[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 167 (Friday, August 28, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Page 52357]
[FR Doc No: 2015-21308]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

[Summary Notice No. PE-2015-50]

Petition for Exemption; Summary of Petition Received; Chevron
Aircraft Operations

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice contains a summary of a petition seeking relief
from specified requirements of title 14 of the Code of Federal
Regulations. The purpose of this notice is to improve the public's
awareness of, and participation in, the FAA's exemption process.
Neither publication of this notice nor the inclusion or omission of
information in the summary is intended to affect the legal status of
the petition or its final disposition.

DATES: Comments on this petition must identify the petition docket
number and must be received on or before September 17, 2015.

ADDRESSES: Send comments identified by docket number FAA-2014-1111
using any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and follow the online instructions for sending your
comments electronically.
     Mail: Send comments to Docket Operations, M-30; U.S.
Department of Transportation (DOT), 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Room
W12-140, West Building Ground Floor, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
     Hand Delivery or Courier: Take comments to Docket
Operations in Room W12-140 of the West Building Ground Floor at 1200
New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
     Fax: Fax comments to Docket Operations at<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Privacy: 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 http://www.regulations.gov, as described in the
system of records notice (DOT/ALL-14 FDMS), which can be reviewed at
http://www.dot.gov/privacy.
    Docket: Background documents or comments received may be read at
http://www.regulations.gov at any time. Follow the online instructions
for accessing the docket or go to the Docket Operations in Room W12-140
of the West Building Ground Floor at 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE.,
Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Keira Jones<PHONE_NUMBER>, Office of
Rulemaking, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue
SW., Washington, DC 20591.
    This notice is published pursuant to 14 CFR 11.85.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on August 25, 2015.
Lirio Liu,
Director, Office of Rulemaking.

Petition For Exemption

    Docket No.: FAA-2014-1111.
    Petitioner: Chevron Aircraft Operations.
    Section(s) of 14 CFR Affected: Sec.  91.9(a).
    Description of Relief Sought: Chevron Aircraft Operations (Chevron)
requests relief from Sec.  91.9(a), which states that no person may
operate a civil aircraft without complying with the operating
limitations specified in the approved Airplane or Rotorcraft Flight
Manual, markings, and placards, or as otherwise prescribed by the
certificating authority of the country of registry. In a letter dated
June 24, 2015, Chevron clarified that the specific limitation that it
seeks to not comply with is the Agusta Westland AW-139 Rotorcraft
Flight Manual, Supplements 12 and 50. These supplements prescribe, in
part, a heliport or helideck minimum size limitation of 50 feet by 50
feet or 50 foot diameter. Chevron wishes to operate the AW139 using
Category A procedures from a helideck that is smaller than 50 feet by
50 feet or 50 foot diameter for its offshore operations.

[FR Doc. 2015-21308 Filed 8-27-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 114 (Thursday, June 13, 2019)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 27543-27544]
[FR Doc No: 2019-12478]

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

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

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

Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 114 / Thursday, June 13, 2019 /
Proposed Rules

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

21 CFR Parts 16 and 1107

[Docket No. FDA-2016-N-3818]
RIN 0910-AH89

Content and Format of Substantial Equivalence Reports; Food and
Drug Administration Actions on Substantial Equivalence Reports;
Extension of Comment Period

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Proposed rule; extension of comment period.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or the Agency) is
extending the comment period for the proposed rule that appeared in the
Federal Register of April 2, 2019. The Agency is taking this action in
response to requests for an extension to allow interested parties
additional time to submit comments.

DATES: FDA is extending the comment period on the proposed rule
published April 2, 2019 (84 FR 12740). Submit either electronic or
written comments by July 17, 2019.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments as follows. Please note that late,
untimely filed comments will not be considered. Electronic comments
must be submitted on or before July 17, 2019. The https://www.regulations.gov electronic filing system will accept comments until
11:59 p.m. Eastern Time on July 17, 2019. Comments received by mail/
hand delivery/courier (for written/paper submissions) will be
considered timely if they are postmarked or the delivery service
acceptance receipt is on or before that date.

Electronic Submissions

    Submit electronic comments in the following way:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the instructions for submitting comments. Comments submitted
electronically, including attachments, to https://www.regulations.gov
will be posted to the docket unchanged. Because your comment will be
made public, you are solely responsible for ensuring that your comment
does not include any confidential information that you or a third party
may not wish to be posted, such as medical information, your or anyone
else's Social Security number, or confidential business information,
such as a manufacturing process. Please note that if you include your
name, contact information, or other information that identifies you in
the body of your comments, that information will be posted on https://www.regulations.gov.
     If you want to submit a comment with confidential
information that you do not wish to be made available to the public,
submit the comment as a written/paper submission and in the manner
detailed (see ``Written/Paper Submissions'' and ``Instructions'').

