dealers generally do not participate in the marketing of prepaid
tuition plans.
    \7\ Exchange Act Release No. 70462 (Sept. 20, 2013), 78 FR
67468, 67472-73 (Nov. 12, 2013). See Letter from Catherine McGuire,
Chief Counsel, Division of Market Regulation, SEC, to Diane G.
Klinke, General Counsel, MSRB (Feb. 26, 1999) (determining that at
least some interests in higher education trusts are municipal
securities under the Act).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Given the similarities between the structure of ABLE accounts and
529 college savings plan accounts and the manner in which interests in
those accounts will be distributed, the MSRB requested interpretive
guidance from the SEC staff. Specifically, the MSRB requested guidance
on:
    (i) Whether interests in an ABLE account offered through an ABLE
program are ``municipal securities,'' as defined in Section 3(a)(29) of
the Exchange Act, and
    (ii) whether a dealer participating in the sale of those interests
would be participating in a ``primary offering'' and thus be subject to
the requirements of Rule 15c2-12 under the Exchange Act.
    In response to the first request, the SEC staff stated that: \8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ Letter dated March 31, 2016 from Jessica S. Kane, Director,
Office of Municipal Securities, SEC, to Robert A. Fippinger, Esq.,
Chief Legal Officer, MSRB, in response to letter dated December 31,
2015 from Robert A. Fippinger to Jessica S. Kane available at
https://www.sec.gov/info/municipal/msrb-letter-033116-interests-in-able-accounts.pdf [footnote omitted].

at least some interests in ABLE accounts . . . may be ``municipal
securities'' as defined in Section 3(a)(29) of the Exchange Act,
depending on the facts and circumstances, including without
limitation, the extent to which an ABLE account through an ABLE
Program is a direct obligation of, or obligation guaranteed as to
principal or interest by, a State or any agency or instrumentality
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
thereof.

With respect to the second request, the SEC staff stated: \9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ Id.

[W]e note that Rule 15c2-12(f)(7) under the Exchange Act defines a
``primary offering'' as including an offering of municipal
securities directly or indirectly by or on behalf of an issuer of
such securities. Based upon your letter and communications with MSRB
staff, it is our understanding that interests in ABLE Programs
generally are offered only by direct purchase from the issuer.
Accordingly, we would view those interests as having been sold in a
``primary offering'' as that term is defined in Rule 15c2-12. If a
dealer is acting as an ``underwriter'' (as defined in Rule 15c2-
12(f)(8)) in connection with that primary offering, the dealer may
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
be subject to the requirements of Rule 15c2-12.

In April 2016, after the Board had received the SEC staff guidance, the
Board provided interpretative guidance under MSRB Rule D-12, on the
definition of ``municipal fund security.'' \10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ MSRB Regulatory Notice 2016-14 (Apr. 12, 2016) (the ``April
guidance'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The April guidance provided that interests in ABLE accounts may be
municipal fund securities, and that to the extent that dealers effect
transactions in municipal fund securities, such dealers may be subject
to all Board rules, unless those dealers are specifically exempted from
any of those rules. The April guidance also anticipated that the Board
would publish guidance to address particular issues, including Rule G-
45, applicable to the sale of interests in ABLE programs by
dealers.\11\ The proposed rule change is the first of such guidance

to address particular issues related to the sale of interests in ABLE
programs by dealers and related to municipal advisory activities
provided by municipal advisors to sponsors or trustees of ABLE
programs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Specifically, as ABLE programs become operational, the proposed
rule change would delay, by two years from August 29, 2016 until August
29, 2018, the date that submissions are due under Rule G-45 from
underwriters to ABLE programs. The MSRB believes that the delay would
help ensure that the MSRB receives reliable, complete and accurate
filings on Form G-45 from such underwriters. The MSRB also believes
that the delay would help ensure that the MSRB receives more meaningful
data about a larger set of ABLE programs on Form G-45. However, the
current deadlines under Rule G-45 for submissions from underwriters of
529 college savings plans would remain unchanged.
    Further, the proposed rule change would provide guidance in
supplementary material under (i) Rule G-42, that such rule applies to
municipal advisors that engage in municipal advisory activities for
sponsors or trustees of ABLE programs and (ii) Rule G-44, that such
rule equally applies to municipal advisors that engage in municipal
advisory activities for sponsors or trustees of 529 college savings
plans, ABLE programs, and other municipal fund securities. The proposed
guidance would provide clarity about the applicability of such rules to
municipal advisors that engage in municipal advisory activities for
sponsors or trustees of municipal fund securities. The MSRB is
proposing this guidance in response to requests from industry groups in
other Board rulemaking proposals.
2. Statutory Basis
    The MSRB believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with
section 15B(b)(2)(C) of the Act,\12\ which provides that the MSRB's
rules shall:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ 15 U.S.C. 78o-4(b)(2)(C).

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 and
municipal financial products, to remove impediments to and perfect
the mechanism of a free and open market in municipal securities and
municipal financial products, and, in general, to protect investors,
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
municipal entities, obligated persons, and the public interest.

