[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 181 (Monday, September 19, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 64240-64247]
[FR Doc No: 2016-22418]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-78823; File No. SR-FINRA-2016-018]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Financial Industry Regulatory
Authority, Inc.; Notice of Filing of Partial Amendment No. 1 and Order
Granting Accelerated Approval of a Proposed Rule Change Amending FINRA
Rules 2210 (Communications With the Public), 2213 (Requirements for the
Use of Bond Mutual Fund Volatility Ratings), and 2214 (Requirements for
the Use of Investment Analysis Tools), as Modified by Partial Amendment
No. 1

September 13, 2016.

I. Introduction

    On May 25, 2016, Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc.
(``FINRA'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission''), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (``Exchange Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4
thereunder,\2\ proposed amendments that would revise the filing
requirements in FINRA Rule 2210 (Communications with the Public) and
FINRA Rule 2214 (Requirements for the Use of Investment Analysis Tools)
and the content and disclosure requirements in FINRA Rule 2213
(Requirements for the Use of Bond Mutual Fund Volatility Ratings).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The proposed rule change was published for comment in the Federal
Register on June 15, 2016.\3\ The public comment period closed on July
6, 2016. On July 19, 2016, FINRA extended the time period in which the
Commission must approve the proposed rule change, disapprove the
proposed rule change, or institute proceedings to determine whether to
approve or disapprove the proposed rule change to September 13, 2016.
The Commission received five comment letters in response to the
Notice.\4\ On September 1, 2016, FINRA responded to the comment letters
received in response to the Notice and filed a partial amendment to the
proposed rule change (``Partial Amendment No. 1'').\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See Exchange Act Release No. 78026 (June 9, 2016), 81 FR
39081 (June 15, 2016) (``Notice'').
    \4\ See Letters from Hugh Berkson, Public Investors Arbitration
Bar Association, dated July 5, 2016 (``PIABA Letter''); Alexander C.
Gavis, Fidelity Investments, dated July 6, 2016 (``Fidelity
Letter''); Dorothy Donohue, Investment Company Institute, dated July
6, 2016 (``ICI Letter''); Timothy W. Cameron and Lindsey Weber
Keljo, Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association, dated
July 6, 2016 (``SIFMA Letter''); and Erica A. Green, FOLIOfn
Investments, Inc., dated July 7, 2016 (``FOLIO Letter''). Comment
letters are available at www.sec.gov.
    \5\ See Letter from Joseph P. Savage, Vice President and
Counsel, Office of Regulatory Policy, FINRA, to the Commission,
dated September 1, 2016 (``FINRA Letter''). The FINRA Letter and the
text of Partial Amendment No. 1 are available on FINRA's Web site at
http://www.finra.org, at the principal office of FINRA, and at the
Commission's Public Reference Room; the text of the FINRA letter is
also available at the Commission's Web site at https://www.sec.gov/comments/sr-finra-2016-018/finra2016018-6.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This order provides notice of filing of Partial Amendment No. 1 and
approves the proposal, as modified by Partial Amendment No. 1, on an
accelerated basis.

II. Description of the Proposed Rule Change

Background

    In April 2014, FINRA launched a retrospective review of its
communications with the public rules to assess their effectiveness and
efficiency. In December 2014, FINRA published a report on the
assessment phase of the review.\6\ The report concluded that, while the
rules have met their intended investor protection objectives, they
could benefit from some updating to better align the investor
protection benefits and the economic impacts. To this end, FINRA
recommended consideration of a combination of rule proposals, guidance
and administrative measures, to enhance the efficiency of the rules
with no reduction in investor protection.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See Retrospective Rule Report, Communications with the
Public, December 2014.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Pursuant to these recommendations, FINRA initially is proposing
amendments to the filing requirements in FINRA Rule 2210 and FINRA Rule
2214 and the content and disclosure requirements in FINRA Rule 2213.

Original Proposal

New Member Communications
    FINRA Rule 2210(c)(1)(A) currently requires new FINRA members to
file with FINRA retail communications used in any electronic or other
public media at least 10 business days prior to use. This requirement
extends for one year from the effective date of the firm's membership.
This new firm filing requirement only applies to broadly disseminated
retail communications, such as generally accessible Web sites, print
media communications, and television and radio commercials.
    In its initial proposal, FINRA stated its belief that that the
requirement for new members to file their broadly disseminated retail
communications serves a useful purpose, since new members may not be as
familiar with the standards that apply to retail communications as more
established members, but that the requirement to file these
communications at least 10 business days prior to use can delay
members' abilities to communicate with the public in a timely manner.
For example, if a new member wishes to update its public Web site with
new information, the member must first file the proposed update with
FINRA and wait at least 10 business days before it can post this update
on its Web site. FINRA stated that such a delay may hinder its ability
to communicate important information to its existing and prospective
customers.
    FINRA stated that it believed it could continue to protect
investors from potential harm without imposing this time delay on new
members by reviewing new members' communications on a post-use, rather
than a pre-use, basis. FINRA had found a post-use filing requirement to
be an effective investor protection approach for retail communications
with similar risk profiles as FINRA typically sees from new members.
Accordingly, FINRA initially proposed to revise the new member filing
requirement to require new members to file retail communications used
in electronic or other public media within 10 business days of first
use for a one-year period, rather than requiring these filings at least
10 business days prior to use.\7\ As explained in more detail below,
upon consideration of comments received on the proposal, FINRA has
determined not to amend these requirements at this time, and filed a
Partial Amendment No. 1 with the Commission to that effect.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See proposed amendments to FINRA Rule 2210(c)(1)(A). This
proposed change also would delete as redundant current rule text
that permits a new member to file a retail communication that is a
free writing prospectus filed with the SEC pursuant to Securities
Act Rule 433(d)(1)(ii), within 10 business days of first use rather
than at least 10 business days prior to first use.
    \8\ See FINRA Letter at 3; see also Partial Amendment No. 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Investment Company Shareholder Reports
    FINRA currently requires members to file the management's
discussion of fund performance (``MDFP'') portion of a registered
investment company shareholder report if the report is distributed or
made available to prospective investors.\9\ FINRA has

required the MDFP to be filed because members sometimes distribute or
make shareholder reports available to prospective investors to provide
more information about the funds they offer. Thus, FINRA has considered
the MDFP to be subject to the filing requirement for investment company
retail communications.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See, e.g., Notice to Members 99-79 (September 1999)
(``[m]embers are not required to file shareholder reports with
[FINRA] if they are only sent to current fund shareholders. However,
if a member uses a shareholder report as sales material with
prospective investors, the member must file the management's
discussion of fund performance (MDFP) portion of the report (as well
as any supplemental sales material attached to or distributed with
the report) with the Department.'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Although Rule 2210 does not contain any express filing exclusion
for investment company shareholder reports, FINRA has not required
members to file portions of shareholder reports other than the MDFP,
such as the financial statements or schedules of portfolio investments.
FINRA has not regarded these other parts of investment company
shareholder reports to be subject to the filing requirements of Rule
2210, since they serve a regulatory purpose rather than promoting the
sale of investment company securities.
    Investment companies already must file shareholder reports with the
SEC,\10\ and the MDFP typically presents less investor risk than other
types of promotional communications concerning investment companies,
since it usually focuses on the most recent period covered by the
report rather than containing promotional content that is intended to
encourage future investments. Accordingly, FINRA proposes to exclude
from the FINRA filing requirements the MDFP by adding an express
exclusion for annual or semi-annual reports that have been filed with
the SEC in compliance with applicable requirements.\11\ FINRA believes
that it would assist members' understanding of Rule 2210 expressly to
clarify that annual and semi-annual reports that have been filed with
the SEC are not subject to filing with FINRA. The rule already excludes
prospectuses, fund profiles, offering circulars and similar documents
that have been filed with the SEC. As such, FINRA believes it would be
consistent to add shareholder reports that have been filed with the SEC
to that list.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See Section 30 of the Investment Company Act of 1940 and
Rules 30a-1 and 30b1-1 thereunder.
    \11\ See proposed amendments to FINRA Rule 2210(c)(7)(F). To the
extent that a member distributes or attaches registered investment
company sales material along with the fund's shareholder report,
such material would remain subject to filing under Rule 2210.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Offering Documents Concerning Unregistered Securities
    Rule 2210(c)(7)(F) currently excludes from filing ``prospectuses,
preliminary prospectuses, fund profiles, offering circulars and similar
documents that have been filed with the SEC or any state, or that is
exempt from such registration . . .'' (emphasis supplied). The filing
exclusion is intended (and has been interpreted by FINRA) to exclude
issuer-prepared offering documents concerning securities offerings that
are exempt from registration.
    Accordingly, FINRA is proposing to amend Rule 2210(c)(7)(F) to make
this intent more clear, and to avoid any confusion concerning the
phrase ``or that is exempt from such registration.'' As revised, Rule
2210(c)(7)(F) would exclude from filing, among other things, ``similar
offering documents concerning securities offerings that are exempt from
SEC or state registration requirements.'' While FINRA believes that
this amendment will clarify this filing exclusion, it does not believe
that it represents a substantive change to the current filing exclusion
for unregistered securities' offering documents.

