[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 109 (Wednesday, June 9, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 30672-30675]
[FR Doc No: 2021-12066]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

[Docket No. FMCSA-2021-0007]

Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; Vision

AGENCY: Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), Department
of Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Notice of applications for exemption; request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: FMCSA announces receipt of applications from 13 individuals
for an exemption from the vision requirement in the Federal Motor
Carrier Safety Regulations (FMCSRs) to operate a commercial motor
vehicle (CMV) in interstate commerce. If granted, the exemptions will
enable these individuals to operate CMVs in interstate commerce without
meeting the vision requirement in one eye.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before July 9, 2021.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by the Federal Docket
Management System (FDMS) Docket No. FMCSA-2021-0007 using any of the
following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to www.regulations.gov/,
insert the docket number, FMCSA-2021-0007, in the keyword box, and
click ``Search.'' Next, sort the results by ``Posted (Newer-Older),''
choose the first notice listed, and click on the ``Comment'' button.
Follow the online instructions for submitting comments.
     Mail: Dockets Operations; U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, West Building Ground Floor,
Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
     Hand Delivery: West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140,
1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
ET, Monday through Friday, except Federal Holidays.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    To avoid duplication, please use only one of these four methods.
See the ``Public Participation'' portion of the SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION section for instructions on submitting comments.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Christine A. Hydock, Chief,
Medical Programs Division,<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>FMCSA,
DOT, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Room W64-224, Washington, DC 20590-
0001. Office hours are 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m., ET, Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays. If you have questions regarding viewing or
submitting material to the docket, contact Dockets Operations, (202)
366-9826.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Public Participation

A. Submitting Comments

    If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this
notice (Docket No. FMCSA-2021-0007), indicate the specific section of
this document to which each comment applies, and provide a reason for
each suggestion or recommendation. You may submit your comments and
material online or by fax, mail, or hand delivery, but please use only
one of these means. FMCSA recommends that you include your name and a
mailing address, an email address, or a phone number in the body of
your document so that FMCSA can contact you if there are questions
regarding your submission.
    To submit your comment online, go to www.regulations.gov/docket?D=FMCSA-2021-0007. Next, sort the results by ``Posted (Newer-
Older),'' choose the first notice listed, click the ``Comment'' button,
and type your comment into the text box on the following screen. Choose
whether you are submitting your comment as an individual or on behalf
of a third party and then submit.
    If you submit your comments by mail or hand delivery, submit them
in an unbound format, no larger than 8\1/2\ by 11 inches, suitable for
copying and electronic filing. If you submit comments by mail and would
like to know that they reached the facility, please enclose a stamped,
self-addressed postcard or envelope.
    FMCSA will consider all comments and material received during the
comment period.

B. Viewing Comments

    To view comments go to www.regulations.gov. Insert the docket
number, FMCSA-2021-0007, in the keyword box, and click ``Search.''
Next, sort the results by ``Posted (Newer-Older),'' choose the first
notice listed, and click ``Browse Comments.'' If you do not have access
to the internet, you may view the docket online by visiting Dockets
Operations in Room W12-140 on the ground floor of the DOT West
Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590-0001, between
9 a.m. and 5 p.m., ET, Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
To be sure someone is there to help you, please call<PHONE_NUMBER> or
(202) 366-9826 before visiting Dockets Operations.

C. Privacy Act

    In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits comments from the
public to better inform its rulemaking process. 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
www.transportation.gov/privacy.

II. Background

    Under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315(b), FMCSA may grant an exemption
from the FMCSRs for no longer than a 5-year period if it finds such
exemption would likely achieve a level of safety that is equivalent to,
or greater than, the level that would be achieved absent such
exemption. The statute also allows the Agency to renew exemptions at
the end of the 5-year period. FMCSA grants medical exemptions from the
FMCSRs for a 2-year period to align with the maximum duration of a
driver's medical certification.
    The 13 individuals listed in this notice have requested an
exemption from the vision requirement in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10).
Accordingly, the Agency will evaluate the qualifications of each
applicant to determine whether granting an exemption will achieve the
required level of safety mandated by statute.
    The physical qualification standard for drivers regarding vision
found in Sec.  391.41(b)(10) states that a person is physically
qualified to drive a CMV if that person has distant visual acuity of at
least 20/40 (Snellen) in each eye without corrective lenses or visual
acuity separately corrected to 20/40 (Snellen) or better with
corrective lenses, distant binocular acuity of at least 20/40 (Snellen)
in both eyes with or without corrective lenses, field of vision of at
least 70[deg] in the horizontal meridian in each eye, and the ability
to recognize the colors of traffic signals and devices showing standard
red, green, and amber.
    On July 16, 1992, the Agency first published the criteria for the
Vision Waiver Program, which listed the conditions and reporting
standards that CMV drivers approved for participation would need to
meet (57 FR 31458). The current Vision Exemption Program was
established in 1998, following the enactment of amendments to the
statutes governing exemptions made by Sec.  4007 of the Transportation
Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21), Public Law 105-178, 112 Stat.
107, 401 (June 9, 1998). Vision exemptions are considered under the
procedures established in 49 CFR part 381 subpart C, on a case-by-case
basis upon application by CMV drivers who do not meet the vision
standards of Sec.  391.41(b)(10).
    To qualify for an exemption from the vision requirement, FMCSA
requires a person to present verifiable evidence that he/she has driven
a commercial vehicle safely in intrastate commerce with the vision
deficiency for the past three years. Recent driving performance is
especially important in evaluating future safety, according to several
research studies designed to correlate past and future driving
performance. Results of these studies support the principle that the
best predictor of future performance by a driver is his/her past record
of crashes and traffic violations. Copies of the studies may be found
at www.regulations.gov/docket?D=FMCSA-1998-3637.
    FMCSA believes it can properly apply the principle to monocular
drivers, because data from the Federal Highway Administration's former
waiver study program clearly demonstrated the driving performance of
experienced monocular drivers in the program is better than that of all
CMV drivers collectively.\1\ The fact that experienced monocular
drivers demonstrated safe driving records in the waiver program
supports a conclusion that other monocular drivers, meeting the same
qualifying conditions as those required by the waiver program, are also
likely to have adapted to their vision deficiency and will continue to
operate safely.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ A thorough discussion of this issue may be found in a FHWA
final rule published in the Federal Register on March 26, 1996 and
available on the internet at https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-1996-03-26/pdf/96-7226.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The first major research correlating past and future performance
was done in England by Greenwood and Yule in 1920. Subsequent studies,
building on that model, concluded that crash rates for the same
individual exposed to certain risks for two different time periods vary
only slightly (See Bates and Neyman, University of California
Publications in Statistics, April 1952). Other studies demonstrated
theories of predicting crash proneness from crash history coupled with
other factors. These factors--such as age, sex, geographic location,
mileage driven and conviction history--are used every day by insurance
companies and motor vehicle bureaus to predict the probability of an
individual experiencing future crashes (See Weber, Donald C.,
``Accident Rate Potential: An Application of Multiple Regression
Analysis of a Poisson Process,'' Journal of American Statistical
Association, June 1971). A 1964 California Driver Record Study prepared
by the California Department of Motor Vehicles concluded that the best
overall crash predictor for both concurrent and nonconcurrent events is
the number of single convictions. This study used 3 consecutive years
of data, comparing the experiences of drivers in the first 2 years with
their experiences in the final year.