    As ABLE programs become operational, the proposed rule change would
provide underwriters to ABLE programs with additional time to submit
reliable, accurate and complete data to the MSRB under Rule G-45. The
proposed rule change also would provide the MSRB with more meaningful
data about a larger set of ABLE programs under Rule G-45. Further, the
proposed rule change would provide guidance about the applicability of
(i) Rule G-42 to municipal advisors that engage in municipal advisory
activities for sponsors or trustees of ABLE programs and (ii) Rule G-44
to municipal advisors that engage in municipal advisory activities for
sponsors or trustees of 529 college savings plans, ABLE programs, and
other municipal fund securities. The proposed guidance would provide
clarity about the applicability of such rules to municipal advisors
that engage in municipal advisory activities for sponsors or trustees
of municipal fund securities.

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

    Section 15B(b)(2)(C) of the Act \13\ requires that MSRB rules be
designed not to impose any burden on competition not necessary or
appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The MSRB does
not believe that the proposed rule change would impose any burden on
competition not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the Act. The
proposed rule change would extend the date that submissions on Form G-
45 are due from underwriters to ABLE programs by two years from August
29, 2016 until August 29, 2018. The proposed rule change also would
provide guidance about the applicability of (i) Rule G-42 to municipal
advisors that engage in municipal advisory activities for sponsors or
trustees of ABLE programs and (ii) Rule G-44 to municipal advisors that
engage in municipal advisory activities for sponsors or trustees of 529
college savings plans, ABLE programs, and other municipal fund
securities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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.

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

    Pursuant to section 19(b)(3)(A) \14\ of the Act and Rule 19b-
4(f)(6) \15\ thereunder, the MSRB has designated the proposed rule
change as one that affects a change that does not: (i) Significantly
affect the protection of investors or the public interest; (ii) impose
any significant burden on competition; and (iii) become operative for
30 days from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as
the Commission may designate. A proposed rule change filed under Rule
19b-4(f)(6) normally does not become operative until 30 days after the
date of filing.\16\ However, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii) permits the
Commission to designate a shorter time if consistent with the
protection of investors and the public interest.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \15\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
    \16\ Id.
    \17\ In addition, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii) requires a self-
regulatory organization to give the Commission written notice of its
intent to file a proposed rule change, along with a brief
description and text of such proposed rule change, at least five
business days prior to the date of filing, or such shorter time as
designated by the Commission. The MSRB fulfilled this obligation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The MSRB has requested that the Commission waive the 30-day
operative delay specified in Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii).\18\ The deadline
for underwriters to ABLE programs to submit data under Rule G-45 for
the period ending June 30, 2016 is August 29, 2016. According to the
MSRB, the waiver of the 30-day operative delay will provide certainty
with respect to the due date for underwriters to make submissions on
Form G-45 in connection with ABLE programs. In order to delay such
submissions, the MSRB states that it is important that the proposed
rule change become effective immediately. The Commission believes that
waiving the 30-day operative delay is consistent with the protection of
investors and the public interest as it will provide certainty as to
the due date for submissions on Form G-45 and avoid confusion in the
market. Accordingly, the Commission hereby waives the 30-day operative
delay specified in Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii) and designates the proposed
rule change to be operative upon filing.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ See SR-MSRB-2016-11 (filed with the Commission on August
12, 2016).
    \19\ For the purpose of waiving the 30-day operative delay for
this proposal, the Commission has considered the proposed rule's
impact on efficiency, competition, and capital formation. See 15
U.S.C. 78c(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule
change, the

Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it
appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate
in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise
in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.

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-MSRB-2016-11 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-MSRB-2016-11. 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 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 Number SR-MSRB-2016-11 and should be
submitted on or before September 16, 2016.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).

    For the Commission, pursuant to delegated authority.\20\
Robert W. Errett,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2016-20452 Filed 8-25-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: September 14, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 177)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 55691-55692]
[DOCID:fr14se10-12]

========================================================================
Proposed Rules
                                                Federal Register
________________________________________________________________________

This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains notices to the public of
the proposed issuance of rules and regulations. The purpose of these
notices is to give interested persons an opportunity to participate in
the rule making prior to the adoption of the final rules.

========================================================================

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2010-0853; Directorate Identifier 2010-NM-116-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing Company Model 737-600, -700,
-700C, -800, -900, and -900ER Series Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for
certain Model 737-600, -700, -700C, -800, -900, and -900ER series
airplanes. This proposed AD would require repetitive testing of the
stabilizer takeoff warning switches, and corrective actions if
necessary. This proposed AD results from reports that the warning horn
did not sound during the takeoff warning system test of the S132 ``nose
up stab takeoff warning switch.'' We are proposing this AD to detect
and correct a takeoff warning system switch failure, which could reduce
the ability of the flightcrew to maintain the safe flight and landing
of the airplane.

DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by October 29,
2010.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments 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 proposed AD, contact
Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Data & Services Management, P.
O. Box 3707, MC 2H-65, Seattle, Washington 98124-2207; telephone 206-
544-5000, extension 1; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
Internet https://www.myboeingfleet.com. You may review copies of the
referenced service information at the FAA, Transport Airplane
Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington. For information
on the availability of this material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://
www.regulations.gov; 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 proposed AD, the regulatory
evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street
address for the Docket Office (telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>) is in the
ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly
after receipt.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jeffrey W. Palmer, Aerospace Engineer,
Systems and Equipment Branch, ANM-130S, FAA, Seattle Aircraft
Certification Office (ACO), 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, Washington
98057-3356; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or
arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address
listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include ``Docket No. FAA-2010-0853;
Directorate Identifier 2010-NM-116-AD'' at the beginning of your
comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory,
economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. We
will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend
this proposed 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 proposed AD.