Written/Paper Submissions

    Submit written/paper submissions as follows:
     Mail/Hand Delivery/Courier (for written/paper
submissions): Dockets Management Staff (HFA-305), Food and Drug
Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.
     For written/paper comments submitted to the Dockets
Management Staff, FDA will post your comment, as well as any
attachments, except for information submitted, marked and identified,
as confidential, if submitted as detailed in ``Instructions.''
    Instructions: All submissions received must include the Docket No.
FDA-2016-N-3818 for ``Content and Format of Substantial Equivalence
Reports; Food and Drug Administration Actions on Substantial
Equivalence Reports.'' Received comments, those filed in a timely
manner (see ADDRESSES), will be placed in the docket and, except for
those submitted as ``Confidential Submissions,'' publicly viewable at
https://www.regulations.gov or at the Dockets Management Staff between
9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday.
     Confidential Submissions--To submit a comment with
confidential information that you do not wish to be made publicly
available, submit your comments only as a written/paper submission. You
should submit two copies total. One copy will include the information
you claim to be confidential with a heading or cover note that states
``THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION.'' The Agency will
review this copy, including the claimed confidential information, in
its consideration of comments. The second copy, which will have the
claimed confidential information redacted/blacked out, will be
available for public viewing and posted on https://www.regulations.gov.
Submit both copies to the Dockets Management Staff. If you do not wish
your name and contact information to be made publicly available, you
can provide this information on the cover sheet and not in the body of
your comments and you must identify this information as
``confidential.'' Any information marked as ``confidential'' will not
be disclosed except in accordance with 21 CFR 10.20 and other
applicable disclosure law. For more information about FDA's posting of
comments to public dockets, see 80 FR 56469, September 18, 2015, or
access the information at: https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2015-09-18/pdf/2015-23389.pdf.
    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or
the electronic and written/paper comments received, go to https://www.regulations.gov and insert the docket number, found in brackets in
the heading of this document, into the ``Search'' box and follow the
prompts and/or go to the Dockets Management Staff, 5630 Fishers Lane,
Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Annette Marthaler, Center for Tobacco
Products, Food and Drug Administration, Document Control Center, 10903
New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 71, Rm. G335, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002,
email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the Federal Register of April 2, 2019,
FDA published a proposed rule with a 75-day comment period that would,
if finalized, establish requirements for the content and format of
reports intended to establish the substantial equivalence of a tobacco
product. The proposed rule, if finalized, would also establish the
general procedures that FDA intends to follow when evaluating
substantial equivalence reports.

    The Agency has received requests for an extension of the comment
period for the proposed rule. The requests conveyed concern that the
current 75-day comment period does not allow sufficient time to develop
a meaningful or thoughtful response to the proposed rule.
    FDA has considered the requests and is extending the comment period
for the proposed rule for 30 days, until July 17, 2019. FDA believes a
30-day extension is appropriate and would help ensure that interested
persons have time to fully consider the proposed provisions, which are
detailed and interrelated, as well as to fully consider and develop
responses to the Agency's specific requests for comment.

    Dated: June 7, 2019.
Lowell J. Schiller,
Principal Associate Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2019-12478 Filed 6-12-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4164-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 46 (Thursday, March 9, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Pages 14653-14657]
[FR Doc No: 2023-04786]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-97039; File No. SR-FINRA-2022-031]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Financial Industry Regulatory
Authority, Inc.; Order Instituting Proceedings To Determine Whether To
Approve or Disapprove Proposed Rule Change To Adopt FINRA Rules 6151
(Disclosure of Order Routing Information for NMS Securities) and 6470
(Disclosure of Order Routing Information for OTC Equity Securities)

March 3, 2023.
    On November 16, 2022, the 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\ a proposed rule change to require members to (i) publish
order routing reports for orders in OTC Equity Securities, and (ii)
submit their order routing reports for both OTC Equity Securities and
NMS Securities to FINRA for publication on the FINRA website. The
proposed rule change was published for comment in the Federal Register
on December 6, 2022.\3\ On January 18, 2023, the Commission extended
the time period within which to approve, disapprove the proposed rule
change, or institute proceedings to determine whether to approve or

disapprove the proposed rule change to March 6, 2023.\4\ The Commission
received four comment letters on the proposed rule change, one of which
was received after the Extension.\5\ Under Section 19(b)(3)(C) of the
Exchange Act,\6\ the Commission is hereby instituting proceedings to
determine whether to approve or disapprove File Number SR-FINRA-2022-
031.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 96415 (November 30,
2022), 87 FR 74672 (``Notice'').
    \4\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 96699, 88 FR 4260
(January 24, 2023) (``Extension'').
    \5\ All comments received by the Commission on the proposed rule
change are available at: https://www.sec.gov/comments/sr-finra-2022-031/srfinra2022031.htm.
    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(C).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