III. Qualifications of Applicants

Gerald C. Adler

    Mr. Adler, 29, has corneal scarring in his left eye due to a
traumatic incident in childhood. The visual acuity in his right eye is
20/20, and in his left eye, 20/60. Following an examination in 2020,
his optometrist stated, ``It is my professional opinion that Mr. Adler
has sufficient vision to perform the tasks required to operate a
commercial vehicle.'' Mr. Adler reported that he has driven straight
trucks for 9 years, accumulating 648,000 miles, and tractor-trailer
combinations for 4 years, accumulating 144,000 miles. He holds an
operator's license from New Hampshire. His driving record for the last
3 years shows no crashes and no convictions for moving violations in a
CMV.

Paul R. Beckett

    Mr. Beckett, 51, has a macular scar in his right eye due to a
traumatic incident in childhood. The visual acuity in his right eye is
20/70, and in his left eye, 20/20. Following an examination in 2020 his
optometrist stated, ``In my medical opinion, due to his fully
functioning peripheral visual field and 20/20 best corrected vision in
left eye and both eyes together, Mr. Beckett has sufficient vision to
perform the driving tasks required to operate a commercial vehicle.''
Mr. Beckett reported that he has driven straight trucks for 12 years,
accumulating 24,000 miles and tractor-trailer combinations for 6 years,
accumulating 450,000 miles. He holds a Class A CDL from Minnesota. His
driving record for the last 3 years shows no crashes and no convictions
for moving violations in a CMV.

Robert W. Boyett

    Mr. Boyett, 52, has had amblyopia in his right eye since birth. The
visual acuity in his right eye is 20/200 and in his left eye, 20/20.
Following an examination in 2021, his optometrist stated, ``He has
stable and he has sufficient vision to operate a commercial vehicle
safely at this time with no restrictions, in my medical opinion.'' Mr.
Boyett reported that he has driven straight trucks for 18 years,

accumulating 2,152,800 miles, and tractor-trailer combinations for 33
years, accumulating 2,475,000 miles. He holds a Class A CDL from
Georgia. His driving record for the last 3 years shows no crashes and
no convictions for moving violations in a CMV.

Timothy W. Ford

    Mr. Ford, 41, has a retinal detachment in his right eye due to a
traumatic incident in 1996. The visual acuity in his right eye is hand
motion, and in his left eye, 20/20. Following an examination in 2021,
his ophthalmologist stated, ``Yes. Patient has the ability to operate a
commercial vehicle based off his visual potential.'' Mr. Ford reported
that he has driven straight trucks for 5 years, accumulating 37,500
miles, and buses for 4 years, accumulating 20,000 miles. He holds an
operator's license from South Carolina. His driving record for the last
3 years shows no crashes and no convictions for moving violations in a
CMV.

Aaron L. Fox

    Mr. Fox, 37, has a prosthetic left eye due to an infection in 1991.
The visual acuity in his right eye is 20/20, and in his left eye, no
light perception. Following an examination in 2021, his ophthalmologist
stated, ``I believe that Mr. Fox has sufficient vision to perform the
tasks to operate a commercial vehicle.'' Mr. Fox reported that he has
driven straight trucks for 9 years, accumulating 450,000 miles, and
tractor-trailer combinations for 3 years, accumulating 360,000 miles.
He holds a Class A CDL from Ohio. His driving record for the last 3
years shows no crashes and no convictions for moving violations in a
CMV.

James H. George

    Mr. George, 59, has a cataract in his left eye due to a traumatic
incident in childhood. The visual acuity in his right eye is 20/15, and
in his left eye, blindness. Following an examination in 2020, his
optometrist stated, ``James George's vision is sufficient to perform
the driving tasks required to operate a commercial vehicle.'' Mr.
George reported that he has driven straight trucks for 3 years,
accumulating 180,000 miles, and tractor-trailer combinations for 37
years, accumulating 2,516,000 miles. He holds a Class A CDL from
Pennsylvania. His driving record for the last 3 years shows no crashes
but one conviction for speeding in a CMV; he exceeded the speed limit
by 10 miles per hour.