Discussion

    We received reports that the warning horn did not sound during the
takeoff warning system test of the S132 ``nose up stab takeoff warning
switch.'' Certain airplanes were found to have switch failures, which
resulted in lack of aural warning when the stabilizer was positioned
outside of the green band limits. Also, operators found that both
internal contacts would not actuate during switch rotation. A takeoff
warning system switch failure, if not corrected, could result in auto-
rotation, resulting in tail strike, stall, high-speed runway overrun,
rejected takeoff, or failure to clear terrain or obstacles after
takeoff, which could reduce the ability of the flightcrew to maintain
the safe flight and landing of the airplane.

Relevant Service Information

    We have reviewed Boeing Service Bulletin 737-27-1289, dated April
7, 2010, which describes procedures for repetitive testing of the
stabilizer takeoff warning switches. The corrective actions include
replacing failed stabilizer warning switches.

FAA's Determination and Requirements of this Proposed AD

    We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all relevant
information and determined the unsafe condition described previously is
likely to exist or develop in other products of these same type
designs. This proposed AD would require accomplishing the actions
specified in the service information described previously.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this proposed AD would affect 963 airplanes of
U.S. registry. We also estimate that it would take 1 work-hour per
product to comply with this proposed AD. The average labor rate is $85
per work-hour. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of this
proposed AD to the U.S. operators to be $81,855, or $85 per product.

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

    We determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism
implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would 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 this proposed
regulation:
    1. Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive Order
12866,
    2. Is not a ``significant rule'' under the DOT Regulatory Policies
and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979), and
    3. 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.
    You can find our regulatory evaluation and the estimated costs of
compliance in the AD Docket.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

The Proposed Amendment

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

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

    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]

    2. The FAA amends Sec.  39.13 by adding the following new AD:

The Boeing Company: Docket No. FAA-2010-0853; Directorate Identifier
2010-NM-116-AD.

Comments Due Date

    (a) We must receive comments by October 29, 2010.

Affected ADs

    (b) None.

Applicability

    (c) This AD applies to The Boeing Company Model 737-600, -700, -
700C, -800, -900, and -900ER series airplanes, certificated in any
category; as identified in Boeing Service Bulletin 737-27-1289,
dated April 7, 2010.

Subject

    (d) Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 27: Flight
Controls.

Unsafe Condition

    (e) This AD results from reports that the warning horn did not
sound during the takeoff warning system test of the S132 ``nose up
stab takeoff warning switch.'' The Federal Aviation Administration
is issuing this AD to detect and correct a takeoff warning system
switch failure, which could reduce the ability of the flightcrew to
maintain the safe flight and landing of the airplane.

Compliance

    (f) You are responsible for having the actions required by this
AD performed within the compliance times specified, unless the
actions have already been done.

Test

    (g) Within 6 months after the effective date of this AD, test
the stabilizer takeoff warning switches, in accordance with the
Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Service Bulletin 737-27-1289,
dated April 7, 2010. Repeat the test at intervals not to exceed 750
flight hours.

Replacement and Re-test

    (h) If any stabilizer takeoff warning switch fails the test
required in paragraph (g) or (h) of this AD, replace the stabilizer
takeoff warning switch with a new switch and test the new switch
before further flight, in accordance with the Accomplishment
Instructions of Boeing Service Bulletin 737-27-1289, dated April 7,
2010. Within 750 flight hours after replacement of any switch, test
the replaced switch, in accordance with the Accomplishment
Instructions of Boeing Service Bulletin 737-27-1289, dated April 7,
2010, and repeat this test on the replaced switch thereafter at
intervals not to exceed 750 flight hours.

Special Flight Permit

    (i) Special flight permits, as described in Section 21.197 and
Section 21.199 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 21.197
and 21.199), are not allowed.

Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (j)(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. Send information to
Attn: Jeffrey W. Palmer, Aerospace Engineer, Systems and Equipment
Branch, ANM-130S, FAA, Seattle ACO, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton,
Washington 98057-3356; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.
Information may be e-mailed to: 9-ANM-Seattle-ACO-AMOC-
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (2) To request a different method of compliance or a different
compliance time for this AD, follow the procedures in 14 CFR 39.19.
Before using any approved AMOC on any airplane to which the AMOC
applies, notify your principal maintenance inspector (PMI) or
principal avionics inspector (PAI), as appropriate, or lacking a
principal inspector, your local Flight Standards District Office.
The AMOC approval letter must specifically reference this AD.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on September 3, 2010.
Jeffrey E. Duven,
Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2010-22847 Filed 9-13-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 237 (Monday, December 12, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Page 76097]
[FR Doc No: 2022-26867]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-96454; File No. SR-NYSEAMER-2022-45]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE American LLC; Notice of
Withdrawal of a Proposed Rule Change To Amend the NYSE American Options
Fee Schedule Concerning the Options Regulatory Fee