I. Summary of the Proposed Rule Change and Comments Received

    In 2018, the Commission amended SEC Rule 606(a) of Regulation
NMS,\7\ to enhance required disclosures from broker-dealers about their
order routing practices for NMS Securities,\8\ including enhanced
disclosures for non-directed orders in NMS stocks that are submitted on
a ``held'' basis in order to better allow ``customers--and retail
investors in particular--that submit orders to their broker-dealers
[to] be better able to assess the quality of order handling services
provided by their broker-dealers'' and to allow customers to determine
``whether their broker-dealers are effectively managing potential
conflicts of interest.'' \9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 17 CFR 242.606(a).
    \8\ ``NMS Securities'' include any security or class of
securities for which transaction reports are collected, processed,
and made available to an effective transaction reporting plan, or an
effective national market system plan for reporting transactions in
listed options. See 17 CFR 242.600(b).
    \9\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 84528, 58423
(November 2, 2018), 83 FR 58338 (November 19, 2018). A broker-dealer
must attempt to execute a ``held'' order immediately, while a ``not
held'' order instead provides a broker-dealer with price and time
discretion. Id. at 58344. See also Notice, supra note 3, at 74672
n.5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As described in more detail in the Notice, FINRA proposes to adopt
FINRA Rule 6470 (Disclosure of Order Routing Information for NMS
Securities), which imposes disclosure requirements for unlisted stocks
that are generally aligned with the requirements of SEC Rule 606(a)
disclosures, but with modifications to account for differences between
the over-the-counter (``OTC'') markets and the market for NMS
Securities. In addition, to improve the accessibility of these new
disclosures, as well as SEC Rule 606(a) reports, FINRA proposes to
adopt FINRA Rule 6151 (Disclosure of Order Routing Information for OTC
Equity Securities) to require members to submit their order routing
reports for NMS Securities to FINRA for centralized publication on the
FINRA website.
    Proposed FINRA Rule 6470, entitled ``Disclosure of Order Routing
Information for OTC Equity Securities,'' would require the publication
of order routing disclosures for OTC Equity Securities.\10\
Specifically, FINRA Rule 6470(a) would require every member to make
publicly available for each calendar quarter a report on its routing of
non-directed orders in OTC Equity Securities that are submitted on a
held basis during that quarter, broken down by calendar month, and keep
such report posted on an internet website that is free and readily
accessible to the public for a period of three years from the initial
date of posting on the internet website (``OTC Equity Security
reports'').\11\ These reports would be required to be separated into
three sections: (i) domestic OTC Equity Securities; (ii) American
Depository Receipts (``ADRs'') and foreign ordinaries that are OTC
Equity Securities; and (iii) Canadian-listed securities trading in the
United States as OTC Equity Securities.\12\ In addition, FINRA Rule
6470(a) would specify that the new OTC Equity Security reports must be
made available using the most recent versions of the XML schema and
associated PDF renderer as published on the FINRA website,\13\ and
FINRA Rule 6470(d) would require the reports to be made publicly
available within one month after the end of the quarter addressed in
the report.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See Notice, supra note 3, at 74672 n.8. FINRA Rule 6420(f)
defines an ``OTC Equity Security'' as any equity security that is
not an NMS stock, other than a Restricted Equity Security. FINRA
Rule 6420(k) defines a ``Restricted Equity Security'' as any equity
security that meets the definition of ``restricted security'' as
contained in Securities Act Rule 144(a)(3).
    \11\ Proposed FINRA Rule 6470 would apply to ``every member,''
but FINRA notes that the focus of the proposed disclosures is held
orders from customers in OTC Equity Securities, and some members may
not engage in any activities involving held orders from customers in
OTC Equity Securities. See Notice, supra note 3, at 74673 n.9. If a
member does not accept any orders in OTC Equity Securities from
customers during a given calendar quarter (whether held or not
held), such member would not be required to publish a report under
Rule 6470 for that quarter. Id. Similarly, a member that accepted
only not held orders in OTC Equity Securities from customers--but no
held orders in OTC Equity Securities from customers--during a given
calendar quarter would not be required to publish a report for that
quarter. Id. Further, FINRA states that if a member accepted orders
in OTC Equity Securities (whether held, not held, or both) only from
other broker-dealers, but not from customers, during a given
calendar quarter, such member would not be required to publish a
report for that quarter. Id.
    \12\ FINRA states that to provide for consistency across member
reports, FINRA will publish a list of the OTC Equity Security
symbols that fall under each category, and members would be required
to publish reports in a manner consistent with such list. See
Notice, supra note 3, at 74673. FINRA states that it will provide
information in the Regulatory Notice announcing the effective date
regarding where members may access the list of OTC Equity Security
symbols that FINRA will maintain on its website. Id. at 74674 n.11.
FINRA also notes that these categories differ from the NMS
Securities required to be reported for SEC Rule 606(a) reports,
which it believes is not relevant to the OTC market. Id.
    \13\ FINRA states that it will publish the technical
specifications for the XML schema and associated PDF renderer on its
website for member use in generating the new reports. See Notice,
supra note 3, at 74673 n.12. FINRA expects that, subject to the
differences between the SEC Rule 606(a) reports and the OTC Equity
Security reports, the XML schema and associated PDF renderer
published by FINRA would be substantially similar to those published
by the SEC for the SEC Rule 606(a) reports. Id. FINRA believes this
requirement would ensure that reports are generated and published in
standardized machine-readable and human-readable forms, which would
benefit investors by permitting the public to more easily analyze
and compare the OTC Equity Security reports across members, as well
as to more easily perform combined analysis of both SEC Rule 606(a)
and OTC Equity Security reports. Id. at 74763.
    \14\ FINRA states that it understands that some introducing
firms route all of their orders in OTC Equity Securities to one or
more clearing firms for further routing to other venues for
execution. See Notice, supra note 3 at 74673 n.10. FINRA states that
the Commission has provided guidance that, where an introducing firm
routes all of its covered orders to one or more clearing firms for
further routing and execution and the clearing firm in fact makes
the routing decision, the introducing firm generally may comply with
the order routing disclosure requirements by: (i) disclosing its
relationship with the clearing firm(s) on its website that includes
any payment for order flow received by the introducing firm, and
(ii) adopting the clearing firm's disclosures by reference, provided
that the introducing firm has examined the report and does not have
reason to believe it materially misrepresents the order routing
practices. Id. FINRA states that it intends to provide parallel
guidance with respect to proposed FINRA Rule 6470. Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Pursuant to FINRA Rule 6470(a), the new OTC Equity Security reports
would be required to include the information specified in paragraphs
(a)(1) through (4) of proposed FINRA Rule 6470, specifically:
     the percentage of total orders \15\ for the section that
were not held orders and held orders, and the percentage of held orders
for the section that were non-directed orders; \16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ FINRA states that ``total orders'' would include all orders
from customers for the section, including both directed and non-
directed orders from customers. See Notice, supra note 3, at 74673
n.14.
    \16\ FINRA states that for purposes of the proposed disclosures,
a ``non-directed order'' would mean any order from a customer other
than a directed order. See Notice, supra note 3, at 74673-74 n.15.
FINRA further states that consistent with the definition of
``directed order'' under Regulation NMS, a ``directed order'' would
mean an order from a customer that the customer specifically
instructed the member to route to a particular venue for execution.
See id.; 17 CFR 242.600(b). FINRA notes that, similar to the
definition of ``customer'' under SEC Rule 600(b)(23) of Regulation
NMS, a ``customer'' is defined under FINRA rules to exclude a broker
or dealer. See FINRA Rule 0160(b)(4). Orders from other broker-
dealers would therefore be excluded from the proposed disclosures.
See Notice, supra note 3, at 74673-74 n.15.