Johnny M. Kruprzak

    Mr. Kruprzak, 55, has corneal and retinal scarring in his right eye
due to a traumatic incident in childhood. The visual acuity in his
right eye is no light perception, and in his left eye, 20/20. Following
an examination in 2020, his optometrist stated, ``Mr. Kruprzak has
sufficient vision to perform the driving tasks required to operate a
commercial motor vehicle.'' Mr. Kruprzak reported that he has driven
straight trucks for 30 years, accumulating 150,000 miles, and tractor-
trailer combinations for 30 years, accumulating 1,650,000 miles. He
holds a Class A CDL from Ohio. His driving record for the last 3 years
shows no crashes and no convictions for moving violations in a CMV.

Jackie L. Lawson

    Mr. Lawson, 55, has corneal scarring in his left eye due to an
infection in 2015. The visual acuity in his right eye is 20/20, and in
his left eye, no light perception. Following an examination in 2021,
his optometrist stated, ``In my medical opinion, Mr. Lawson has
sufficient vision to perform the driving task required to operate a
commercial vehicle.'' Mr. Lawson reported that he has driven straight
trucks for 10 years, accumulating 260,000 miles, and tractor-trailer
combinations for 10 years, accumulating 52,000 miles. He holds a Class
AM CDL from Virginia. His driving record for the last 3 years shows no
crashes and no convictions for moving violations in a CMV.

Alec J. Lindgren

    Mr. Lindgren, 25, has had amblyopia in his left eye since birth.
The visual acuity in his right eye is 20/20, and in his left eye, hand
motion. Following an examination in 2021, his optometrist stated,
``That is, in my opinion Alec has sufficient vision to perform the
driving tasks required to operate a commercial vehicle.'' Mr. Lindgren
reported that he has driven straight trucks for 3 years, accumulating
36,000 miles, tractor-trailer combinations for 5 years, accumulating
250,000 miles, and buses for 1 year, accumulating 5,000 miles. He holds
an operator's license from New York. His driving record for the last 3
years shows no crashes and no convictions for moving violations in a
CMV.

James M. McCleary

    Mr. McCleary, 47, has had amblyopia in his right eye since
childhood. The visual acuity in his right eye is 20/200, and in his
left eye, 20/15. Following an examination in 2020, his optometrist
stated, ``I do believe Mr. McCleary has sufficient vision to perform
the essential tasks of driving a commercial vehicle and am recommending
renewal of his federal vision waiver.'' Mr. McCleary reported that he
has driven straight trucks for 1 year, accumulating 93,000 miles, and
tractor-trailer combinations for 10 years, accumulating 480,000 miles.
He holds a Class A CDL from Ohio. His driving record for the last 3
years shows no crashes but one conviction for a moving violation in a
CMV; he failed to obey a traffic control device.

Richard A. Parker II

    Mr. Parker II, 30, has retinal scaring in his right eye due to a
traumatic incident in 1995. The visual acuity in his right eye is 20/
60, and in his left eye, 20/20. Following an examination in 2020, his
optometrist stated, ``I believe that Richard Parker has sufficient
vision to safely drive and operate a commercial vehicle.'' Mr. Parker
reported that he has driven straight trucks for 6 years, accumulating
187,998 miles, and tractor-trailer combinations for 6 years,
accumulating 94,002 miles. He holds a Class A CDL from Kansas. His
driving record for the last 3 years shows no crashes and no convictions
for moving violations in a CMV.

Robert B. Sundvor

    Mr. Sundvor, 59, has had a retinal detachment in his right eye
since 2017. The visual acuity in his right eye is 20/50, and in his
left eye, 20/20. Following an examination in 2021, his optometrist
stated, ``In my opinion, Mr. Sundvor has sufficient vision to perform
the driving tasks required to operate a commercial vehicle safely.''
Mr. Sundvor reported that he has driven straight trucks for 45 years,
accumulating 225,000 miles, and tractor-trailer combinations for 35
years, accumulating 1,500,000 miles. He holds a Class AM CDL from North
Dakota. His driving record for the last 3 years shows no crashes and no
convictions for moving violations in a CMV.

William R. Tessman

    Mr. Tessman, 78, has had a retinal deformity in his right eye since
birth. The visual acuity in his right eye is 20/45, and in his left
eye, 20/25. Following an examination in 2021, his optometrist stated,
``Mr. Tessman has sufficient vision to perform the driving tasks
required to operate a commercial vehicle.'' Mr. Tessman reported that
he has driven straight trucks for 11 years, accumulating 1,265,000
miles, and tractor-trailer combinations for 33 years, accumulating
5,775,000 miles. He holds a Class A CDL from Texas. His driving record
for the last 3 years shows no

crashes and no convictions for moving violations in a CMV.

IV. Request for Comments

    In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315(b), FMCSA requests
public comment from all interested persons on the exemption petitions
described in this notice. We will consider all comments and material
received before the close of business on the closing date indicated
under the DATES section of the notice.

Larry W. Minor,
Associate Administrator for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2021-12066 Filed 6-8-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 131 (Monday, July 9, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Page 40392]
[FR Doc No: 2012-16771]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Sunshine Act Meeting

    Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the
Government in the Sunshine Act, Public Law 94-409, that the Securities
and Exchange Commission will hold a Closed Meeting on Tuesday, July 10,
2012 at 10:00 a.m. and Friday, July 13, 2012 at 1:00 p.m.
    Commissioners, Counsel to the Commissioners, the Secretary to the
Commission, and recording secretaries will attend the Closed Meetings.
Certain staff members who have an interest in the matters also may be
present.
    The General Counsel of the Commission, or his designee, has
certified that, in his opinion, one or more of the exemptions set forth
in 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(2), (3), (5), (6), (7), 9(B) and (10) and 17 CFR
200.402(a)(2), (3), (5), (6), (7), 9(ii) and (10), permit consideration
of the scheduled matters at the Closed Meeting.
    Commissioner Gallagher, as duty officer, voted to consider the
items listed for the Closed Meeting in closed sessions.
    The subject matter of the Closed Meeting scheduled for Tuesday,
July 10, 2012 will be:
    Institution and settlement of an injunctive action; and a personnel
matter.
    The subject matter of the Closed Meeting scheduled for Friday, July
13, 2012 will be:
    Consideration of amicus participation;
    Institution and settlement of injunctive actions;
    Institution and settlement of administrative proceedings; and
    Other matters relating to enforcement proceedings.
    At times, changes in Commission priorities require alterations in
the scheduling of meeting items.
    For further information and to ascertain what, if any, matters have
been added, deleted or postponed, please contact:
    The Office of the Secretary at<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: July 3, 2012.
Elizabeth M. Murphy,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-16771 Filed 7-5-12; 11:15 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 85 (Monday, May 4, 2015)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 25232-25233]
[FR Doc No: 2015-10377]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 117

[Docket No. USCG-2015-0293]

Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Cerritos Channel, Long Beach, CA

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of deviation from drawbridge regulation.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard has issued a temporary deviation from the
operating schedule that governs the Henry Ford Avenue railroad
drawbridge across Cerritos Channel, mile 4.8, at Long Beach, CA. The
deviation is necessary to allow the bridge owner to perform an annual
bridge inspection. This deviation allows the bridge to remain in the
closed-to-navigation position during the deviation period.

DATES: This deviation is effective without actual notice from May 4,
2015 to 6 p.m. on May 6, 2015. For the purposes of enforcement, actual
notice will be used from 7 a.m. on April 27, 2015, until May 4, 2015.

ADDRESSES: The docket for this deviation, [USCG-2015-0293], is
available at http://www.regulations.gov. Type the docket number in the
``SEARCH'' box and click ``SEARCH.'' Click on Open Docket Folder on the
line associated with this deviation. You may also visit the Docket
Management Facility in Room W12-140 on the ground floor of the
Department of Transportation West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE.,
Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this
temporary deviation, call or email David H. Sulouff, Chief, Bridge
Section, Eleventh Coast Guard District; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>If you have questions on viewing the docket,
call Cheryl Collins, Program Manager, Docket Operations, telephone 202-
366-9826.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Port of Los Angeles has requested a
temporary change to the operation of the Henry Ford Avenue railroad
drawbridge, mile 4.8, over Cerritos Channel, at Long Beach, CA. The
drawbridge navigation span provides 7 feet vertical clearance above
Mean High Water in the closed-to-navigation position. In accordance
with 33 CFR 117.147(b), the drawspan is maintained in the fully open
position, except when a train is crossing or for maintenance. When the
draw is in the closed position, it opens on signal. Navigation on the
waterway is mainly commercial traffic, servicing ships entering and
leaving the port.
    The Port of Los Angeles has requested the drawbridge be allowed to
remain closed to navigation from 7 a.m. to 6 p.m. on April 27, April
28, and May 6, 2015, so they can perform the annual bridge inspection,
looking for cracks or damage. Mariners will need to contact the bridge
tender to inquire as to the status of the drawbridge when transiting
through. This temporary deviation has been coordinated with the
waterway users. No objections to the proposed temporary deviation were
raised.
    Vessels able to pass through the bridge in the closed position may
do so at any time. The bridge will not be able to open for emergencies.
There is an alternative route, transiting around the south side of
Terminal Island, for vessels unable to pass through the bridge in the
closed position. The Coast Guard will inform waterway users of this
temporary deviation via our Local and Broadcast Notices to Mariners, to
minimize resulting navigational impacts.
    In accordance with 33 CFR 117.35(e), the drawbridge must return to
its regular operating schedule immediately at the end of the effective
period of this temporary deviation. This deviation from the operating
regulations is authorized under 33 CFR 117.35.

    Dated: April 24, 2015.
D.H. Sulouff,
District Bridge Chief, Eleventh Coast Guard District.
[FR Doc. 2015-10377 Filed 5-1-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


EPA REGISTRATION DIVISION COMPANY NOTICE OF FILING FOR PESTICIDE PETITIONS PUBLISHED IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER
EPA Registration Division contact: [Janet Whitehurst<PHONE_NUMBER>]

Penn A Kem, LLC

Docket Number EPA-HQ-OPP-2013-0098

Petition Number 2E8080

	EPA has received a pesticide petition 2E8080 from Penn A Kem, LLC,  3324 Chelsea Avenue, Memphis, TN 38108, proposing, pursuant to section 408(d) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), 21 U.S.C. 346a(d), to amend 40 CFR Part 180.1263, the exemption from the requirement of a tolerance for Tetrahydrofurfuryl Alcohol (THFA), CAS Reg. No. 97-99-4, by allowing one pre-boot herbicide application to all small cereal grains, and by extending use on canola to early bolting stage, and use on soybeans to bloom stage.  EPA has determined that the petition contains data or information regarding the elements set forth in section 408 (d)(2) of  FDDCA; however, EPA has not fully evaluated the sufficiency of the submitted data at this time or whether the data support granting of the petition. Additional data may be needed before EPA rules on the petition.