December 6, 2022.
    On September 28, 2022, NYSE American LLC (``NYSE American'') filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission''), pursuant
to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 \1\ and Rule
19b-4 thereunder,\2\ a proposed rule change to amend its Fee Schedule
regarding its Options Regulatory Fee. The proposed rule change was
immediately effective upon filing with the Commission pursuant to
Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act.\3\ The proposed rule change was
published for comment in the Federal Register on October 19, 2022.\4\
On November 14, 2022, NYSE American withdrew the proposed rule change
(SR-NYSEAMER-2022-45).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A). A proposed rule change may take
effect upon filing with the Commission if it is designated by the
exchange as ``establishing or changing a due, fee, or other charge
imposed by the self-regulatory organization on any person, whether
or not the person is a member of the self-regulatory organization.''
15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii).
    \4\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 96066 (October 13,
2022), 87 FR 63565.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sherry R. Haywood,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2022-26867 Filed 12-9-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 20 (Monday, January 31, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 4991-4993]
[FR Doc No: 2022-01828]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

[Docket No. NHTSA-2021-0079; Notice 1]

Maserati North America, Inc., Receipt of Petition for Decision of
Inconsequential Noncompliance

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

ACTION: Receipt of petition.

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

SUMMARY: Maserati North America, Inc., (MNA), has determined that
certain model year (MY) 2014-2021 Maserati Ghibli, Quattroporte, and
Levante motor vehicles do not fully comply with Federal Motor Vehicle
Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection. MNA filed a
noncompliance report dated August 5, 2021. MNA subsequently petitioned
NHTSA on August 30, 2021, and amended its petition on January 13, 2022,
for a decision that the subject noncompliance is inconsequential as it
relates to motor vehicle safety. This document announces receipt of
MNA's petition.

DATES: Send comments on or before March 2, 2022.

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 may be
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 and supporting materials received before the close of
business on the closing date indicated above will be filed in the
docket and will be considered. All comments and supporting materials
received after the closing date will also be filed and will be
considered to the fullest extent possible.
    When the petition is granted or denied, notice of the decision will
also be published in the Federal Register pursuant to the authority
indicated at the end of this notice.
    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).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Overview

    MNA has determined that certain MY 2014-2021 Maserati Levante,
Ghibli, and Quattroporte motor vehicles do not fully comply with
paragraph S4.5.1(b)(3) of FMVSS No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection (49
CFR 571.208).
    MNA filed a noncompliance report dated August 5, 2021, pursuant to
49 CFR part 573, Defect and Noncompliance Responsibility and Reports.
MNA subsequently petitioned NHTSA on August 30, 2021, and amended its
petition on January 13, 2022, 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,
Exemption for Inconsequential Defect or Noncompliance.
    This notice of receipt of the MNA's petition is published under 49
U.S.C. 30118 and 30120 and does not represent any agency decision or
another exercise of judgment concerning the merits of the petition.

II. Vehicles Involved

    Approximately 78,588 MY 2017-2021 Maserati Levante, manufactured
between May 20, 2016 and July 13, 2021, and MY 2014-2021 Maserati
Ghibli and Quattroporte motor vehicles, manufactured between April 30,
2013, and July 13, 2021, are potentially involved.

III. Noncompliance

    MNA explains that the subject vehicles are equipped with air bag
warning labels that are affixed to the headliner, rather than either
side of the sun visor, as required by S4.5.1(b) (3) of FMVSS No. 208.

IV. Rule Requirements

    Paragraph S4.5.1(b)(3) of FMVSS No. 208, includes the requirements
relevant to this petition. Vehicles certified to meet the requirements
specified in S19, S21, or S23 on or after September 1, 2003 shall have
a label permanently affixed to either side of the sun visor, at the
manufacturer's option, at each front outboard seating position that is
equipped with an inflatable restraint.

V. Summary of MNA's Petition

    The following views and arguments presented in this section, ``V.
Summary of MNA's Petition,'' are the views and arguments provided by
MNA. They have not been evaluated by the Agency and do not reflect the
views of the Agency. MNA describes the subject noncompliance and
contends that the noncompliance is inconsequential as it relates to
motor vehicle safety.
    In support of its petition, MNA submits the following reasoning:
    MNA says that the sun visor is affixed with an airbag alert label
that informs ``passengers to flip the sun visor to the down position''
to view the warning label. MNA also says that the although the airbag
warning label is affixed to the headliner, the label is clearly visible
when the sun visor is in the down position. In its petition, MNA
provides computer-aided design (CAD) illustrations of the airbag alert
label and noncompliant airbag warning label.
    MNA states its belief that although the airbag warning label is not
positioned on the sun visor, in combination with the airbag alert
label, the airbag warning label is displayed as intended by FMVSS No.
208. In support of this argument, MNA cites a 2016 Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking (NPRM) on Vehicle Defect Reporting Requirements \1\ in which
MNA says NHTSA assessed ``the suitability of the headliner for safety
warning labels in Section IV, alternatives considered and proposed for
the label, and finds the headliner to be an effective location for a
safety warning label.'' MNA cites NHTSA as stating ``[t]he agency also
recognizes that the headliner above the sun visor may have similar
benefits to the visor without some of the disadvantages of the visor.''
as an effective location for safety warning labels.'' MNA further
states that NHTSA has found the headliner to be of similar benefit as
the sun visor for the placement of the air bag warning label. Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See 81 FR 85478 (November 28, 2016).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    MNA says it ``is not aware of any crashes, injuries, or customer
complaints associated with this condition'' and that production is
being updated to correct the noncompliance in future vehicles.
    MNA concludes that the subject noncompliance is inconsequential as
it relates to motor vehicle safety and its petition 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, should be granted.
    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, any decision on
this petition only applies to the subject vehicles that MNA no longer
controlled at the time it determined that the noncompliance existed.
However, any decision on this petition 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 MNA 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)