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

     the identity of the ten venues to which the largest number
of total non-directed held orders for the section were routed for
execution \17\ and of any venue to which five percent or more of non-
directed held orders for the section were routed for execution, and the
percentage of total non-directed held orders for the section routed to
the venue; \18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ FINRA states that, consistent with the SEC's approach to
SEC Rule 606(a), a ``venue'' would be defined broadly to cover any
market center or any other person or entity to which a member routes
orders for execution. See Notice, supra note 3, at 74674 n.16.
Accordingly, for purposes of proposed FINRA Rule 6470, where an
alternative trading system (``ATS'') offers both automatic order
execution and order delivery functionality, the ATS should be
identified as the venue only when the ATS provides order execution.
Conversely, for purposes of proposed FINRA Rule 6470, in cases where
the ATS instead provides order delivery, the separate market center
to which the orders are delivered--e.g., a market maker or other
ATS--should be identified as the venue where the order was routed
for execution. Id.
    \18\ Proposed FINRA Rule 6470(b) would provide that a member is
not required to identify execution venues that received less than 5%
of non-directed held orders for a section of the member's OTC Equity
Securities report, provided that the member has identified the top
execution venues that in the aggregate received at least 90% of the
member's total non-directed held orders for the section. FINRA
states that this provision is consistent with exemptive relief that
the Commission has provided with respect to SEC Rule 606(a) reports.
See Notice, supra note 3, at 74674 n.17.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     for each identified venue, the net aggregate amount of any
payment for order flow received, payment from any profit-sharing
relationship received, transaction fees paid, and transaction rebates
received, both as a total dollar amount and per order, for all non-
directed held orders for the section; and
     a discussion of the material aspects of the member's
relationship with each identified venue, including, without limitation,
a description of any arrangement for payment for order flow and any
profit-sharing relationship and a description of any terms of such
arrangements, written or oral, that may influence a member's order
routing decision including, among other things: (i) incentives for
equaling or exceeding an agreed upon order flow volume threshold, such
as additional payments or a higher rate of payment; disincentives for
failing to meet an agreed upon minimum order flow threshold, such as
lower payments or the requirement to pay a fee; (ii) volume-based
tiered payment schedules; and (iii) agreements regarding the minimum
amount of order flow that the member would send to a venue.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ FINRA states that the types of arrangements referenced
above are not an exhaustive list of terms of payment for order flow
arrangements or profit-sharing relationships that may influence a
broker-dealer's order routing decision that would be required to be
disclosed. See Notice, supra note 3, at 74674 n.18. For example, if
a broker-dealer receives a discount on executions in other
securities or some other advantage in directing order flow in a
specific security to a venue, or if a broker-dealer receives equity
rights in a venue in exchange for directing order flow there, then
all terms of those arrangements would also be required to be
disclosed. Id. Similarly, if a broker-dealer receives variable
payments or discounts based on order types and the number of orders
sent to a venue, such arrangements would be required to be
disclosed. Id. However, FINRA notes that these are only examples,
and a member would be required to disclose any other material
aspects of its relationship with each identified venue regardless of
whether a particular example is listed in the proposed rule text or
otherwise discussed in this proposed rule change. Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To make both the existing SEC Rule 606(a) reports and the new OTC
Equity Security reports more accessible for regulators, investors and
others seeking to analyze and compare the data, FINRA is proposing to
require that members provide the reports to FINRA for central
publication on the FINRA website. Proposed FINRA Rule 6151 would
require every member that is required to publish a report pursuant to
SEC Rule 606(a) of Regulation NMS to provide the report to FINRA, in a
manner prescribed by FINRA, within the same time and in the same
formats that such report is required to be made publicly available
pursuant to SEC Rule 606(a). In combination with proposed FINRA Rule
6470(d), which would require members to provide the report required by
paragraph (a) of FINRA Rule 6470 within one month after the end of the
quarter addressed in the report in such a manner as may be prescribed
by FINRA, FINRA would be able to publish both SEC Rule 606(a) and OTC
Equity Security reports on its public website, free of charge and
without usage restrictions.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ See Notice, supra note 3, at 74674-75. FINRA states that
the SEC has provided guidance that introducing firms may comply with
SEC Rule 606(a) by incorporating their clearing firm(s) reports in
specified circumstances, and FINRA intends to provide similar
guidance with respect to the OTC Equity Security reports required
under proposed FINRA Rule 6470. Id. at 74675 n.25. To facilitate
centralized access to the reports, such introducing firms must
provide FINRA with a list of their clearing firm(s) and the
hyperlink to the web page where they disclose their clearing firm
relationship(s) and adopt the clearing firm(s)'s reports by
reference. Id. Each introducing firm relying on this guidance would
be required to provide this information to FINRA upon implementation
of the proposed rule change and to update FINRA if the information
previously provided changes. Id. This information will enable FINRA
to provide investors with relevant information for all firms,
including introducing firms incorporating clearing firm reports by
reference, on FINRA's website. Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FINRA states that it undertook an ``economic impact assessment'' to
analyze the potential economic impacts of the proposed rule change,
including potential costs, benefits, and distributional and competitive
effects, relative to the current baseline.\21\ In this analysis, FINRA
analyzed the number of firms quoting, executing trades and routing
orders in OTC Equity Securities over specific time periods, as well as
the number of symbols traded per firm and average dollar volume of
trading per symbol and per firm. In addition, FINRA published the
proposed rule change in Regulatory Notice 21-35 (October 2021) and
received five comments in response.\22\ FINRA provided these comments,
as well as a summary of these comments and its responses in its filing
with the Commission.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ See Notice, supra note 3, at 74675-78.
    \22\ Comments received by FINRA are available on FINRA's website
at https://www.finra.org/rules-guidance/notices/21-35#comments.
    \23\ See Notice, supra note 3, at 74678-80.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FINRA argues in support of its proposal that the proposed
requirement for members to publish order routing disclosures for OTC
Equity Securities, similar to what is available under SEC rules for NMS
Securities, would provide valuable information for investors and other
market participants, academics, regulators and others regarding order
routing practices in the OTC market, thereby enhancing the protection
of investors and the public interest.\24\ In particular, FINRA believes
that these new disclosures will enable investors to better assess the
quality of their broker-dealers' order handling services for these
securities, provide more information on the financial incentives that
may affect their broker-dealers' routing decisions, and allow clearing
firm(s)'s reports by reference.\25\ FINRA states that this information
will enable FINRA to provide investors with relevant information for
all firms which would allow investors to better evaluate whether their
broker-dealers are effectively managing potential conflicts of
interest.\26\ FINRA also argues that the proposed requirements for
members to send their disclosure reports for both NMS Securities and
OTC Equity Securities to FINRA for centralized publication on the FINRA
website will make this important information more accessible for
regulators, investors, academics and others seeking to analyze and
compare the data, particularly across firms, and would facilitate the