   A. Residue Chemistry

	1. Plant metabolism.  Penn A Kem LLC has conducted two GLP plant tissue dissipation/ uptake studies in which three plant species received a foliar treatment with THFA with a 1% aqueous solution applied at a rate of 100 gallons/acre (equivalent to 8 lb THFA/acre which is four-fold greater than the maximum anticipated application rate).  The first study was conducted with lettuce, tomato and wheat and demonstrated that THFA concentrations in treated plants began approaching background levels after 24 hours.  THFA[(R)] concentrations in untreated control plants ranged from <0.22 to 2.9 μg a.i./g over the course of the study.  Final concentrations of THFA(R) after 7 days ranged from 1.9 to 3.2 μg a.i./g (corrected for control values) for treated plants.  The limit of quantitation (LOQ) for the study was 0.278 ug/g, and treated plants were monitored for seven days after treatment (Gledhill, 2006).
	In 2012 a radio-labeled study was completed that monitored treated plants for 27 days after treatment, and included an analytical method with an LOQ of 0.01 ug/g (Turk, 2012).  The study was conducted with corn, tomato and wheat plants.  In this study, concentrations of THFA had decreased by 98.4%, 92.2% and 97.3% within 24 hours after treatment in corn, tomato and wheat plants, respectively, compared to zero hour levels.  [[14]C] THFA concentrations began approaching background levels after 7 days.  [[14]C]THFA[(R)] concentrations in untreated control plants ranged from below detection to 0.08 μg/g (ppm) over the course of the study. Beyond 48 hours, concentrations in treated plants continued to dissipate and approached levels below 0.5 ppm.  The low level of radioactivity found in the chromatography of [[14]C] THFA[(R)] was thought to be residual radioactivity due to an unknown [[14]C] component either present in the original radiochemical stock or generated during the study.

	2. Analytical method. NA-Remove (not relevant for exemption request)

	3. Magnitude of residues. NA-Remove (not relevant for exemption request)

B. Toxicological Profile

The Agency completed a hazard assessment for THFA in 2006; the results of that assessment are summarized below.

      1. Acute toxicity. Acute toxicity is available for the oral route with an LD50 for the rat of 1.63-3.2 g/kg (OECD 2005).  THFA was not irritating to the skin of mice (OECD 2005; Lashmar et al., 1989) but was irritating to the eyes of rabbits (OECD 2005).  Acute dermal, acute inhalation and dermal sensitization data are not available.  Some reports (HSDB 2005) suggest that THFA may be moderately irritating via the dermal and inhalation routes of exposure to humans.

      2. Genotoxicity. THFA is not mutagenic in Salmonella typhimurium or E. coli with or without exogenous metabolic activation according to a reverse gene mutation assay (Ames Test) (OECD 2005). In a chromosomal aberration study with Chinese hamster lung cells (CHL/IU), THFA did not cause structural chromosomal aberration of polyploidy with or without metabolic activation.

      3. Reproductive and developmental toxicity. An available developmental toxicity study in rats (MRID 46543102) revealed a quantitative susceptibility based on decreased fetal body weights and increased incidence of filamentous tail.  Subchronic exposure studies also indicate the potential for alterations in the developing male reproductive system.

      4. Subchronic toxicity. In subchronic studies, males were quantitatively more sensitive to THFA than females.  Consistent decreases in male reproductive organ weights (testicular, epididyal, and seminal vesicle) were observed in rats in 90-day dietary (LOAEL=339 mg/kg-day), dermal (LOAEL=300 mg/kg-day), and inhalation (LOAEL < 0.21 mg/L) toxicity studies (MRID 46543103, 46543104, and 46543105, respectively).  A 90-day oral (dietary) study in dogs (OECD 2005) revealed decreased testes weights of males in all treated groups (approximately 25, 75, and 150 mg/kg/day) compared to controls, with severe testicular atrophy in all males at the highest dose.  Decreased spermatogenic activity was noted in males of the 75 mg/kg/day group, and was interepreted as a prodromal sign of atrophy.  A 28-day repeated oral (gavage) study in rats (OECD 2005) revealed significant decreases in absolute testes and epididymal weights after 28 days of 600 mg/kg/day that continued through the 14-day recovery period.  Necrosis of the seminiferous tubular epithelium of the testes was also observed in males of the 150 and 600 mg/kg/day group at 28 days.  Necrosis of the testes was also observed in males of the 600 mg/kg/day group at the end of the 14-day recovery period.

      5. Chronic toxicity. No chronic toxicity or cancer studies are available for THFA  However,  mutagenicity studies indicate that THFA is not mutagenic in Salmonella typhimurium or E. coli with or without metabolic activation.  THFA was also negative for causing structural chromosomal aberrations or polyploidy with our without metabolic activation in cultured Chinese hamster lung cells (OECD 2005).

	6. Animal metabolism. No animal metabolism studies are available for THFA.

	7. Metabolite toxicology. NA-REMOVE

	8. Endocrine disruption. Alterations in pituitary, thymus, adrenal and thyroid weights have been reported after subchronic exposure (28-days) to 600 mg/kg/day in male rats and pituitary weights at 150 mg/kg/day in female rats (OECD 2005).  Decreased absolute and relative adrenal weights were observed in males and females receiving 5000 ppm (approximately 339 mg/kg/day males and 401 mg/kg/day females) or 10,000 ppm (equivalent to 673 and 781 mg/kg/day males and females, respectively) of the 90-day oral toxicity study in rats.  The decreased absolute adrenal weights were also observed in male rats receiving 1000 mg/kg/day of the 90-day dermal toxicity study.
A summary of the toxicological endpoints for THFA established by US EPA (2006) and used for human risk assessment is shown in the following Table 1.