Otto G. Matheke, III,
Director, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance.
[FR Doc. 2022-01828 Filed 1-28-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 35 (Monday, February 23, 2015)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 9387-9390]
[FR Doc No: 2015-03570]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 174

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2014-0457; FRL-9922-53]

Temporary Exemption From the Requirement of a Tolerance

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This regulation establishes a temporary exemption from the
requirement of a tolerance for residues of the VNT1 protein in potato
when used as a plant-incorporated protectant in accordance with the
terms of Experimental Use Permit (EUP) No. 8917-EUP-2. J.R. Simplot
Company submitted a petition to EPA under the Federal Food, Drug, and
Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), requesting the temporary tolerance exemption.
This regulation eliminates the need to establish a maximum permissible
level for residues of VNT1 protein in potato. The temporary tolerance
exemption expires on December 31, 2015.

DATES: This regulation is effective February 23, 2015. Objections and
requests for hearings must be received on or before April 24, 2015, and
must be filed in accordance with the instructions provided in 40 CFR
part 178 (see also Unit I.C. of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION).

ADDRESSES: The docket for this action, identified by docket
identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2014-0457, is available at http://www.regulations.gov or at the Office of Pesticide Programs Regulatory
Public Docket (OPP Docket) in the Environmental Protection Agency
Docket Center (EPA/DC), West William Jefferson Clinton Bldg., Rm. 3334,
1301 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001. The Public
Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through
Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public
Reading Room is<PHONE_NUMBER>, and the telephone number for the OPP
Docket is<PHONE_NUMBER>. Please review the visitor instructions and
additional information about the docket available at http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Robert McNally, Biopesticides and
Pollution Prevention Division (7511P), Office of Pesticide Programs,
Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW.,
Washington, DC 20460-0001; main telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email
address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. Does this action apply to me?

    You may be potentially affected by this action if you are an
agricultural producer, food manufacturer, or pesticide manufacturer.
The following list of North American Industrial Classification System
(NAICS) codes is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a
guide to help readers determine whether this document applies to them.
Potentially affected entities may include:
     Crop production (NAICS code 111).
     Animal production (NAICS code 112).
     Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311).
     Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532).

B. How can I get electronic access to other related information?

    You may access a frequently updated electronic version of 40 CFR
part 174 through the Government Printing Office's e-CFR site at http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?&c=ecfr&tpl=/ecfrbrowse/Title40/40tab_02.tpl.

C. How can I file an objection or hearing request?

    Under FFDCA section 408(g), 21 U.S.C. 346a, any person may file an
objection to any aspect of this regulation and may also request a
hearing on those objections. You must file your objection or request a
hearing on this regulation in accordance with the instructions provided
in 40 CFR part 178. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, you must identify
docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2014-0457 in the subject line on the first
page of your submission. All objections and requests for a hearing must
be in writing, and must be received by the Hearing Clerk on or before
April 24, 2015. Addresses for mail and hand delivery of objections and
hearing requests are provided in 40 CFR 178.25(b).
    In addition to filing an objection or hearing request with the
Hearing Clerk as described in 40 CFR part 178, please submit a copy of
the filing (excluding any Confidential Business Information (CBI)) for
inclusion in the public docket. Information not marked confidential
pursuant to 40 CFR part 2 may be disclosed publicly by EPA without
prior notice. Submit the non-CBI copy of your objection or hearing
request, identified by docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2014-0457, by one of
the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Do not submit
electronically any information you consider to be 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 http://www.epa.gov/dockets/contacts.html.
    Additional instructions on commenting or visiting the docket, along
with more information about dockets generally, is available at http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

II. Background and Statutory Findings

    In the Federal Register of October 24, 2014 (79 FR 63594) (FRL-
9916-03), EPA issued a document pursuant to FFDCA section 408(d)(3), 21
U.S.C. 346a(d)(3), announcing the filing of a pesticide tolerance
petition (PP 4F8251) by J.R. Simplot Company, 5369 W. Irving St.,
Boise, ID 83706. In the Federal Register of December 17, 2014 (79 FR
75107) (FRL-9918-90), EPA inadvertently reannounced the filing of this
same petition. The petition requested that 40 CFR part 174 be amended
by establishing a temporary exemption from the requirement of a
tolerance for residues of Potato Late Blight Resistance protein VTN1 in
or on potato. Those documents referenced a summary of the petition
prepared by the petitioner J.R. Simplot Company, which is available in
the docket, http://www.regulations.gov. Comments were received, and
EPA's response to these comments is discussed in Unit VII.B.
    Section 408(c)(2)(A)(i) of FFDCA allows EPA to establish an
exemption from the requirement for a tolerance (the legal limit for a
pesticide chemical residue in or on a food) only if EPA determines that
the exemption is ``safe.''