ability of FINRA and the SEC to review the data for regulatory
purposes.\27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ See Notice, supra n. 3 at 74675.
    \25\ See id.
    \26\ See id.
    \27\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission received two comment letters that were broadly
supportive of the proposed rule change and greater transparency on
routing of orders in generally.\28\ One commenter submitted two letters
and was supportive of some aspects of the rule proposal,\29\ but
expressed concerns about and opposed other aspects of the proposal.\30\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ See letters to Vanessa Countryman, Secretary, Commission,
from G.P., dated November 30, 2022 (``GP Letter''); Daniel Lambden,
dated December 5, 2022 (``Lambden Letter'').
    \29\ FIF is supportive of some aspects of the rule proposal,
including: FINRA's proposal to maintain the same quarterly reporting
timeframe for OTC Equity Security reports as applies for SEC Rule
606(a) reporting; FINRA's chosen OTC equity security reporting
categories; FINRA's assertion that it will publish and maintain a
file of which symbols are included in each OTC equity category and
make this file accessible to all industry members without charge
(FIF further recommends that the symbol file be made available to
industry members prior to the first day of each quarter, because
requiring industry members to process daily updates to a reportable
symbol list would significantly increase the reporting burden for
firms); FINRA's approach of not requiring the OTC Equity Security
reports to be broken out by order type; FINRA's proposal to require
reporting of payments per executed order rather than per share;
FINRA's decision to limit the OTC Equity Security reports to non-
directed held orders; and proposed FINRA Rule 6470(b) which would
provide a limited exception to venue reporting requirements in
proposed FINRA Rule 6470(a)(2). See FIF Letter at 7-9.
    \30\ See FIF Letter and letter to Vanessa Countryman, Secretary,
Commission, from Howard Meyerson, Managing Director, Financial
Information Forum, dated December 20, 2022 (``FIF Letter'') and
dated February 3, 2023 (``FIF Letter II'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    That commenter states that the proposed FINRA rule, like SEC Rule
606(a), applies when a reporting firm receives and routes a customer
order to a second firm, and the second firm (``routing firm'') can
route the order to various execution venues but itself cannot execute
the order (``routing firm scenario''). The commenter also states that
this requires the reporting firm to report the net fees paid or
received between the routing firm and the venue in the SEC Rule 606(a)
tables or FINRA's OTC Equity Security Routing Public Report as
applicable, and material aspects disclosures.\31\ The commenter notes
that the proposed FINRA rule, like SEC Rule 606(a), does not require
the reporting of the net fees paid or received between the reporting
broker-dealer and the routing broker in the OTC Equity Security Routing
Public Report tables.\32\ The commenter argues that this approach
obscures relevant information from retail customers, because, to
understand the financial inducements faced by a reporting firm, the
relevant information is the payments between the reporting firm and the
routing firm.\33\ The commenter also argues that this results in
reported data that is not comparable across broker-dealers.\34\ The
commenter also states that this approach requires firms to report on
financial arrangements to which they might not be a party, that the
rules do not impose any obligation on the routing firm to provide this
data to the reporting firm, and a reporting firm cannot effectively
validate the data relating to routing firm scenarios.\35\ The commenter
further states that the rule filing does not explicitly discuss the
costs for such reporting.\36\ The commenter further suggests that if
FINRA adopts this reporting, FINRA Rule 6470 should be revised to
address the routing scenario.\37\ The commenter also states this
reporting scenario should not apply for routes to foreign routing
firms.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \31\ See FIF Letter at 2.
    \32\ See id.
    \33\ See id.
    \34\ See id. at 3-4.
    \35\ See id. at 5.
    \36\ See id. at 5.
    \37\ See id. at 6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The commenter argues that there are a significant number of OTC
stocks that have a limited number of available execution venues or only
have one or two market makers, and that there is a potential risk that
investors viewing the report for these stocks would see a high
percentage of order flow being routed to one or two venues without
appropriate context of the limited choices available to the reporting
firm, and that some firms with lower trading volume in OTC equities
could have routing relationships with a limited number of market
makers.\38\ The commenter suggests that FINRA should identify this as a
factor for investors to consider when reviewing a broker-dealer's OTC
Equity Security report.\39\ The commenter also states that FINRA should
consider whether certain categories of data that firms are required to
report in the OTC Equity Security reports could be obtained by FINRA
from the consolidated audit trail (``CAT'').\40\ The commenter further
states that the rule filing does not provide clear guidance on
reporting scenarios relating to trading on OTC Link ATS and raises
several hypothetical situations where it believes OTC Link ATS should
be reported as the execution venue, as opposed to where the execution
actually took place.\41\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \38\ See id.
    \39\ See id.
    \40\ FIF Letter at 6. The CAT is operated pursuant a national
market system plan approved by the Commission pursuant to Section
11A of the Exchange Act and the rules and regulations thereunder.
See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 79318 (Nov. 15, 2016), 81 FR
84696 (Nov. 23, 2016).
    \41\ FIF Letter at 6 and FIF Letter II at 2-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The commenter also raises concerns about implementation of the
proposal and argues that a longer implementation period is appropriate
to ensure that industry members will have sufficient time to properly
implement the planned reporting changes.\42\ The commenter states that
it supports centralized publication of SEC Rule 606(a) reports and the
OTC routing reports, but argues that if FINRA will publish these
reports that firms should no longer be required to separately publish
these reports on their own websites, and instead firms should be
required to provide a link from its public website to the applicable
section of the FINRA website.\43\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \42\ FIF also states that the Commission has not provided market
participants an adequate period of time to comment on the rule
proposal. FIF Letter at 9-10. FIF requests that any implementation
timetable should run from the date that FINRA publishes technical
specifications, schemas, interpretive FAQs and other applicable
documentation. Id. at 9.
    \43\ FIF Letter at 7. FIF also recommends that FINRA consider
creating a database with structured firm routing report data that
industry members and other market participants could access through
automated queries. Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Proceedings To Determine Whether To Approve or Disapprove SR-FINRA-
2022-031 and Grounds for Disapproval Under Consideration