Backup Material for Investment Company Performance Rankings and
Comparisons
    A member that files a retail communication for a registered
investment company that contains a fund performance ranking or
performance comparison must include a copy of the ranking or comparison
used in the retail communication.\12\ When FINRA adopted this
requirement, prior to the Internet, FINRA staff did not have ready
access to the sources of rankings or comparisons. Today, this
information typically is easily available online. FINRA therefore
proposes to eliminate the requirement to file ranking and comparison
backup material and instead expressly to require members to maintain
back-up materials as part of their records.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ See FINRA Rule 2210(c)(3)(A).
    \13\ See proposed amendments to FINRA Rules 2210(b)(4)(A)(vi)
and 2210(c)(3)(A).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Generic Investment Company Communications
    FINRA Rule 2210(c)(3)(A) requires members to file within 10
business days of first use retail communications ``concerning''
registered investment companies. FINRA proposes to revise this filing
requirement to cover only retail communications that promote a specific
registered investment company or family of registered investment
companies. Thus, members would no longer be required to file generic
investment company retail communications.
    An example of such a generic communication would be a retail
communication that describes different mutual fund types and features
but does not discuss the benefits of a specific fund or fund family.
This type of material typically is intended to educate the public about
investment companies in general or the types of products that a member
offers, and thus does not present the same risks of including
potentially misleading information as promotional communications about
specific funds or fund families.
Investment Analysis Tools
    ``Investment analysis tools'' are interactive technological tools
that produce simulations and statistical analyses that present the
likelihood of various investment outcomes if certain investments are
made or certain investment strategies or styles are undertaken.
Pursuant to FINRA Rules 2210(c)(3)(C) and 2214(a), members that intend
to offer an investment analysis tool must file templates for written
reports produced by, or retail communications concerning, the tool,
within 10 business days of first use. Rule 2214 also requires members
to provide FINRA with access to the tool itself, and provide customers
with specific disclosures when members communicate about the tool, use
the tool or provide written reports generated by the tool.
    Since Rule 2214 became effective in 2005,\14\ FINRA has found that
members have largely complied with the Rule's requirements applicable
to templates for written reports produced by investment analysis tools
and retail communications concerning such tools. FINRA does not believe
that the filing requirements for these templates and retail
communications are necessary given this history and in light of the
investor protection afforded by other content standards and the
requirement that members provide access to the tools and their output
upon request of FINRA staff. Accordingly, FINRA proposes to eliminate
the filing requirements for investment analysis tool report templates
and retail communications concerning such tools and instead require
members to provide FINRA staff with access to investment analysis tools
upon request.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ See Notice to Members 04-86 (November 2004).
    \15\ See proposed amendments to FINRA Rules 2210(c)(3) and
2214(a).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Filing Exclusion for Templates
    Members are not required to file retail communications that are
based on templates that were previously filed

with FINRA but changed only to update recent statistical or other non-
narrative information.\16\ However, members are required to re-file
previously filed retail communications that are subject to filing under
FINRA Rule 2210(c) to the extent that the member has updated any
narrative information contained in the prior filing. Often these re-
filed retail communications are templates for fact sheets concerning
particular funds or products and provide quarterly information
concerning a product's performance, portfolio holdings and investment
objectives.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ See FINRA Rule 2210(c)(7)(B).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Through its review of updated fund fact sheets and other similar
templates, FINRA has found that certain narrative information has not
presented significant risk to investors, and that these narrative
updates typically are consistent with applicable standards. In
particular, narrative updates that are not predictive in nature and
merely describe market events that occurred during the period covered
by the communication, or that merely describe changes in a fund's
portfolio, rarely have presented significant investor risks. In
addition, members often will update narrative information concerning a
registered investment company, such as a description of a fund's
investment objectives, based on information that is sourced from the
fund's regulatory documents filed with the SEC. In both cases, FINRA
believes that the costs associated with filing these types of narrative
updates exceed the investor benefits associated with FINRA staff review
of these updates.
    Accordingly, FINRA proposes to expand the template filing exclusion
also to allow members to include updated non-predictive narrative
descriptions of market events during the period covered by the
communication and factual descriptions of portfolio changes without
having to refile the template, as well as updated information that is
sourced from a registered investment company's regulatory documents
filed with the SEC.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ See proposed amendments to FINRA Rule 2210(c)(7)(B).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Bond Mutual Fund Volatility Ratings
    FINRA Rule 2213 permits members to use communications that include
ratings provided by independent third parties that address the
sensitivity of the net asset value of an open-end management investment
company's bond portfolio to changes in market conditions and the
general economy, subject to a number of requirements. For example,
these communications must be accompanied or preceded by the bond fund's
prospectus and contain specific disclosures. Members currently must
file retail communications that include bond mutual fund volatility
ratings at least 10 business days prior to first use, and withhold them
from publication or circulation until any changes specified by FINRA
have been made.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ FINRA Rules 2210(c)(2)(C) and 2213(b) and (c).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FINRA believes that some of these requirements have discouraged
members from including bond fund volatility ratings in their
communications due to the significant compliance burdens associated
with doing so, and the level of disclosures required to accompany such
ratings. FINRA has found that, since Rule 2213 first became effective
in 2000,\19\ members have rarely, if ever, filed communications that
contain bond fund volatility ratings. In general, in the few cases in
which members filed such communications with FINRA, the staff has found
that they have met applicable standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ See Notice to Members 00-23 (April 2000).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Given that bond fund volatility ratings may provide useful
information to investors, and that Rule 2213 as currently drafted
appears to have discouraged members from including these ratings in
their communications, FINRA believes it is appropriate to revise the
rule to reduce some of these burdens while continuing to include
requirements that it believes will protect investors. Accordingly,
FINRA proposes to modify some of Rule 2213's requirements.
    Consistent with the filing requirements for other retail
communications about specific registered investment companies, the
proposal would no longer require a retail communication that includes a
bond fund volatility rating to be accompanied or preceded by a
prospectus for the fund, and would permit members to file these
communications within 10 business days of first use rather than prior
to use.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ See proposed amendments to FINRA Rules 2210(c) and 2213(b).
This change relates only to Rule 2213 and does not affect a member's
obligation to deliver a prospectus under the Securities Act or for
Investment Company Act companies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FINRA believes that the requirement that any retail communication
including a bond fund volatility rating be accompanied or preceded by a
fund prospectus increases the burdens associated with these
communications without adding commensurate investor protection. Except
in rare circumstances due to operational hardship, all mutual fund
prospectuses are available online, and thus an investor can easily
access the prospectus, if needed.
    Similarly, FINRA believes that requiring members to file these
retail communications at least 10 business days prior to use and to
withhold them from publication or circulation until any changes
specified by the Department have been made does not provide appreciably
greater investor protection. According to FINRA, this pre-use filing
requirement inhibits a member's ability to circulate retail
communications containing volatility ratings in a timely manner.
Moreover, members still would be required to file these communications
within 10 business days of first use, so that if they contain
misleading content, the Department staff can take appropriate measures
to correct any problems, such as recommending changes to the
communication, or directing the member to cease using the communication
with the public. FINRA has found a post-use filing requirement to be an
effective investor protection approach for most retail communications
with similar risk profiles.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ As a general matter, FINRA does not believe that retail
communications that include bond fund volatility ratings present
risks of investor harm that are comparable to other retail
communications that require pre-use filing, such as retail
communications that include self-created rankings or comparisons or
retail communications concerning security futures. See FINRA Rule
2210(c)(2)(A) and (B). Retail communications that include self-
created rankings or comparisons present a greater risk of being
misleading than bond fund volatility ratings, since they are not
created by an entity that is independent of the member. In addition,
security futures are more complex and potentially more volatile than
most bond mutual funds.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposal also would streamline the content and disclosure
requirements. In particular, the amendments would eliminate the
requirements: (1) That all disclosures be contained in a separate
Disclosure Statement; (2) to disclose all current bond mutual fund
volatility ratings that have been issued with respect to the fund; (3)
to explain the reason for any change in the current rating from the
most recent prior rating; (4) to describe the criteria and
methodologies used to determine the rating; (5) to include a statement
that not all bond funds have volatility ratings; and (6) to include a
statement that the portfolio may have changed since the date of the
rating.
    FINRA believes that many of these requirements are unnecessary in
light of the content requirements that still will apply to such retail
communications. For example, members still would not be permitted to
refer to a volatility rating as a ``risk'' rating, and would have