Section 408(c)(2)(A)(ii) of FFDCA defines ``safe '' to mean that
``there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result from
aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue, including all
anticipated dietary exposures and all other exposures for which there
is reliable information.'' This includes exposure through drinking
water and in residential settings, but does not include occupational
exposure. Pursuant to FFDCA section 408(c)(2)(B), in establishing or
maintaining in effect an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance,
EPA must take into account the factors set forth in FFDCA section
408(b)(2)(C), which require EPA to give special consideration to
exposure of infants and children to the pesticide chemical residue in
establishing a tolerance and to ``ensure that there is a reasonable
certainty that no harm will result to infants and children from
aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue. . . .''
Additionally, FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(D) requires that the Agency
consider ``available information concerning the cumulative effects of a
particular pesticide's residues'' and ``other substances that have a
common mechanism of toxicity.''
    EPA performs a number of analyses to determine the risks from
aggregate exposure to pesticide residues. First, EPA determines the
toxicity of pesticides. Second, EPA examines exposure to the pesticide
through food, drinking water, and through other exposures that occur as
a result of pesticide use in residential settings.

III. Toxicological Profile

    Consistent with FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(D), EPA has reviewed the
available scientific data and other relevant information in support of
this action and considered its validity, completeness and reliability,
and the relationship of this information to human risk. EPA has also
considered available information concerning the variability of the
sensitivities of major identifiable subgroups of consumers, including
infants and children.

A. Product Characterization Overview

    The gene that confers Potato Late Blight Resistance (Rpi-vnt1) is
found naturally in wild potato varieties. When Rpi-vnt1 is expressed in
potato, the VNT1 protein it encodes confers broad-spectrum resistance
to Phytophthora infestans, late blight of potato. VNT1 activates a
signal transduction pathway that leads to localized plant cell death or
the hypersensitive response. Death is restricted to a few plant cells
and limits the growth and spread of Phytophthora infestans throughout
the rest of the plant.
    Although people have not been exposed to the VNT1 protein in
potatoes (because it is currently only found in wild potato varieties),
humans have been exposed to the VNT1 protein in tomatoes. In addition
to conferring resistance to late blight in potato, the VNT1 protein
also confers resistance to late blight in tomatoes. Both potato and
tomato, which both belong to the Solanum genus, are affected by late
blight and have developed resistance through the same VNT1 protein.
    In addition, the VNT1 protein found in wild potatoes and tomatoes
is similar to several other protein sequences in tomatoes. The protein
in tomato species most closely related to the VNT1 protein (over 90%
similarity) introduced into potato is called Tm-2 or Tm2\2\, which is a
protein bred into tomato for resistance to the tomato mosaic virus.

B. Mammalian Toxicity and Allergenicity Assessment

    Since the VNT1 protein is not detectable by current methodologies
and attempts to isolate or produce the VNT1 protein were not
successful, no toxicity testing was performed with either plant
purified protein or protein produced in a surrogate organism. Rather,
the Agency has reviewed a bioinformatics analysis of the allergenic and
toxic potential of the VNT1 protein and on similar proteins to which
humans are currently and regularly exposed through ingestion of edible
plants. The Agency has identified known allergens found in potatoes and
tomatoes, and the analysis shows that VNT1 protein does not have any
similarity to any known allergens.
    The Agency has not identified any other potential toxicity with the
VNT1 protein. Although some proteins may have toxic properties, those
proteins are not found in tomato or potato, and the VNT1 protein does
not have any similarity to those proteins. Furthermore, consumers have
been exposed previously to the VNT1 protein in tomatoes. Also,
consumers have been exposed to the very similar Tm-2 protein in tomato.
Many tomato mosaic virus resistant tomato varieties are readily
available and grown in the U.S. for fresh market tomato production and
are widely consumed. Since no health or toxicity issues have been
raised in tomato containing the Tm-2 protein, the Agency does not
expect any toxicity to be associated with the VNT1 protein in potato.
    Therefore, EPA concludes that VNT1 protein is not likely to pose
any toxicity or cause any allergenicity based on the following:
    1. The VNT1 protein has been a component of the human diet from
ingestion of tomatoes for a long time.
    2. The VNT1 protein is similar to other proteins to which people
are regularly exposed in their diet without adverse effect.
    3. The VNT1 protein is not similar to any known allergens.

IV. Aggregate Exposures

    In examining aggregate exposure, FFDCA section 408 directs EPA to
consider available information concerning exposures from the pesticide
residue in food and all other non-occupational exposures, including
drinking water from ground water or surface water and exposure through
pesticide use in gardens, lawns, or buildings (residential and other
indoor uses).
    The Agency has considered available information on the aggregate
exposure levels of consumers (and major identifiable subgroups of
consumers) to the pesticide chemical residue and to other related
substances. These considerations include dietary exposure under the
tolerance exemption and all other tolerances or exemptions in effect
for the residues of plant-incorporated protectant, and exposure from
non-occupational sources.
    The Agency expects consumers to be exposed to the VNT1 protein
through potatoes containing the plant-incorporated protectant derived
from the Rpi-vnt1 gene and to other potatoes and tomatoes containing
the gene naturally. Since this protein will be directly incorporated
into the potato in a plant-incorporated protectant, the Agency does not
expect any exposure through drinking water or through inhalation or
dermal routes of exposure. The Agency also does not expect any non-
occupational (i.e., other residential) exposure to the VNT1 protein
since there are no residential uses for this plant-incorporated
protectant.