Table 1--Summary of Toxicological Doses and Endpoints for THFA for Use in Human Health Risk Assessment
Exposure/Scenario
Point of Departure/Uncertainty Safety Factors
RfD/Level of Concern for Risk Assessment
Study and Toxicological Effects
Acute Dietary
(Females 13-49 yrs)
NOAEL=50 mg/kg/day
UFH=10x
UFA=10x
UFDB=10x
FQPASF=1
aRfD=0.05 mg/kg/day
aPAD=0.05 mg/kg/day

LOC=1000
Developmental, rat
LOAEL 100 mg/kg/day, based on decreased fetal body weight and increased incidence of filamentous tail, complete resorptions at 500 and 1000 mg/kg/day
Acute Dietary (general populations, including infants and children)
Utilized the NOAEL from the rat developmental Study

1000
Utilized the NOAEL from the rat developmental Study

Chronic dietary (All populations)
NOAEL=69 mg/kg/day
UFH=10x
UFA=10x
UFDB=10x
FQPASF=1
aRfD=0.069 mg/kg/day
aPAD=0.069 mg/kg/day

90-day oral, rat
LOAEL=339 and 401 mg/kg /day in males and females, respectively.
FQPA SF = Food Quality Protection Act Safety Factor. LOAEL = lowest-observed-adverse-effect-level.  LOC = level   of concern. mg/kg/day = milligram/kilogram/day. MOE = margin of exposure. NOAEL = no-observed-adverse-effect- level. PAD = population adjusted dose (a = acute,
c = chronic).  RfD = reference dose. UF = uncertainty factor.  UFA = extrapolation from animal to human (interspecies).  UFDB = to account for the absence of data or other data deficiency.
UFH = potential variation in sensitivity among members of the human population (intraspecies). BW = Body weight. BWG = Body weight gain.

   B. Aggregate Exposure

	1. Dietary exposure. Dietary exposure to THFA in food was assessed using the new DEEM-FCID model version 3.14 that contains food consumption information from the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) NHANES 2-day data for 2003 -2008.  Detectable residues are not anticipated to be present in food or feed made from cereal grains, soybeans, canola or cottonseed treated post-emergence because the restrictions in the proposed exemption regulation limit the use of THFA to products that are applied before edible portions are formed and because there is a long period between application and harvest. In addition, THFA is volatile and will dissipate in the presence of heat during food processing/manufacturing and during home preparation.

	The "worst-case" exposure analysis includes all food forms of all commodities permitted to be treated post-emergence (cereal grains, soybean, cottonseed, and canola) with the conservative assumption that all food-forms contain 0.51 ppm based on the results of the 2011 plant uptake study, which was conducted at 4X the maximum anticipated use rate for THFA. The residue value of 0.51 ppm represents the highest THFA value observed 27 days after the 4X treatement, however, according to the author of the 2011 plant uptake study, it was not possible to determine whether the residue consisted of THFA or an unknown [[14]C] component either present in the original radiochemical stock or generated during the study. During the tolerance exemption reassessment for THFA, EPA determined that existing pre-plant and pre-emergence uses of THFA meet the Agency's safety requirements, considering THFA's physical-chemical properties and biodegradation potential in the environment (71 Fed Reg p.45412).

	Estimated exposure was compared to the toxicological endpoints developed by EPA (see Table 1, above). The chronic dietary RfD is 0.069 mg/kg-BW/day based on the NOAEL of 69 mg/kg-BW/day from the 90-day oral subchronic toxicity study in the rat with a 100X safety factor for intra- and interspecies variability and an additional 10X for database uncertainty because a subchronic study was used for chronic toxicity. The acute dietary RfD is 0.05 mg/kg-BW/day based on the NOAEL of 50 mg/kg-BW/day from the developmental study in the rat with a 100X safety factor for intra- and interspecies variability and an additional 10X for database uncertainty.  Although an FQPA safety factor of 10 was retained at 10X, in order to avoid double counting EPA determined that the application of a 10X database uncertainty factor to account for missing studies replaced the FQPA 10X safety factor for THFA (US EPA, 2006).
     	The model included the conservative assumption that 100 percent of all cereal grains, soybean and cotton would be treated, and that 0.51 ppm THFA would be present on all food forms.  In addition, the model scenarios assume that processing would not reduce potential residues in processed foods (e.g., flour, cottonseed oil).

      i. Food.

	Chronic dietary exposure.  Exposure to all population groups was very low, with Children 1-2 yrs having the greatest exposure of 0.005043 mg/kg-BW/day representing 7.3% of the chronic RfD of 0.069 mg/kg-BW/day.  Exposure to the overall U.S. Population was 0.002080 mg/kg-BW/day, representing 3.0% of the chronic RfD.

	Acute dietary exposure.  The 99[th] percentile exposure is evaluated for unrefined exposure analyses.  The most highly exposed group was Children 1-2 yrs at 0.015616 mg/kg-BW/day, representing 31% of the acute RfD of 0.05 mg/kg-BW/day and a Margin of Exposure (MOE) of 3,201 (with an MOE of less than 1,000 being the Level of Concern).  Exposure to the U.S. Population was 0.008264 mg/kg-BW/day, representing 17% of the acute RfD and an MOE of 6,050.

Population Group
Exposure (mg/kg-BW/day)

Chronic Dietary Exposure and Risk:
NOAEL = 69 mg/kg-BW/day; cRfD=0.069 mg/kg-BW/day
U.S. Population
0.002080
3.0% of cRfD
Children 1-2 years
0.005043
7.3% of cRfD

Acute Dietary Exposure and Risk:
NOAEL=50 mg/kg-BW/day; aRfD=0.05 mg/kg-BW/day; Level of Concern (LOC)=1000
U.S. Population
0.008264
MOE=6,050; 17% of aRfD
Children 1-2 years
0.015616
MOE=3,201; 31% of aRfD

      ii. Drinking water. Contributions to surface/drinking water are not anticipated from the use of THFA-containing pesticide products under the proposed use limitations, considering THFA's physical-chemical properties and biodegradation potential in the environment.

	2. Non-dietary exposure. No residential risks have been identified for existing uses of THFA; the proposed expanded uses on cereal grains, canola and soybeans do not pose any residential risks.

D. Cumulative Effects
	A cumulative exposure assessment is not required because EPA has determined that THFA does not have a common mechanism of toxicity with any other chemical (71 FR p. 18691, April 12, 2006).