to incorporate the most recently available rating and reflect
information that, at a minimum, is current to the most recent calendar
quarter end. The criteria and methodology used to determine the rating
still would have to be based exclusively on objective, quantifiable
factors, and such communications would have to include a link to, or
Web site address for, a Web site that includes the criteria and
methodology. Communications would have to provide the name of the
entity that issued the rating, the most current rating and date for the
rating, and whether consideration was paid for the rating, as well as a
description of the types of risks the rating measures.
    FINRA believes that, as long as the required disclosures are
provided, it is not necessary that they appear in a separate Disclosure
Statement. FINRA also believes it is unnecessary to disclose all other
current volatility ratings assigned to the advertised fund, since this
requirement is not imposed under other similar rules. For example,
FINRA Rule 2214 allows members to provide fund ranking information
without also requiring the member to disclose all rankings assigned by
other ranking entities. The other disclosure requirements add little
understanding about the rating presented, while adding voluminous text
to the retail communication. In addition, if an investor does seek more
information about the criteria and methodology used to create the
rating, this information will be available via a hyperlink to a
separate Web site.

Proposed Partial Amendment No. 1

    In response to comments \22\ (discussed below), FINRA has
determined not to amend its current new member filing requirements, as
set forth in FINRA Rule 2210(c)(1)(A), at this time. It has therefore
deleted the proposed changes to FINRA Rule 2210(c)(1)(A). Although
FINRA believes that it is a close balance between the investor
protection benefits provided by pre-use review and the burden of
complying with the existing rule, FINRA believes that it is more
prudent to defer making the change to post-use filing of new member
retail communications at this time. FINRA will continue to accumulate
more data on the frequency and types of revisions required for new
member retail communications before determining whether to consider any
changes to this requirement in the future.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ See PIABA Letter at 2.
    \23\ See FINRA Letter at 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Comment Summary and FINRA's Response

    As noted above, the Commission received five comment letters on the
proposed rule change \24\ and a response letter from FINRA.\25\ As
discussed in more detail below, four of the commenters generally
supported the proposal, but had some suggestions for changes.\26\ One
commenter opposed the proposal.\27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ See supra note 4.
    \25\ See supra note 5.
    \26\ See Fidelity Letter, FOLIO Letter, ICI Letter, and SIFMA
Letter.
    \27\ See PIABA Letter.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Continuation of Retrospective Review

    While two commenters generally supported the proposal, both
encouraged FINRA to continue its retrospective review of its rules
governing communications with the public to address other areas.\28\
One commenter recommended that FINRA update its rules governing social
media, mobile devices, and electronic communications, to address the
amount of disclosure FINRA requires in print advertising, and to
eliminate to the extent possible differences among the rules governing
broker-dealer and investment adviser communications, particularly with
respect to communications containing projections or performance
information.\29\ Another commenter recommended that FINRA codify a set
of clear disclosure standards for closed-end fund marketing materials
and to eliminate the filing requirement for these communications.\30\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ See Fidelity Letter and ICI Letter.
    \29\ See Fidelity Letter.
    \30\ See ICI Letter.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In its response, FINRA stated that it continues to consider
additional action on its retrospective review of the communications
rules, including those raised by commenters on this proposal.\31\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \31\ See FINRA Letter at 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

New Member Filing Requirements

    FINRA Rule 2210(c)(1)(A) currently requires new FINRA members to
file with FINRA retail communications used in any electronic or other
public media at least 10 business days prior to use. This requirement
extends for one year from the effective date of the firm's membership.
This new firm filing requirement only applies to broadly disseminated
retail communications, such as generally accessible Web sites, print
media communications, and television and radio commercials. The initial
proposal would have modified this requirement to permit new members to
file these retail communications within 10 business days of first use
for a one-year period, rather than requiring these filings at least 10
business days prior to use.\32\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \32\ The proposed change also would delete as redundant current
rule text that permits a new member to file a retail communication
that is a free writing prospectus filed with the SEC pursuant to
Securities Act Rule 433(d)(1)(ii) within 10 business days of first
use rather than at least 10 business days prior to first use.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    One commenter strongly opposed the proposed change to the new
member filing requirement.\33\ The commenter stated that the proposed
change would eliminate the proactive investor protection that the
current rule affords customers, and that post-use review of all new
member retail communications by FINRA will not provide adequate
investor protection for customers.\34\ The commenter also argued that
the pre-use filing requirement provides a deterrent effect to potential
bad actors, and that a post-use filing requirement would embolden new
members to prepare riskier retail communications.\35\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \33\ See PIABA Letter at 1-3.
    \34\ See id. at 2-3.
    \35\ See PIABA Letter at 2-3. As FINRA stated in its response,
``PIABA also criticized the proposed changes to the new member
filing requirement based on the apparently mistaken belief that the
proposal would differentiate its application between new member Web
sites, and other widely disseminated retail communications.'' See
FINRA Letter at 3 n.5. FINRA therefore clarified that ``although an
earlier version of the proposal contained such a distinction, the
version FINRA filed with the Commission for comment did not.'' Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Another commenter supported the proposed change to the new member
filing requirement from a pre-use to a post-use requirement, but argued
that FINRA should go further and eliminate the filing requirement
entirely in some circumstances.\36\ This commenter asserted that other
rules and requirements currently in place are sufficient to offer the
important investor protections contemplated by the new member filing
requirement, citing as an example FINRA's new member application
process pursuant to NASD Rule 1013.\37\ The commenter suggested that
FINRA impose the filing requirement only on new members that do not
have compliance or supervisory personnel with at least five years of
experience directly related to sales practice requirements that would
be responsible for reviewing and approving the firm's retail
communications.\38\ Alternatively, the commenter suggested narrowing
the new member filing requirement to exclude generic retail
communications and retail

communications that contain non-predictive narrative descriptions.\39\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \36\ See FOLIO Letter at 1-2.
    \37\ See id.
    \38\ See id.
    \39\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In response to the suggestion by one commenter that FINRA eliminate
the new member filing requirement in certain circumstances and narrow
it in others, FINRA noted that the current rule already contains a
mechanism to provide regulatory relief in the kinds of circumstances
the commenter cited.\40\ FINRA stated in its response that it is
authorized conditionally or unconditionally to grant an exemption from
the new member filing requirement for good cause shown.\41\ Thus, if a
member makes a persuasive case that the new member filing requirement
should not apply to the firm, such as where the new firm is the
successor to an existing firm and its compliance personnel have
demonstrated familiarity with the communications rules, FINRA may
consider granting an exemption from the filing requirement.\42\ In
addition, FINRA noted that even new members are not required to file
retail communications where those communications do not make a
financial or investment recommendation or otherwise promote a product
or service of the member.\43\ Thus, FINRA's view is that truly generic,
non-promotional retail communications need not be filed under this
requirement.\44\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \40\ See FINRA Letter at 3.
    \41\ See FINRA Rule 2210(c)(9)(A).
    \42\ See FINRA Letter at 3.
    \43\ See id.; see also FINRA Rule 2210(c)(7)(C).
    \44\ See FINRA Letter at 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    After considering all of the comments, FINRA stated that it has
determined not to amend its current new member filing requirements at
this time.\45\ Although FINRA believes that it is a close balance
between the investor protection benefits provided by pre-use review and
the burden of complying with the existing rule, FINRA believes that it
is more prudent to defer making the change to post-use filing of new
member retail communications at this time.\46\ FINRA stated that it
will continue to accumulate more data on the frequency and types of
revisions required for new member retail communications before
determining whether to consider any changes to this requirement in the
future.\47\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \45\ See FINRA Letter at 3.
    \46\ See id.
    \47\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Investment Company Shareholder Reports