V. Cumulative Effects From Substances With a Common Mechanism of
Toxicity

    Section 408(b)(2)(D)(v) of FFDCA requires that, when considering
whether to establish, modify, or revoke a tolerance, the Agency
consider ``available information'' concerning the cumulative effects of
a particular pesticide's residues and ``other substances that have a
common mechanism of toxicity.''
    EPA has concluded that the VNT1 protein in potato does not have a
toxic mode of action and thus does not share a common mechanism of
toxicity with other substances; therefore, section 408(b)(2)(D)(v))
does not apply.

VI. Determination of Safety for U.S. Population, Infants and Children

    FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(C) provides that, in considering the
establishment of a tolerance or tolerance exemption for a pesticide
chemical residue, EPA shall assess the available information about
consumption patterns among infants and children, special susceptibility
of infants and children to pesticide chemical residues, and the
cumulative effects on infants and children of the residues and other
substances with a common mechanism of toxicity. In addition, FFDCA
section 408(b)(2)(C) provides that EPA shall apply an additional
tenfold (10X) margin of exposure (safety) for infants and children in
the case of threshold effects to account for prenatal and postnatal
toxicity and the completeness of the database on toxicity and exposure
unless EPA determines that a different margin of exposure (safety) will
be safe for infants and children. This additional margin of exposure
(safety) is commonly referred to as the Food Quality Protection Act
Safety Factor (FQPA SF). In applying this provision, EPA either retains
the default value of 10X or uses a different additional safety factor
when reliable data available to EPA support the choice of a different
factor.
    Based on the information discussed in Unit III., EPA concludes that
there are no threshold effects of concern to infants, children, or
adults from exposure to the VNT1 protein. As a result, EPA concludes
that no additional margin of exposure (safety) is necessary to protect
infants and children and that not adding any additional margin of
exposure (safety) will be safe for infants and children.
    Therefore, based on the discussion in Unit III and the supporting
documentation, EPA concludes that there is a reasonable certainty that
no harm will result to the U.S. population, including infants and
children, from aggregate exposure to the residues of VNT1 protein in
potato when it is used as a plant-incorporated protectant. Such
exposure includes all anticipated dietary exposures and all other
exposures for which there is reliable information.

VII. Other Considerations

A. Analytical Enforcement Methodology

    The Agency has determined that an analytical method is not required
for enforcement purposes since the Agency is establishing a temporary
exemption from the requirement of a tolerance without any numerical
limitation in association with use under EUP No.: 8917-EUP-2.

B. Response to Comments

    EPA received two comments relevant to this petition.
    It is unclear whether one commenter, which urged ``no
deregulation'', had a general comment related to the Agency's tolerance
action for the VNT1 protein. EPA's action is establishing a regulation
that would exempt residues of the VNT1 protein in potato from the
requirement of a tolerance; the Agency does not consider such action to
be a ``deregulation''. EPA continues to regulate this pesticidal active
ingredient through the FFDCA and the Federal Insecticide Fungicide and
Rodenticide Act (FIFRA). To the extent the commenter is arguing
generally that that pesticides, including plant-incorporated
protectants, should be banned on agricultural crop, the comment appears
to be directed at the underlying statute and not EPA's implementation
of it. However, the existing legal framework provided by section 408 of
the FFDCA states that tolerances or exemptions may be set when the
Agency determines that the pesticide meets the safety standard imposed
by that statute.
    Another commenter raised issues in regards to pollen drift, soil
health, and mammalian health for plant-incorporated protectants. In
this FFDCA action, the Agency has reviewed the food safety issues for
this product and has concluded the product is safe for human/animal
consumption. The potatoes with the VNT1 protein are safe for human
consumption at levels likely to be found in these sources. The other
issues raised by the commenter, pollen drift and soil health, are not
relevant to this food safety determination made under FFDCA. However,
EPA has considered these issues as part of its review of the EUP
regulated under FIFRA.

VIII. Conclusion

    The Agency concludes that there is a reasonable certainty that no
harm will result to the U.S. population, including infants and
children, from aggregate exposure to residues of VNT1 protein in
potato. Therefore, a temporary exemption is established for residues
the VNT1 protein in potato. The experimental use permit (EUP No. 8917-
EUP-2) expires on December 31, 2015, so EPA is establishing an
expiration for this temporary tolerance of the same date.