E. Safety Determination

	1. U.S. population. The results of the conservative, screening level chronic and acute risk assessments for THFA demonstrate that that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to the U.S. population from the proposed expansion of the exemption regulation for THFA.
	2. Infants and children. The results of the conservative, screening level chronic and acute risk assessments for THFA demonstrate that that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to infants or children from the proposed expansion of the exemption regulation for THFA.

F. International Tolerances  NA-Remove

References:

Chengelis, C.P. (1993) 13-Week Dietary Toxicity Study in Rats with THFA. WIL Research Laboratories, Ashland, OH  Project No. WIL-12255.  July 1, 1993. Unpublished.  MRID 46543103

Hazardous Substances Database (HSDB) (2005).  Tetrahydrofurfural Alcohol (THFA). CASRN:97-994  http://toxnet.nlm.nih.gov

Gledhill, W. E. (2006) Plant Tissue Dissipation /Uptake of Tetrahydrofurfuryl Alcohol (THFA(R)).  Springborn Smithers Laboratories, Wareham, Massachusetts.  August 7, 2006.  Lab Project ID: Springborn Smithers Study No. 13869.6101.
	MRID 47060101

Lashmar UT, Hadgraft J, and Thomas N. (1989)  Topical application of penetration enhancers to the skin of nude mice: a histological study.  J. Pharm Pharmacol. 41 (2): 118-122.

Nemec, Mark D. 2000. Five day oral toxicity study of tetrahydrofurfuryl alcholo (THFA) in female rabbits.  WIL Research Laboratories, Ashland, OH  Project No. WIL-12266.  March 1, 2000. Unpublished.  MRID 46543101

Nemec, Mark D. (1994) A dose range-finding developmental toxicity study of tetrahydrofurfural alcohol (THFA) in rats.  WIL Research Laboratories, Ashland, OH  Project No. WIL-12292.  February 14, 1994. Unpublished.  MRID 46543102

OECD (2005) IUCLID Dataset for 2-Furanmethanol, tetradhydro-. CAS No. 97-99-4.  http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/158/35286232.pdf as referenced on OECDs Integrated High Production Voume (HP) Database:  http://cs3hq.oecd.org/scripts/hpv/

Turk, R. S. (2012).  Plant Tissue Dissipation/Uptake of Tetrahydrofurfuryl Alcohol (THFA(R)).  Smithers Viscient, Wareham, Massachusetts.  March 5, 2012.  Project ID: Springborn Smithers Study No. 13869.6102.

Ulrich, C.E.  (1998) A 90-Day dermal toxicity study of THFA in rats. WIL Research laboratories, Inc., Ashland Ohio.  Project No. WIL-144031.  June 1, 1998. Unpublished.  MRID 46543104

Ulrich, C.E.  (1998) A 90-Day inhalation toxicity study of THFA in rats. WIL Research laboratories, Inc., Ashland Ohio.  Project No. WIL-144032.  June 30, 1998. Unpublished.  MRID 46543105

US EPA (2006) "Hazard assessment for the tolerance reassessment of tetrahydrofurfuryl alcohol (THFA)(CAS Reg. No. 97-99-4," from Elissa Reaves Reregistration Branch 2 Health Effects Division to Pauline Wagner, Chief, Inert Ingredient Assessment Branch (IIAB), Registration Division.  February 21, 2006.


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 179 (Friday, September 14, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 46766-46768]
[FR Doc No: 2018-19970]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-84069; File No. SR-NYSEAMER-2018-43]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE American LLC; Notice of
Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Amend
Rule 7.23E, Obligations of Market Makers

September 10, 2018.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) \1\ of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 (the ``Act'') \2\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\3\ notice is hereby
given that on August 28, 2018, NYSE American LLC (the ``Exchange'' or
``NYSE American'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(the ``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I
and II below, which Items have been prepared by the self-regulatory
organization. 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\ 15 U.S.C. 78a.
    \3\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange proposes to amend Rule 7.23E, Obligations of Market
Makers. The proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's website
at www.nyse.com, at the principal office of the Exchange, and at the
Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

    In its filing with the Commission, the self-regulatory organization
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 those statements may be examined at
the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared
summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most
significant parts of such statements.