    FINRA currently requires members to file the management's
discussion of fund performance (``MDFP'') portion of a registered
investment company shareholder report if the report is distributed or
made available to prospective investors. FINRA proposes to exclude from
the FINRA filing requirements the MDFP by adding an express exclusion
for annual or semi-annual reports that have been filed with the SEC in
compliance with applicable requirements.
    Two commenters supported this proposed change.\48\ One commenter
noted that this exclusion would make FINRA's rule less burdensome on
asset management firms by eliminating redundant filing
requirements.\49\ Another commenter opposed this change on the ground
that Commission staff does not fully review all regulatory filings made
on the EDGAR system, which is where filings of fund shareholder reports
are made.\50\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \48\ See FINRA Letter at 4.
    \49\ See SIFMA Letter at 2.
    \50\ See PIABA Letter at 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In its response, FINRA stated that it maintains that the MDFP
portion of shareholder reports should be excluded from the filing
requirements.\51\ FINRA stated that it has found through its filing
program that the MDFPs in shareholder reports rarely have raised issues
requiring members to revise or withdraw reports from circulation.\52\
FINRA acknowledged that Commission staff may not review all securities-
related filings contemporaneous with their submission, but pointed out
in its response that Commission staff can review higher risk
communications as needed.\53\ FINRA stated its belief that this change
would not appreciably impact investor protection and would allow FINRA
to allocate its staff resources more efficiently to focus on reviewing
higher risk communications more expeditiously.\54\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \51\ See FINRA Letter at 4.
    \52\ See id.
    \53\ See id.
    \54\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Generic Investment Company Communications

    FINRA Rule 2210(c)(3)(A) requires members to file within 10
business days of first use retail communications ``concerning''
registered investment companies. FINRA proposes to revise this filing
requirement to cover only retail communications that promote a specific
registered investment company or family of registered investment
companies. Thus, members would no longer be required to file generic
investment company retail communications.
    Two commenters supported this proposed change.\55\ However, one
commenter requested that FINRA clarify how this filing exclusion
interrelates with Securities Act Rule 482.\56\ In response to this
request, FINRA stated in its response that it intends the registered
investment company filing requirement to apply to any retail
communication that is governed by either Securities Act Rule 482 or
Investment Company Act Rule 34b-1, or that otherwise promotes or
recommends a specific registered investment company or family of
registered investment companies.\57\ To the extent that a retail
communication qualifies as a generic investment company advertisement
under Securities Act Rule 135a, FINRA stated that a member would not be
required to file the retail communication.\58\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \55\ See FOLIO Letter at 3; see also SIFMA Letter at 3.
    \56\ See SIFMA Letter at 3.
    \57\ See FINRA Letter at 4-5.
    \58\ See FINRA Letter at 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Filing Exclusion for Templates

    Under current rules, members are not required to file retail
communications that are based on templates that were previously filed
with FINRA but changed only to update recent statistical or other non-
narrative information.\59\ However, members are required to re-file
previously filed retail communications that are subject to filing under
FINRA Rule 2210(c) to the extent that the member has updated narrative
information contained in the prior filing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \59\ See FINRA Rule 2210(c)(7)(B).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FINRA's proposal would expand the template filing exclusion also to
allow members to include updated, non-predictive narrative descriptions
of market events that occurred during the period covered by the
communication and factual descriptions of portfolio changes without
having to re-file the template. Similarly, a template could include
information that is sourced from a registered investment company's
regulatory documents filed with the Commission without triggering a
requirement to re-file.
    Two commenters supported this proposed change, but recommended
amending the proposal.\60\ One of these commenters recommended that the
exclusion cover any non-predictive narrative information that comes
from either an independent data provider or is sourced from an
investment company's regulatory documents filed

with the Commission.\61\ This commenter recommended that, at the very
least, this filing exclusion cover non-predictive narrative information
that is (1) purchased or licensed directly from a third-party data
provider, and (2) sourced from a Commission document.\62\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \60\ See Fidelity Letter at 2-3; see also ICI Letter at 3-4.
    \61\ See Fidelity Letter at 2-3.
    \62\ See id. at 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The second commenter recommended that the filing exclusion cover
modifications limited to narrative factual changes provided by any
``ranking entity,'' as such term is defined in FINRA Rule 2212(a).\63\
The commenter also recommended that FINRA broaden the reference to
``non-predictive narrative information that describes market events''
to expressly permit commentary.\64\ Finally, the commenter argued that
otherwise the proposal could be unduly narrow and difficult for members
to apply.\65\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \63\ See ICI Letter at 3.
    \64\ See id. at 4.
    \65\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    One commenter opposed this change entirely, arguing that FINRA
should review any narrative descriptions included in retail
communications for misleading information.\66\ The commenter cited
several recent FINRA enforcement cases involving misleading retail
communications as grounds for maintaining FINRA's current template
filing exclusion.\67\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \66\ See PIABA Letter at 4-5.
    \67\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In its response, FINRA disagreed that Rule 2210 should exclude from
filing any template updates that are based on any non-predictive
narrative information that is sourced from an independent data
provider.\68\ FINRA stated its belief that such a standard could
potentially permit inclusion of non-predictive narrative information
that is intended to promote future sales of a fund, which FINRA
believes should be re-filed.\69\ However, FINRA stated if a member
updates a template based on information that is sourced from a
registered investment company's regulatory documents filed with the
Commission, the update would qualify for this filing exclusion.\70\
FINRA stated that this exclusion would apply even if an independent
data provider supplies the information that is sourced from the
Commission filings.\71\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \68\ See FINRA Letter at 6.
    \69\ See id.
    \70\ See id.
    \71\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Further, FINRA stated that it does not agree that the template
filing exclusion should be based on whether narrative factual changes
are provided by a ranking entity as defined in Rule 2212.\72\ FINRA
stated its belief that the better test is whether the information is
sourced from Commission filings, rather than basing it on the
provider's business model.\73\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \72\ See id.
    \73\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FINRA stated that it does not agree that the template filing
exclusion also should cover commentary.\74\ As one commenter
acknowledged, commentary often includes forward looking statements
about the market or a particular fund.\75\ Accordingly, FINRA believes
these kinds of narrative updates should be re-filed.\76\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \74\ See id.
    \75\ See ICI Letter at 4 n.10.
    \76\ See FINRA Letter at 6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, FINRA stated that it does not believe the enforcement
cases cited by one commenter support its opposition to revising the
template filing exclusion.\77\ Those cases did not involve updates of
templates, but rather instead involved misleading marketing materials
that members would continue to be required to file even after the
proposed change to the template filing exclusion.\78\ FINRA noted that
its members are already required to file mutual fund retail
communications, and to the extent a member is using a retail
communication that becomes misleading due to changes in market
conditions, the member must either cease using the communication or
revise the communication to make it accurate.\79\ If the revision
constitutes a material change to the retail communication, the member
must re-file it.\80\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \77\ See FINRA Letter at 6.
    \78\ See id.
    \79\ See id.
    \80\ See FINRA Rule 2210(c)(7)(A).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Moreover, FINRA noted, the FINRA Rule 2210 content standards apply
regardless of whether a member re-files a retail communication with
FINRA.\81\ FINRA believes existing standards, even after this change to
the template filing exclusion, strongly protect retail investors from
receiving potentially misleading communications.\82\ Accordingly, FINRA
stated that it is not revising its proposed changes to the template
filing exclusion.\83\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \81\ See FINRA Letter at 6.
    \82\ See id.
    \83\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Bond Fund Volatility Ratings