IX. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    This action establishes an exemption from the requirement of a
tolerance under FFDCA section 408(d) in response to a petition
submitted to the Agency. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has
exempted these types of actions from review under Executive Order
12866, entitled ``Regulatory Planning and Review'' (58 FR 51735,
October 4, 1993). Because this action has been exempted from review
under Executive Order 12866, this action is not subject to Executive
Order 13211, entitled ``Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR
28355, May 22, 2001) or Executive Order 13045, entitled ``Protection of
Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks'' (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997). This action does not contain any information
collections subject to OMB approval under the Paperwork Reduction Act
(PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), nor does it require any special
considerations under Executive Order 12898, entitled ``Federal Actions
to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income
Populations'' (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    Since tolerances and exemptions that are established on the basis
of a petition under FFDCA section 408(d), such as the exemption in this
final rule, do not require the issuance of a proposed rule, the
requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601 et
seq.), do not apply.
    This action directly regulates growers, food processors, food
handlers, and food retailers, not States or tribes, nor does this
action alter the relationships or distribution of power and
responsibilities established by Congress in the preemption provisions
of FFDCA section 408(n)(4). As such, the Agency has determined that
this action will not have a substantial direct effect on States or
tribal governments, on the relationship between the national government
and the States or tribal governments, or on the distribution of power
and responsibilities among the various levels of government or between
the Federal Government and Indian tribes. Thus, the Agency has
determined that Executive Order 13132, entitled ``Federalism'' (64 FR
43255, August 10, 1999) and Executive Order 13175, entitled
``Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments'' (65 FR
67249, November 9, 2000) do not apply to this action. In addition, this
action does not impose any enforceable duty or contain any unfunded
mandate as described under Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
(UMRA) (2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.).
    This action does not involve any technical standards that would
require

Agency consideration of voluntary consensus standards pursuant to
section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
(NTTAA) (15 U.S.C. 272 note).

X. Congressional Review Act

    Pursuant to the Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C. 801 et seq.),
EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other required
information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of Representatives, and
the Comptroller General of the United States prior to publication of
the rule in the Federal Register. This action is not a ``major rule''
as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 174

    Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure,
Agricultural commodities, Pesticides and pests, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: February 4, 2015.
Kimberly Nesci,
Chief, Microbial Pesticides Branch, Biopesticides and Pollution
Prevention Division, Office of Pesticide Programs.

    Therefore, 40 CFR chapter I is amended as follows:

PART 174--[AMENDED]

0
1. The authority citation for part 174 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 21 U.S.C. 321(q), 346a and 371.

0
2. Add Sec.  174.534 to subpart W to read as follows:

Sec.  174.534  VNT1 protein in potato; temporary exemption from the
requirement of a tolerance.

    Residues of VNT1 protein in potato are exempt from the requirement
of a tolerance when the Rpi-vnt1 gene that expresses the VNT1 protein
is used as a plant-incorporated protectant in potato in accordance with
the terms of Experimental Use Permit No. 8917-EUP-2. This temporary
exemption from the requirement of a tolerance expires on December 31,
2015.

[FR Doc. 2015-03570 Filed 2-20-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 227 (Tuesday, November 25, 2014)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 70140-70141]
[FR Doc No: 2014-27910]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 63

[EPA-R06-OAR-2008-0074; FRL-9919-73-Region 6]

National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants;
Delegation of Authority to Texas

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) has
submitted updated regulations for receiving delegation of EPA authority
for implementation and enforcement of National Emission Standards for
Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) for all sources (both part 70 and
non-part 70 sources). These regulations apply to certain NESHAP
promulgated by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) at 40 CFR part
63, as amended between May 25, 2005 and April 24, 2013. The delegation
of authority under this action does not apply to sources located in
Indian Country. EPA is providing notice proposing to approve the
delegation of certain NESHAPs to TCEQ.

DATES: Written comments on this proposed rule must be received on or
before December 26, 2014.

ADDRESSES: Comments may be mailed to Mr. Rick Barrett, Air Permits
Section (6PD-R), Environmental Protection Agency, 1445 Ross Avenue,
Suite 1200, Dallas, Texas 75202-2733. Comments may also be submitted
electronically or through hand delivery/courier by following the
detailed instructions in the ADDRESSES section of the direct final rule
located in the rules section of this Federal Register.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Rick Barrett,<PHONE_NUMBER>;
email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the final rules section of this Federal
Register, EPA is approving TCEQ's request for delegation of authority
to implement and enforce certain NESHAP for all sources (both part 70
and non-part 70 sources). TCEQ has adopted certain NESHAP by reference
into Texas's state regulations. In addition, EPA is waiving its
notification requirements so sources will only need to send
notifications and reports to TCEQ.
    The EPA is taking direct final action without prior proposal
because EPA views this as a noncontroversial action and anticipates no
adverse comments. A detailed rationale for this proposed approval is
set forth in the preamble to the direct final rule. If no adverse
comments are received in response to this action, no further activity
is contemplated. If EPA receives adverse comments, the direct final
rule will be withdrawn, and all public comments received will be
addressed in a subsequent final rule based on this proposed rule. EPA
will not institute a second comment period. Any parties interested in
commenting must do so at this time. If EPA receives adverse comment on
an amendment, paragraph, or section of this rule and if that provision
may be severed from the remainder of the rule, EPA may adopt as final
those provisions of the rule that are not the subject of an adverse
comment.
    For additional information, see the direct final rule which is
located in the Rules section of this Federal Register.

    Dated: November 12, 2014.
Bill Luthans,
Acting Director, Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division, Region 6.
[FR Doc. 2014-27910 Filed 11-24-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P