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to codify existing practice by harmonizing
Rule 7.23E, Obligations of Market Makers, with similar rules of its
affiliates, the New York Stock Exchange, Inc. (``NYSE''),\4\ NYSE Arca,
Inc. (``NYSE Arca''),\5\ and NYSE National LLC (``NYSE National'') \6\.
Specifically, the Exchange proposes to add language to paragraphs
(a)(1)(B)(iii) and (iv) of Exchange Rule 7.23E to state that for
purposes of each paragraph, rights and warrants will be considered Tier
2 NMS Stocks. This text was inadvertently not included in each
paragraph when Exchange Rule 7.23E was first adopted.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See NYSE Rule 104(a)(1)(B)(iii) and (iv).
    \5\ See NYSE Arca Rule 7.23-E(a)(1)(B)(iii) and (iv).
    \6\ See NYSE National Rule 7.23(a)(1)(B)(iii) and (iv).
    \7\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 80577 (May 2, 2017),
82 FR 21446 (May 8, 2017) (SR-NYSEMKT-2017-04).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In sum, Exchange Rule 7.23E(a)(1) sets forth the two-side quoting
obligations of market makers and requires that the price of the bid
(offer) interest shall be not more than the Designated Percentage away
from the then current National Best Bid (Offer), or if no National Best
Bid (Offer), not more than the Designated Percentage away from the last
reported sale from the responsible single plan processor. In the event
that the National Best Bid (Offer) (or if no National Best Bid (Offer),
the last reported sale) increases (decreases) to a level that would
cause the bid (offer) interest of the Two-Sided Obligation to be more
than the Defined Limit away from the National Best Bid (Offer) (or if
no National Best Bid (Offer), the last reported sale) or if the bid
(offer) is executed or cancelled, the Market Maker shall enter new bid
(offer) interest at a price not more than the Designated Percentage
away from the then current National Best Bid (Offer) (or if no National
Best Bid (Offer), the last reported sale), or identify to the Exchange
current resting interest that satisfies the Two-Sided Obligation.
    Exchange Rules 7.23E(a)(1)(B)(iii) and (iv) include definitions for
the terms ``Designated Percentage'' and ``Defined Limit.'' Pursuant to
paragraph (a)(1)(B)(iii) of Exchange Rule 7.23E, the ``Designated
Percentage'' shall be 8% for Tier 1 NMS Stocks under the Limit Up-Limit
Down Plan (``Tier 1 NMS Stocks''), 28% for Tier 2 NMS Stocks under the
Limit Up-Limit Down Plan (``Tier 2 NMS Stocks'') with a price equal to
or greater than $1.00, and 30% for Tier 2 NMS Stocks with a price lower
than $1.00, except that between 9:30 a.m. and 9:45 a.m. Eastern Time
and between 3:35 p.m. Eastern Time and the close of Core Trading Hours,
the Designated Percentage shall be 20% for Tier 1 NMS Stocks, 28% for
Tier 2 NMS Stocks with a price equal to or greater than $1.00, and 30%
for Tier 2 NMS Stocks with a price lower than $1.00.
    Pursuant to paragraph (a)(1)(B)(iv) of Exchange Rule 7.23E, the
``Defined Limit'' shall be 9.5% for Tier 1 NMS Stocks, 29.5% for Tier 2
NMS Stocks with a price equal to or greater than $1.00, and 31.5% for
Tier 2 NMS Stocks with a price lower than $1.00, except that between
9:30 a.m. and 9:45 a.m. Eastern Time and between 3:35 p.m. Eastern Time
and the close of Core Trading Hours, the Defined Limit shall be 21.5%
for Tier 1 NMS Stocks, 29.5% for Tier 2 NMS Stocks with a price equal
to or greater than $1.00, and 31.5% for Tier 2 NMS Stocks with a price
lower than $1.00.

    The Exchange proposes to add the following sentence to the end of
subparagraphs (a)(1)(B)(iii) and (iv) of Exchange Rule 7.23E: For
purposes of this paragraph, rights and warrants will be considered Tier
2 NMS Stocks. Because rights and warrants are not subject to the Limit
Up-Limit Down Plan, but are subject to market maker quoting
requirements, the Exchange proposes to provide that for purposes of
Rule 7.23E(a)(1)(B)(iii) and (iv), rights and warrants would be
considered Tier 2 NMS Stocks. This sentence is included in similar
rules of the Exchange's affiliates, NYSE,\8\ NYSE Arca,\9\ and NYSE
National \10\ and was inadvertently not included when Exchange Rule
7.23E was first adopted.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See NYSE Rule 104(a)(1)(B)(iii) and (iv).
    \9\ See NYSE Arca Rule 7.23-E(a)(1)(B)(iii) and (iv).
    \10\ See NYSE National Rule 7.23(a)(1)(B)(iii) and (iv).
    \11\ See supra note 7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the ``Act''),\12\ in general, and
furthers the objectives of Section 6(b)(5),\13\ in particular, because
it is designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and
practices, to promote just and equitable principles of trade, to foster
cooperation and coordination with persons engaged in facilitating
transactions in securities, to remove impediments to, and perfect the
mechanism of, a free and open market and a national market system and,
in general, to protect investors and the public interest. The proposed
rule change would further harmonize the definition of the terms
``Designated Percentage'' and ``Defined Limit'' under Exchange Rule
7.23E(a)(1)(B) with the definition of those same terms under the rules
of its affiliates \14\ by inserting language that was inadvertently
excluded when Exchange Rule 7.23E was adopted. The proposed rule change
should, therefore, provide for consistency among similar rules of the
Exchange and its affiliates, thereby removing impediments to, and
perfecting the mechanism of, a free and open market and a national
market system and, in general, protecting investors and the public
interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \13\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
    \14\ See supra notes 4, 5, and 6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate
in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The Exchange believes that
the proposed rule change would not have any impact on competition since
it simply seeks to further harmonize the text of Exchange Rule
7.23E(a)(1)(B) with the rules of its affiliates \15\ by inserting
language that was inadvertently excluded when Exchange Rule 7.23E was
adopted.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the
proposed rule change.

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

    The Exchange has filed the proposed rule change pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act \16\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder.\17\
Because the foregoing proposed rule 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 if consistent with the protection of investors
and the public interest, provided that the self-regulatory organization
has given the Commission written notice of its intent to file the
proposed rule change at least five business days prior to the date of
filing of the proposed rule change or such shorter time as designated
by the Commission,\18\ the proposed rule change has become effective
pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \19\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(6)
thereunder.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(iii).
    \17\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
    \18\ The Exchange has satisfied this requirement.
    \19\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \20\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of such 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. If the Commission
takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings under
Section 19(b)(2)(B) \21\ of the Act to determine whether the proposed
rule change should be approved or disapproved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2)(B).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 protected]. Please include
File Number SR-NYSEAMER-2018-43 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NYSEAMER-2018-43. 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 website (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 website viewing and printing in
the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC
20549 on official business days between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and
3:00 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available for inspection
and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All comments
received will be posted without change. Persons submitting comments are
cautioned that we do not redact or edit personal identifying
information from comment submissions. You should submit only
information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions
should refer to File Number SR-NYSEAMER-2018-43 and should be submitted
on or before October 5, 2018.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Eduardo A. Aleman,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2018-19970 Filed 9-13-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P