    FINRA Rule 2213 permits members to use communications that include
ratings provided by independent third parties that address the
sensitivity of the net asset value of a bond mutual fund's portfolio to
changes in market conditions and the general economy, subject to a
number of requirements. These requirements include that the
communication be accompanied or preceded by the fund's prospectus, that
it be filed at least 10 business days prior to use with FINRA, and that
it include a number of disclosures. FINRA has proposed to revise these
requirements by no longer requiring such communications to be
accompanied or preceded by a fund prospectus, by allowing members to
file such communications within 10 business days of first use rather
than 10 days prior to use, and by streamlining some of the content
standards and required disclosures.
    One commenter opposed these changes on the ground that recent
enforcement actions involving the sale of bond funds demonstrate that
bond funds should be highly regulated.\84\ FINRA responded that
although it agrees that bond funds and members' sales of such funds
should be effectively regulated, it disagrees that the proposed changes
would undermine this goal.\85\ FINRA noted that the commenter did not
allege that any of its cited cases involved communications that
included bond fund volatility ratings, and additionally pointed out
that FINRA has not brought any enforcement actions involving violations
of FINRA Rule 2213.\86\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \84\ See PIABA Letter at 5-6.
    \85\ See FINRA Letter at 7.
    \86\ See FINRA Letter at 7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, FINRA stated that the proposed changes would not alter
a FINRA member's obligation to file retail communications concerning
bond mutual funds.\87\ FINRA stated that the only filing change would
be that retail communications that included a bond fund volatility
rating would have to be filed within 10 business days of first use,
similar to any other retail communication concerning a specific fund or
fund family, rather than at least 10 business days prior to use.\88\
Finally, FINRA stated that Rule 2213 also would continue to impose
content and disclosure requirements that will provide investors with
significant information about the meaning and limitations of volatility
ratings.\89\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \87\ See id.
    \88\ See id.
    \89\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Discussion and Commission Findings

    After careful review of the proposed rule change, as modified by
Partial Amendment No. 1, the comment letters,

and FINRA's response to the comments, the Commission finds that the
proposal, as modified by Partial Amendment No. 1, is consistent with
the requirements of the Exchange Act and the rules and regulations
thereunder that are applicable to a national securities
association.\90\ Specifically, the Commission finds that the rule
change is consistent with Section 15A(b)(6) of the Exchange Act,\91\
which requires, among other things, that FINRA rules be designed to
prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to promote just
and equitable principles of trade, and, in general, to protect
investors and the public interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \90\ In approving this rule change, the Commission has
considered the rule's impact on efficiency, competition, and capital
formation. See 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).
    \91\ 15 U.S.C. 78o-3(b)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As stated in the Notice, FINRA believes that the proposal will
``enhance the efficiency'' of its communications with the public rules
``with no reduction in investor protection.'' \92\ Specifically, FINRA
``believes that the proposed rule change will improve efficiency and
reduce regulatory burden by reducing the filing requirements applicable
to retail communications distributed by members and streamlining the
content and disclosure requirements for retail communications that
include bond mutual fund volatility ratings, while maintaining
necessary investor protections.'' \93\ With respect to the proposal for
amending the new member filing requirements in FINRA Rule
2210(c)(1)(A), FINRA stated in its response upon consideration of the
comments that were filed in opposition to the proposal, that ``it is
more prudent to defer making the change to post-use filing of new
member retail communications at this time.'' \94\ It therefore filed
Partial Amendment No. 1 on September 1, 2016, in which it proposed that
the new member pre-use filing requirements in FINRA Rule 2210(c)(1)(A)
remain unchanged.\95\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \92\ Notice at 39081.
    \93\ Notice at 39084.
    \94\ FINRA Letter at 3.
    \95\ Partial Amendment No. 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Taking into consideration the comments and FINRA's response and
proposed partial amendment, the Commission believes that the proposal
is consistent with the Exchange Act. The Commission believes that the
proposal promotes regulatory efficiency by selectively streamlining
content and disclosure requirements for retail communications without
undermining strong regulatory protections for investors.
    The Commission further believes that FINRA's response, as discussed
in more detail above, appropriately addressed commenters' concerns and
adequately explained its reasons for modifying its proposal to maintain
the current pre-use filing requirement for new member retail
communications. The Commission believes that this modification responds
to one of the primary concerns raised by the commenter opposing the
proposal on the grounds that changing to a post-use filing requirement
for new members would not provide adequate investor protection, and
that a pre-use filing requirement has a deterrent effect on bad
actors.\96\ As noted above, FINRA plans to continue to ``accumulate
more data on the frequency and types of revisions required for new
member retail communications before determining whether to consider any
changes to this requirement in the future.'' \97\ The Commission
believes that the approach proposed by FINRA is appropriate and
designed to protect investors and the public interest, consistent with
Section 15A(b)(6) of the Exchange Act. For these reasons, the
Commission finds that the proposed rule change is consistent with the
Exchange Act and the rules and regulations thereunder.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \96\ See PIABA Letter at 2-3.
    \97\ FINRA Letter at 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

V. Solicitation of Comments on Partial Amendment No. 1 to the Proposed
Rule Change

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and
arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposal, as
modified by Partial Amendment No. 1, is consistent with the Exchange
Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-FINRA-2016-018 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-FINRA-2016-018. 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 20549-1090, on official business days between the hours
of 10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of such filing will also be
available for inspection and copying at the principal office of FINRA.
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-FINRA-2016-018
and should be submitted on or before October 11, 2016.

VI. Accelerated Approval of Proposed Rule Change, as Modified by
Partial Amendment No. 1

    The Commission finds good cause to approve the proposed rule
change, as modified by Partial Amendment No. 1, prior to the thirtieth
day after the date of publication of notice of the amended proposal in
the Federal Register. The revisions made to the proposal in Partial
Amendment No. 1 will provide that the current pre-use filing
requirement for new member retail communications remains unchanged, as
currently set forth in FINRA Rule 2210(c)(1)(A). As noted above, the
Commission believes that this modification responds to one of the
primary concerns raised by the commenter opposing the proposal on the
grounds that changing to a post-use filing requirement for new members
would not provide adequate investor protection,\98\ and notes that
FINRA plans to continue to accumulate more data before determining
whether to consider any changes to this requirement in the future.\99\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \98\ See PIABA Letter at 2-3.
    \99\ See FINRA Letter at 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Accordingly, the Commission finds good cause, pursuant to Section
19(b)(2) of the Exchange Act,\100\ to approve the proposed rule change,
as modified by

Partial Amendment No. 1, on an accelerated basis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \100\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

VII. Conclusion

    It is therefore ordered pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) \101\ of the
Exchange Act that the proposal (SR-FINRA-2016-018), as modified by
Partial Amendment No. 1, be and hereby is approved on an accelerated
basis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \101\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    \102\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\102\
Robert W. Errett,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2016-22418 Filed 9-16-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 207 (Thursday, October 27, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 65117-65118]
[FR Doc No: 2022-23421]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Railroad Administration

[Docket Number FRA-2007-28339]