    The Commission hereby institutes proceedings pursuant to Section
19(b)(2)(B) of the Exchange Act \44\ to determine whether the proposed
rule change should be approved or disapproved. Institution of
proceedings is appropriate at this time in view of the legal and policy
issues raised by the proposal. Institution of proceedings does not
indicate that the Commission has reached any conclusions with respect
to any of the issues involved. Rather, the Commission seeks and
encourages interested persons to provide additional comment on the
proposed rule change to inform the Commission's analysis of whether to
approve or disapprove the proposed rule change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \44\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2)(B).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(2)(B) of the Exchange Act,\45\ the
Commission is

providing notice of the grounds for possible disapproval under
consideration. As described above, FINRA has proposed to require
members to publish order routing reports for orders in OTC Equity
Securities, and submit their order routing reports for both OTC Equity
Securities and NMS Securities to FINRA for publication on the FINRA
website. The Commission is instituting proceedings to allow for
additional analysis of, and input from commenters with respect to, the
consistency of the proposal with the Section 15A(b)(6) of the Exchange
Act,\46\ which requires, among other things, that FINRA rules must 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \45\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2)(B). Section 19(b)(2)(B) of the Exchange
Act also provides that proceedings to determine whether to
disapprove a proposed rule change must be concluded within 180 days
of the date of publication of notice of the filing of the proposed
rule change. See id. The time for conclusion of the proceedings may
be extended for up to 60 days if the Commission finds good cause for
such extension and publishes its reasons for so finding, or if the
self-regulatory organization consents to the longer period. See id.
    \46\ 15 U.S.C. 78o-3(b)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Procedure: Request for Written Comments

    The Commission requests that interested persons provide written
submissions of their views, data, and arguments with respect to the
issues identified above, as well as any other concerns they may have
with the proposal. In particular, the Commission invites the written
view of interested persons concerning whether the proposal is
consistent with Section 15A(b)(6) or any other provision of the
Exchange Act, or the rules and regulations thereunder. Although there
do not appear to be any issues relevant to approval or disapproval that
would be facilitated by an oral presentation of views, data, and
arguments, the Commission will consider, pursuant to Rule 19b-4, any
request for an opportunity to make an oral presentation.\47\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \47\ Section 19(b)(2) of the Exchange Act, as amended by the
Securities Act Amendments of 1975, Public Law 94-29 (June 4, 1975),
grants the Commission flexibility to determine what type of
proceeding--either oral or notice and opportunity for written
comments--is appropriate for consideration of a particular proposal
by a self-regulatory organization. See Securities Act Amendments of
1975, Senate Comm. on Banking, Housing & Urban Affairs, S. Rep. No.
75, 94th Cong., 1st Sess. 30 (1975).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and
arguments regarding whether the proposal should be approved or
disapproved by March 30, 2023. Any person who wishes to file a rebuttal
to any other person's submission must file that rebuttal by April 13,
2023.
    The Commission asks that commenters address the sufficiency of
FINRA's statements in support of the proposal and any other issues
raised by the proposed rule change under the Exchange Act. In this
regard, the Commission seeks commenters' views regarding the
application of the proposed rule in the routing firm scenario.
    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-FINRA-2022-031 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-2022-031. 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 such filing also will be available for inspection
and copying at the principal office of FINRA. 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-FINRA-2022-031 should be submitted on or
before March 30, 2023. Rebuttal comments should be submitted by April
13, 2023.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\48\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \48\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(57).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sherry R. Haywood,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2023-04786 Filed 3-8-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 116 (Wednesday, June 17, 2015)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 34588-34593]
[FR Doc No: 2015-14934]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

49 CFR Part 393

[Docket No. FMCSA-2014-0428]
RIN 2126-AB67

Parts and Accessories Necessary for Safe Operation: Federal Motor
Vehicle Safety Standards Certification for Commercial Motor Vehicles
Operated by United States-Domiciled Motor Carriers

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

ACTION: Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM), request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: FMCSA proposes to amend the Federal Motor Carrier Safety
Regulations (FMCSRs) by requiring United States-domiciled (U.S.-
domiciled) motor carriers engaged in interstate commerce to use only
commercial motor vehicles (CMV) that display a certification label
affixed by the vehicle manufacturer or a U.S. Department of
Transportation (DOT) Registered Importer, indicating that the vehicle
satisfied all applicable Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS)
in effect at the time of manufacture. If the certification label is
missing, the motor carrier must obtain, and a driver upon demand
present, a letter issued by the vehicle manufacturer stating that the
vehicle met all applicable FMVSS in effect at the time of manufacture.

DATES: You may submit comments by August 3, 2015.

ADDRESSES: Comments to the rulemaking docket should refer to Docket ID
Number FMCSA-2014-0428- or RIN 2126-AB67, and be submitted to the
Administrator, Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration using any of
the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
     Fax: 1-202-493-2251.
     Mail: Docket Management Facility (M-30), U.S. Department
of Transportation, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE.,
Washington, DC 20590-0001.