Petition for Extension of Waiver of Compliance

    Under part 211 of title 49 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), this
document provides the public notice that on August 1, 2022, Union
Pacific Railroad Company (UP) petitioned the Federal Railroad
Administration (FRA) for an extension of a waiver of compliance from
certain provisions of the Federal railroad safety regulations contained
at 49 CFR parts 215 (Railroad Freight Car Safety Standards) and 232
(Brake System Safety Standards for Freight and Other Non-passenger
Trains and Equipment; End of Train Devices). The relevant FRA Docket
Number is FRA-2007-28339.
    Specifically, UP requests a waiver extension from 49 CFR 232.205,
Class 1 brake test--initial terminal inspection, and certain provisions
of part 215 related to the inspection of trains entering the United
States from Mexico at Laredo, Texas. UP seeks to continue to move
trains received in interchange with Kansas City Southern de Mexico
approximately 11.6 miles to the yard at Port Laredo, Texas, before an
initial terminal air brake test is performed. UP asserts that it has
``been operating under the requirements set forth in the waiver for the
past fourteen years and no adverse effect on the safety of operations
has occurred.''
    A copy of the petition, as well as any written communications
concerning the petition, is available for review online at
www.regulations.gov.
    Interested parties are invited to participate in these proceedings
by submitting written views, data, or comments. FRA does not anticipate
scheduling a public hearing in connection with these proceedings since
the facts do not appear to warrant a hearing. If any interested party
desires an opportunity for oral comment and a public hearing, they
should notify FRA, in writing, before the end of the comment period and
specify the basis for their request.
    All communications concerning these proceedings should identify the
appropriate docket number and may be submitted at http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting
comments.
    Communications are requested by December 27, 2022. Comments
received after that date will be considered if practicable. FRA
reserves the right to extend the existing relief subject to subsequent
consideration of any comments submitted to the docket.
    Anyone can search the electronic form of any written communications
and comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the
individual submitting the comment (or signing the document, if
submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.).
Under 5 U.S.C. 553(c), the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT)
solicits comments from the public to better inform its processes. DOT
posts these comments, without edit, including any personal information
the commenter provides, to

www.regulations.gov, as described in the system of records notice (DOT/
ALL-14 FDMS), which can be reviewed at https://www.transportation.gov/privacy. See also https://www.regulations.gov/privacy-notice for the
privacy notice of regulations.gov.

    Issued in Washington, DC.
Carolyn Hayward-Williams,
Director, Office of Railroad Systems and Technology.
[FR Doc. 2022-23421 Filed 10-26-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-06-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 149 (Friday, August 2, 2019)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 37818-37821]
[FR Doc No: 2019-16389]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Parts 174 and 180

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2019-0041; FRL-9996-78]

Receipt of a Pesticide Petition Filed for Residues of Pesticide
Chemicals in or on Various Commodities for June 2019

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of filing of petition and request for comment.

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

SUMMARY: This document announces the Agency's receipt of an initial
filing of a pesticide petition requesting the establishment or
modification of regulations for residues of pesticide chemicals in or
on various commodities.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before September 3, 2019.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by docket identification
(ID) number 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 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 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.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michael Goodis, Registration Division
(RD) (7505P), main telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email address:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>The mailing address for each contact person is:
Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200
Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460-0001. As part of the mailing
address, include the contact person's name, division, and mail code.
The division to contact is listed at the end of each pesticide petition
summary.

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. 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 http://www.epa.gov/dockets/comments.html.
    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. What action is the Agency taking?

    EPA is announcing receipt of a pesticide petition filed under
section 408 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), 21
U.S.C. 346a, requesting the establishment or modification of
regulations in 40 CFR [part 174 and/or part 180] for residues of
pesticide chemicals in or on various food commodities. The Agency is
taking public comment on the request before responding to the
petitioner. EPA is not proposing any particular action at this time.
EPA has determined that the pesticide petition described in this
document contains data or information prescribed in FFDCA section
408(d)(2), 21 U.S.C. 346a(d)(2); however, EPA has not fully evaluated
the sufficiency of the submitted data at this time or whether the data
supports granting of the pesticide petition. After considering the
public comments, EPA intends to evaluate whether and what action may be
warranted. Additional data may be needed before EPA can make a final
determination on this pesticide petition.
    Pursuant to 40 CFR 180.7(f), a summary of the petition that is the
subject of this document, prepared by the petitioner, is included in a
docket EPA has created for this rulemaking. The docket for this
petition is available at http://www.regulations.gov.
    As specified in FFDCA section 408(d)(3), 21 U.S.C. 346a(d)(3), EPA
is publishing notice of the petition so that the public has an
opportunity to comment on this request for the establishment or
modification of regulations for residues of pesticides in or on food
commodities. Further information on the petition may be obtained
through the petition summary referenced in this unit.

Amended Tolerance Exemptions for Inerts (Except PIPS)

    PP IN-11271. (EPA-HQ-OPP-2019-0279). Spring Trading Company (203
Dogwood Trail Magnolia, TX 77354-5201) on behalf of BASF Corporation
(100 Campus Drive, Florham Park NJ 07932), requests to amend an
exemption from the requirement of a tolerance for residues of
propanamide, 2-hydroxy-N, N-dimethyl- (CAS Reg. No. 35123-06-9) by
increasing the limitation from 20% by weight to 50% by weight when used
as a pesticide inert ingredient (solvent/co-solvent) in pesticide
formulations applied in or on raw agricultural commodities and to
growing crops under 40 CFR 180.910 and applied in/on animals under 40
CFR 180.930. The petitioner believes no analytical method is needed
because it is not required for an exemption from the requirement of a
tolerance. Contact: RD.

Amended Tolerances for Non-Inerts

    1. PP 9E8739. (EPA-HQ-OPP-2017-0694). The Interregional Research
Project Number 4 (IR-4), Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey,
500 College Road East, Suite 201 W, Princeton, NJ 08540, proposes upon
establishment of the tolerance referenced above under ``New
Tolerances'' to remove the existing tolerance in 40 CFR part 180.672
for residues of the insecticide cyantraniliprole, 3-bromo-1-(3-chloro-
2-pyridinyl)-N-[4-cyano-2-methyl-6-[((methylamino)carbonyl]phenyl]-1H-
pyrazole-5-carboxamide, including its metabolites and degradates in or
on Strawberry at 1.0 ppm. Contact: RD.
    2. PP 9E8743. (EPA-HQ-OPP-2019-0250). IR-4, Rutgers, The State
University of New Jersey, 500 College Road East, Suite 201 W,
Princeton, New Jersey 08540, proposes to amend 40 CFR part 180.613(a)
for residues of the insecticide flonicamid, including its metabolites
and degradates, to be determined by measuring only the sum of
flonicamid, N-(cyanomethyl)-4-(trifluoromethyl)-3-pyridinecarboxamide,
and its metabolites, TFNA (4-trifluoromethylnicotinic acid), TFNA-AM
(4-trifluoromethylnicotinamide), and TFNG, N-(4-
trifluoromethylnicotinoyl)glycine, calculated as the stoichiometric
equivalent of flonicamid, in or on Leafy greens subgroup 4-16A, except
spinach by increasing the existing tolerance from 4.0 ppm to 8.0 ppm.
Upon establishment of the amended tolerance above, the petitioner
requests removal of the existing tolerance for flonicamid on Leafy
greens subgroup 4-16A, except spinach at 4.0 ppm. The analytical method
used to quantitate above designated flonicamid residues in plants
incorporates a liquid chromatograph (LC) equipped with a reverse phase
column and a triple quadruple mass spectrometer (MS/MS). Contact: RD.
    3. PP 9E8755. (EPA-HQ-OPP-2019-0128). IR-4, Rutgers, The State
University of New Jersey, 500 College Road East, Suite 201W, Princeton,
NJ 08540, proposes upon establishment of tolerances referenced in this
document under ``New Tolerances (for PP 9E6755)'' to remove the
existing tolerances in 40 CFR part 180.685 for residues of the
fungicide oxathiapiprolin, 1-[4-[4-[5-(2,6-difluorophenyl)-4,5-dihydro-
3-isoxazolyl]-2-thiazolyl]-1-piperidinyl]-2-[5-methyl-3-
(trifluoromethyl)-1H-pyrazol-1-yl]-ethanone, in or on the

following commodities: Pea, edible-podded at 1.0 ppm and Pea, succulent
shelled at 0.05 ppm. Contact: RD.

New Tolerance Exemptions for Inerts (Except PIPS)

    PP IN-11264. (EPA-HQ-OPP- 2019-0327). Spring Trading Company (203
Dogwood Trail Magnolia, TX 77354-5201) on behalf of Stoller
Enterprises, Inc. (9090 Katy Freeway, Suite 400 Houston, TX 77024),
requests to establish an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance
for residues of formic acid (CAS Reg. No. 64-18-6) when used as a
pesticide inert ingredient (pH adjuster) in pesticide formulations
applied in or on raw agricultural commodities and to growing crops
under 40 CFR 180.910 and applied in/on animals under 40 CFR 180.930.
The petitioner believes no analytical method is needed because it is
not required for an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance.
Contact: RD.

New Tolerance Exemptions for Non-Inerts (Except PIPS)

    1. PP 8F8713. (EPA-HQ-OPP-2019-0368). Acqua Concepts, Inc. (d/b/a
Ag Water Chemical), 2665 S. Chestnut, Fresno, CA 93725, requests to
establish an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance in 40 CFR
part 180 for residues of the gopher repellent methyl mercaptan in or on
all food commodities that use irrigation lines treated with methyl
mercaptan. The analytical method ``ASTM D 5504-12 using a gas
chromatograph equipped with a sulfur chemiluminescence detector (SCD)''
is available to EPA for the detection and measurement of the pesticide
residues. Contact: BPPD.
    2. PP 9F8735. (EPA-HQ-OPP-2019-0324). Biocontrol Technologies,
S.L., Avgda. Madrid, 215-217, entres[ograve]l A, 08014 Barcelona, Spain
(c/o Wagner Regulatory Associates, Inc., P.O. Box 640, Hockessin, DE
19707), requests to establish an exemption from the requirement of a
tolerance in 40 CFR part 180 for residues of the fungicide and
bactericide Trichoderma asperellum, strain T34 in or on all food
commodities. The petitioner believes no analytical method is needed
because an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance is being
proposed. Contact: BPPD.
    3. PP 9F8760. (EPA-HQ-OPP-2019-0367). Valent BioSciences LLC, 870
Technology Way, Libertyville, IL 60048, requests to establish a
temporary exemption from the requirement of a tolerance in 40 CFR part
180 for residues of the biochemical plant regulator (fruit thinner) 1-
Aminocyclopropane-1-carboxylic acid (ACC) in or on apples and stone
fruits. The petitioner believes no analytical method is needed because
of low toxicity and minimal residues. Contact: BPPD.

New Tolerances for Non-Inerts

    1. PP 8F8708. (EPA-HQ-OPP-2019-0384). E. I. du Pont de Nemours and
Company, 974 Centre Road, Wilmington, Delaware 19805, requests to
establish a tolerance for residues of the insecticide indoxacarb in or
on corn, pop, grain at 0.02 parts per million (ppm) and corn, pop,
stover at 15 ppm. The plant residue enforcement method detects and
quantitates indoxacarb in various matrices including sweet corn,
lettuce, tomato, broccoli, apple, grape, cottonseed, tomato, peanut and
soybean commodity samples by HPLC UV. The limit of quantitation in the
method allows monitoring of crops with KN128/KN127 residues at or above
the levels proposed in these tolerances. Contact: RD.
    2. PP 9E8739. (EPA-HQ-OPP-2017-0694). The Interregional Research
Project Number 4 (IR-4), Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey,
500 College Road East, Suite 201 W, Princeton, NJ 08540, requests to
establish a tolerance in 40 CFR part 180.672 for residues of the
insecticide cyantraniliprole, 3-bromo-1-(3-chloro-2-pyridinyl)-N-[4-
cyano-2-methyl-6-[((methylamino)carbonyl]phenyl]-1H-pyrazole-5-
carboxamide, including its metabolites and degradates in or on
Strawberry at 1.5 ppm. The high-pressure liquid chromatography with
ESI- MS/MS detection is used to measure and evaluate cyantraniliprole.
Contact: RD.
    3. PP 9E8752. (EPA-HQ-OPP-2019-0281). IR-4, Rutgers, the State
University of New Jersey. 500 College Road East, Princeton, NJ 08540,
requests to establish a tolerance in 40 CFR part 180.446 for residues
of the insecticide, clofentezine, 3,6-bis(2-chlorophenyl)-1,2,4,5-
tetrazine in or on hops, dried cones at 6 parts per million (ppm). The
high-performance liquid chromatography (HPLC) is available to enforce
the tolerance expression. The limit of quantitation (LOQ) and limit of
detection (LOD) were determined to be 0.01 ppm and 0.003 ppm,
respectively. Contact: RD.
    4. PP 9E8755. (EPA-HQ-OPP-2019-0128). IR-4, Rutgers, The State
University of New Jersey, 500 College Road East, Suite 201W, Princeton,
NJ 08540, requests to establish tolerances in 40 CFR part 180.685 for
residues of the fungicide oxathiapiprolin, 1-[4-[4-[5-(2,6-
difluorophenyl)-4,5-dihydro-3-isoxazolyl]-2-thiazolyl]-1-piperidinyl]-
2-[5-methyl-3-(trifluoromethyl)-1H-pyrazol-1-yl]-ethanone, in or on the
following commodities: Berry, low growing, subgroup 13-07G, except
cranberry at 0.4 parts per million (ppm); Hop, dried cones at 5 ppm;
and Tropical and subtropical, medium to large fruit, smooth, inedible
peel, subgroup 24B at 0.1 ppm; individual crops of proposed crop
subgroup 6-18B: Edible podded pea legume vegetable subgroup including:
Chickpea, edible podded at 1 ppm; Dwarf pea, edible podded at 1 ppm;
Edible podded pea at 1 ppm; Grass-pea, edible podded at 1 ppm; Green
pea, edible podded at 1 ppm; Lentil, edible podded at 1 ppm; Pigeon
pea, edible podded at 1 ppm; Snap pea, edible podded at 1 ppm; Snow
pea, edible podded at 1 ppm; and Sugar snap pea, edible podded at 1
ppm; and individual crops of proposed crop subgroup 6-18D: Succulent
shelled pea subgroup including: Chickpea, succulent shelled at 0.05
ppm; English pea, succulent shelled at 0.05 ppm; Garden pea, succulent
shelled at 0.05 ppm; Green pea, succulent shelled at 0.05 ppm; Lentil,
succulent shelled at 0.05 ppm; and Pigeon pea, succulent shelled at
0.05 ppm. Adequate analytical methodology, high-pressure liquid
chromatography with MS/MS detection, is available to enforce the
oxathiapiprolin tolerance expression. Contact: RD.
    5. PP 9E8763. (EPA-HQ-OPP-2019-0388). IR-4, Rutgers, The State
University of New Jersey, 500 College Road East, Suite 201 W,
Princeton, New Jersey 08540, requests to establish tolerances in 40 CFR
part 180.613(a) for residues of the herbicide saflufenacil, including
its metabolites and degradates, determined by measuring only the sum of
saflufenacil, 2-chloro-5-[3,6-dihydro-3-methyl-2,6-dioxo-4-
(trifluoromethyl)-1(2H)-pyrimidinyl]-4-fluoro-N-[[methyl(1-
methylethyl)amino]sulfonyl]benzamide, and its metabolites N-[2-chloro-
5-(2,6-dioxo-4-(trifluoromethyl)-3,6-dihydro-1(2H)-pyrimidinyl)-4-
fluorobenzoyl]-N'-isopropylsulfamide and N-[4-chloro-2-fluoro-5-({
(isopropylamino)sulfonyl amino{time} carbonyl)phenyl]urea, calculated
as the stoichiometric equivalent of saflufenacil, in or on the
following raw agricultural commodities: Caneberry subgroup 13-07A at
0.03 parts per million (ppm), Chia, seed at 1 ppm, Chia, straw at 15
ppm, Fig at 0.03 ppm, and Fig, dried at 0.05 ppm. Adequate enforcement
analytical methodology (liquid chromatography/tandem mass spectrometry
(LC/MS/MS) for plant and livestock commodities is available to

enforce the saflufenacil tolerance expression. Contact RD.
    6. PP 9F8747. (EPA-HQ-OPP-2019-0230). Valent U.S.A. LLC, P.O. Box
8025, Walnut Creek, CA 94596-8025, requests to establish a tolerance in
40 CFR part 180 for residues of the fungicide, ethaboxam ((RS)-N-
([alpha]-cyano-2-thenyl)-4-ethyl-2-(ethylamino)-1,3-thiazole-5-
carboxamide) in or on beet, sugar, root at 0.01 parts per million
(ppm). The analytical method uses high-performance liquid
chromatography (HPLC) with tandem mass spectrometry (LC/MS-MS), with
turbo-ion spray ionization in positive ion mode for ethaboxam and
metabolites EEO, and negative ion mode for EEHO. A linear forced-origin
calibration curve was used to quantify ethaboxam in the sample
extracts. Contact: RD.