     Hand Delivery: Ground Floor, Room W12-140, DOT Building,
1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5
p.m. e.t., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    To avoid duplication, please use only one of these four methods.
See the ``Public Participation and Request for Comments'' portion of
the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section below for instructions on
submitting comments.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michael Huntley, Chief, Vehicle and
Roadside Operations Division, Office of Policy, Federal Motor Carrier
Safety Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC
20590-0001, by telephone at<PHONE_NUMBER> or via email at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>FMCSA office hours are from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m.,
e.t Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. If you have
questions on viewing or submitting material to the docket, contact
Docket Services, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

I. Public Participation and Request for Comments
II. Executive Summary
III. Legal Basis for the Rulemaking
IV. Background
V. Discussion of the Proposed Rule
VI. Regulatory Analyses

I. Public Participation and Request for Comments

    FMCSA invites you to participate in this rulemaking by submitting
comments and related materials.

Submitting Comments

    If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this
rulemaking (FMCSA-2014-0428), 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 http://www.regulations.gov and
click on the ``Submit a Comment'' box, which will then become
highlighted in blue. In the ``Document Type'' drop down menu, select
``Rules,'' insert ``FMCSA-2014-0428'' in the ``Keyword'' box, and click
``Search.'' When the new screen appears, click on ``Submit a Comment''
in the ``Actions'' column. 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 and may change this proposed rule based on your
comments.

Viewing Comments and Documents

    To view comments, as well as any documents mentioned in this
preamble, go to http://www.regulations.gov and click on the ``Read
Comments'' box in the upper right hand side of the screen. Then, in the
``Keyword'' box insert ``FMCSA-2014-0428'' and click ``Search.'' Next,
click the ``Open Docket Folder'' in the ``Actions'' column. Finally, in
the ``Title'' column, click on the document you would like to review.
If you do not have access to the Internet, you may view the docket
online by visiting 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., e.t., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

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.dot.gov/privacy.

II. Executive Summary

Purpose and Summary of the Major Provisions

    The FMCSRs require that motor carriers operating CMVs in the U.S.,
including Mexico- and Canada-domiciled carriers, ensure that the
vehicles are equipped with the applicable safety equipment and features
specified in 49 CFR part 393, Parts and Accessories Necessary for Safe
Operations, which includes cross references to safety equipment and
features that must be installed at the time of production. The National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) requires vehicle
manufacturers to certify that the vehicles they produce for sale and
use in the U.S. meet all applicable FMVSS in effect at the time of
manufacture. In addition, they must affix an FMVSS certification label
to each vehicle in accordance with the requirements of 49 CFR part 567.
This NPRM would require U.S.-domiciled motor carriers engaged in
interstate commerce to use only CMVs that display an FMVSS
certification label affixed by the vehicle manufacturer indicating that
the vehicle: (1) satisfied all applicable FMVSS in effect at the time
of manufacture; or (2) has been modified to meet those standards and
legally imported by a DOT Registered Importer. In the absence of such a
label (e.g., because of vehicle damage or deliberate removal), the
motor carrier must obtain, and a driver upon demand present, a letter
issued by the vehicle manufacturer stating that the vehicle satisfied
all applicable FMVSS in effect on the date of manufacture. The
manufacturer should be able to determine quickly whether the vehicle
was built to comply with the FMVSS by comparing the vehicle
identification number (VIN) to its production records.
    In the event a vehicle does not display a certification label,
motor carriers would be responsible for providing their drivers with a
letter from the vehicle manufacturer to present to Federal or State
enforcement officials upon request.
    This proposed rule would address the National Transportation Safety
Board's (NTSB) concerns about the operation of CMVs that do not display
certification labels. It would not apply to foreign-domiciled vehicles
(i.e., CMVs operated by Mexico- and Canada-domiciled motor carriers)
engaged in international traffic, as regulations enforced by U.S.
Customs and Border Protection permit such vehicles to be admitted to
the U.S. without formal importation, payment of duty, or compliance
with the FMVSS.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The applicable Customs and Border Protection regulations
governing instruments of international traffic are found in 19 CFR
10.41, 10.41a, and part 123, subpart B. With certain exceptions,
instruments of international traffic may be released without entry
or the payment of duty, subject to the provisions set forth in these
regulations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Benefits and Costs

    Generally, motor carriers engaging in interstate commerce with a
principal place of business in the U.S. would not experience any
regulatory burden as a result of this rulemaking unless the motor
carrier: (1) had vehicles with missing certification labels; or (2) had
acquired a vehicle that was not originally manufactured for sale or use

in this country that had somehow been improperly imported. The Agency
lacks data on the prevalence of such vehicles in the fleets of U.S.-
domiciled motor carriers. FMCSA seeks comment on: (1) the size of the
CMV population originally certified as FMVSS-compliant that now lacks
certification labels because of vehicle damage, deliberate removal, or
other reasons; and (2) the number of CMVs operated by U.S.-domiciled
carriers that lack certification labels because they were neither
designed nor certified to be FMVSS-compliant. FMCSA believes that most
missing labels fall into the first of these two categories.
    This rulemaking is not intended to deprive motor carriers of the
use of vehicles produced in compliance with the appropriate FMVSS, but
rather to prevent vehicles not manufactured or modified to meet those
standards from being operated by U.S.-domiciled interstate carriers.
    FMCSA believes this rulemaking would have no impact on the vast
majority of U.S. carriers. Because motor vehicles manufactured for sale
or use in the U.S. must display an FMVSS certification label, and
because vehicles that are properly imported by a Registered Importer
must likewise display an FMVSS certification label, all vehicles
operated by U.S. motor carriers would typically already have such
labels. However, there may be circumstances where a CMV lacking an
FMVSS certification label is used in interstate commerce by an American
carrier. This NPRM would force the carrier to incur one-time costs to
determine whether the label had simply been lost or, more seriously,
whether the vehicle may have been improperly imported. In order to
minimize those costs, FMCSA will accept as proof of compliance with the
FMVSS a letter from the vehicle manufacturer stating that the subject
vehicle satisfied all applicable FMVSS in effect at the time of
manufacture. The Agency is unable to quantify the costs associated with
this alternative demonstration of compliance, but expects them to be
minimal. FMCSA seeks comment on the cost and effectiveness of this
letter-based validation process when an FMVSS certification label is
missing or too damaged to read.
    With regard to benefits, the rule would make it easier for FMCSA
and its State partners to identify CMVs operated by U.S.-domiciled
motor carriers that may have been introduced into interstate commerce
without the proper FMVSS certification.
    In the absence of monetizeable benefits, and due to uncertainty
regarding the size of the affected population and the costs to comply
with this rulemaking, FMCSA proposes to use a threshold analysis to
quantify the benefits necessary to offset the costs of the rule. This
threshold analysis will be included in the final rule, drawing upon
information provided in comments to the docket and other data to
establish lower and upper bounds for costs. The Agency seeks comments
on the value of a threshold analysis versus a qualitative assessment of
the rule's potential impact.