    Authority:  21 U.S.C. 346a.

    Dated: July 10, 2019.
Delores Barber,
Director, Information Technology and Resources Management Division,
Office of Pesticide Programs.
[FR Doc. 2019-16389 Filed 8-1-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 31 (Tuesday, February 15, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 8736-8737]
[FR Doc No: 2011-3385]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-R01-OAR-2008-0117; A-1-FRL-9267-1]

Status of Motor Vehicle Budgets in Submitted State Implementation
Plan for Transportation Conformity Purposes; Connecticut; Notice of
Withdrawal of Adequacy of Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of withdrawal of adequacy.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is notifying the public that EPA has withdrawn its
previous adequacy finding on the 2012 motor vehicle emission budgets
(MVEBs) for Connecticut's two 8-hour ozone nonattainment areas. EPA has
withdrawn the adequacy finding because Connecticut Department of
Environmental Protection (CT DEP) withdrew its 2012 motor vehicle
emission budgets from its eight-hour ozone attainment demonstration SIP
for both ozone nonattainment areas. As a result of our finding,
Connecticut can not use these 2012 motor vehicle emission budgets for
future conformity determinations.

DATES: This finding is effective March 2, 2011.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Donald O. Cooke, Environmental
Scientist, Air Quality Planning Unit, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, EPA New England Regional Office, Five Post Office Square, Suite
100 (CAQ), Boston, MA 02109-3912,<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, whenever ``we,''
``us'' or ``our'' is used, we mean EPA.
    Today's action is simply an announcement of a finding that we have
already made.
    On February 1, 2008, Connecticut submitted 2008, 2009, and 2012
summer day volatile organic compound (VOC) and nitrogen oxides (NOx)
MVEBs for the Connecticut portion of the New York-Northern New Jersey-
Long Island, NY-NJ-CT (Southwest Connecticut) 8-hour ozone
nonattainment area and for the Greater Connecticut 8-hour ozone
nonattainment area. These MVEBs were submitted to EPA as part of the 8-
hour ozone attainment demonstrations and reasonable further progress
plans for these areas. Although not required by the Clean Air Act or
EPA regulation, Connecticut included the 2012 budgets in its ozone
attainment demonstrations based on uncertainty as to whether attainment
would be met by the applicable June 15, 2010 attainment date for the
two nonattainment areas. EPA found Connecticut's 2008, 2009, and 2012
MVEBs adequate for transportation conformity purposes. See 73 FR 33428;
June 12, 2008.
    On August 23, 2010, CT DEP withdrew the 2012 MVEBs from its 8-hour
ozone attainment demonstration SIP for both ozone nonattainment areas.
At that time, CT DEP also requested that EPA withdraw the adequacy
findings for the 2012 MVEBs, since both ozone nonattainment areas have
monitored air quality data demonstrating attainment of the 1997 8-hour
ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard, and the 2012 MVEBs are no
longer necessary to ensure attainment.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ EPA has determined that the Greater Connecticut area has
attained the 1997 8-hour ozone standard. See 75 FR 53219; August 31,
2010. EPA has not yet taken action regarding the Southwest
Connecticut area.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Connecticut's request to withdraw the 2012 MVEBs was announced on
EPA's conformity Web site, and received no comments. (See http://www.epa.gov/otaq/stateresources/transconf/adequacy.htm. Once there,
click on ``What SIP submissions are currently under EPA adequacy
review?'')
    On December 30, 2010, EPA sent a letter to the CT DEP withdrawing
our previous adequacy finding on the 2012 MVEBs for the Southwest
Connecticut and the Greater Connecticut 8-hour ozone nonattainment
areas.
    The 2012 MVEBs are withdrawn for transportation conformity
purposes. However, the 2008 (reasonable further progress) MVEBs and the
2009 (attainment) MVEBs that were previously deemed adequate, remain
adequate for transportation conformity purposes.

    Authority:  42 U.S.C. 7401-7671 q.

    Dated: February 1, 2011.
Ira W. Leighton,
Acting Regional Administrator, EPA New England.
[FR Doc. 2011-3385 Filed 2-14-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register: August 26, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 164)]
[Notices]
[Page 43119-43120]
[DOCID:fr26au09-42]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2009-0143; FRL-8432-8]

Birnbaum Interpreting Services; Transfer of Data

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice announces that pesticide related information
submitted to EPA's Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP) pursuant to the
Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) and the
Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), including information
that may have been claimed as Confidential Business Information (CBI)
by the submitter, will be transferred to Birnbaum Interpreting Services
in accordance with 40 CFR 2.307(h)(3) and 2.308(i)(2). Birnbaum
Interpreting Services has been awarded multiple contracts to perform
work for OPP, and access to this information will enable Birnbaum
Interpreting Services to fulfill the obligations of the contract.

DATES: Birnbaum Interpreting Services will be given access to this
information on or before August 31, 2009.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Felicia Croom, Information Technology
and Resources Management Division (7502P), Office of Pesticide
Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW.,
Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail
address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. Does this Action Apply to Me?

    This action applies to the public in general. As such, 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 person
listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

B. How Can I Get Copies of this Document and Other Related Information?

    1. Docket. EPA has established a docket for this action under
docket identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2009-0143. Publicly
available docket materials are available either in the electronic
docket at http://www.regulations.gov, or, if only available in hard
copy, at the Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP) Regulatory Public
Docket in Rm. S-4400, One

Potomac Yard (South Bldg.), 2777 S. Crystal Dr., Arlington, VA. The
hours of operation of this Docket Facility are from 8:30 a.m. to 4
p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The Docket
Facility telephone number is<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    2. Electronic access. You may access this Federal Register document
electronically through the EPA Internet under the ``Federal Register''
listings at http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr.

II. Contractor Requirements

    Under these contract numbers, the contractor will perform the
following:
    Under Contract No. EP-08-H000383, The Birnbaum Intrepreting
Services will provide with Sign Language interpreting services. The
work will be performed in a space to be designated by EPA, primarily at
EPA Headquarters and other Washington, DC area EPA facilities.
Occasional travel will be involved. The sign language personnel will
report to the location specified by the EPA Headquarters Interpreting
Coordinator, also identified as the Project Officer under this
contract. The contract does not employ any subcontractors.
    The OPP has determined that the contracts described in this
document involve work that is being conducted in connection with FIFRA,
in that pesticide chemicals will be the subject of certain evaluations
to be made under this contract. These evaluations may be used in
subsequent regulatory decisions under FIFRA.
    Some of this information may be entitled to confidential treatment.
The information has been submitted to EPA under sections 3, 4, 6, and 7
of FIFRA and under sections 408 and 409 of FFDCA.
    In accordance with the requirements of 40 CFR 2.307(h)(3), the
contracts with Birnbaum Interpreting Services, prohibits use of the
information for any purpose not specified in these contracts; prohibits
disclosure of the information to a third party without prior written
approval from the Agency; and requires that each official and employee
of the contractor sign an agreement to protect the information from
unauthorized release and to handle it in accordance with the FIFRA
Information Security Manual. In addition, Birnbaum Interpreting
Services is required to submit for EPA approval a security plan under
which any CBI will be secured and protected against unauthorized
release or compromise. No information will be provided to Birnbaum
Interpreting Services until the requirements in this document have been
fully satisfied. Records of information provided to Birnbaum
Interpreting Services will be maintained by EPA Project Officers for
these contracts. All information supplied to Birnbaum Interpreting
Services by EPA for use in connection with these contracts will be
returned to EPA when Birnbaum Interpreting Services has completed its
work.

List of Subjects

    Environmental protection, Business and industry, Government
contracts, Government property, Security measures.

    Dated: August 19, 2009.
Oscar Morales,
Acting Director, Office of Pesticide Programs.
[FR Doc. E9-20606 Filed 8-25-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-S