III. Legal Basis for the Rulemaking

    This NPRM is based on the authority of the Motor Carrier Act of
1935 (1935 Act) and the Motor Carrier Safety Act of 1984 (MCSA or 1984
Act), both of which provide broad discretion to the Secretary of
Transportation (Secretary) in implementing their provisions.
    The 1935 Act provides that the Secretary may prescribe requirements
for: (1) qualifications and maximum hours of service of employees of,
and safety of operation and equipment of, a motor carrier [49 U.S.C.
31502(b)(1)]; and (2) qualifications and maximum hours of service of
employees of, and standards of equipment of, a motor private carrier,
when needed to promote safety of operation [49 U.S.C. 31502(b)(2)].
These proposed amendments are based on the Secretary's authority to
regulate the safety and standards of equipment of for-hire and private
motor carriers.
    The 1984 Act gives the Secretary concurrent authority to regulate
CMVs and the drivers and motor carriers that operate them, as well as
the vehicles themselves [49 U.S.C. 31136(a)]. Section 31136(a) requires
the Secretary to publish regulations on CMV safety. Specifically, the
Act sets forth minimum safety standards to ensure that: (1) CMVs are
maintained, equipped, loaded, and operated safely [49 U.S.C.
31136(a)(1)]; (2) the responsibilities imposed on operators of CMVs do
not impair their ability to operate the vehicles safely [49 U.S.C.
31136(a)(2)]; (3) the physical condition of CMV operators is adequate
to enable them to operate the vehicles safely [49 U.S.C. 31136(a)(3)];
and (4) the operation of CMVs does not have a deleterious effect on the
physical condition of the operators [49 U.S.C. 31136(a)(4)]. Section
32911 of the Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (MAP-21)
[Pub. L. 112-141, 126 Stat. 405, 818, July 6, 2012] enacted a fifth
requirement, i.e., that the regulations ensure that ``(5) an operator
of a commercial motor vehicle is not coerced by a motor carrier,
shipper, receiver, or transportation intermediary to operate a
commercial motor vehicle in violation of a regulation promulgated under
this section, or chapter 51 [Transportation of Hazardous Material] or
chapter 313 [Commercial Motor Vehicle Operators] of this title'' [49
U.S.C. 31136(a)(5)].
    This proposed rule would prohibit U.S-domiciled motor carriers from
operating CMVs that are not appropriately labeled to document that they
met all applicable FMVSS in effect at the time of manufacture. Motor
carriers could continue to purchase foreign vehicles for importation
into the United States, but NHTSA requires these vehicles to have
documentation and labels to verify that they have been modified to
comply with the applicable FMVSS. Because FMCSA has exercised its
statutory authority to include cross-references to the FMVSS in the
FMCSRs, this rulemaking is consistent with 49 U.S.C. 31136(a)(1). This
proposed rule does not impact the responsibilities or physical
condition of drivers as contemplated by 49 U.S.C. 31136(a)(2) and (3),
respectively, and deals with 49 U.S.C. 31136(a)(4) only to the extent
that a vehicle operated in accordance with the safety regulations is
less likely to have a deleterious effect on the physical condition of a
driver. Because both: (1) the number of vehicles operated by U.S.-
domiciled motor carriers without an FMVSS certification label; and (2)
the cost of demonstrating FMVSS compliance through a letter from the
vehicle manufacturer, are expected to be small, the Agency believes
that the number of drivers who might be coerced to operate CMVs that do
not comply with this rule is de minimis, and may be zero. FMCSA has
considered the costs and benefits of the rule, as required by 49 U.S.C.
31136(c)(2)(A) and 31502(d).

IV. Background

    Part 567 of title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations (49 CFR
part 567) requires that manufacturers of motor vehicles built for sale
or use in the U.S. must affix a label certifying that the motor vehicle
meets all applicable FMVSS in effect on the date of manufacture.\2\
Part 567 provides detailed requirements concerning the location of and
information to be displayed on the label. These requirements are
applicable to manufacturers of CMVs produced for use in the U.S. The
label must be affixed prior to the first sale of the CMV.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ These standards are codified in 49 CFR part 571. Most, but
not all, of the FMVSS are cross-referenced in existing requirements
of part 393.

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

    The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (Vehicle Safety
Act) (49 U.S.C. 30101, et seq.) expressly prohibits vehicles from being
imported into the U.S. unless the vehicles--
    (a) Comply with all applicable FMVSS in effect on the date of
manufacture, and
    (b) Bear a label certifying compliance with the FMVSS and applied
to the vehicle either by a manufacturer at the time of manufacture or
by a DOT Registered Importer after the vehicle has been brought into
compliance.\3\ This statutory requirement is currently codified at 49
U.S.C. 30112 and implemented in NHTSA's regulations codified at 49 CFR
parts 567 and 571.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ An individual or business registered with NHTSA as an
importer may import non-complying motor vehicles into the United
States if NHTSA has determined that the vehicles are capable of
being readily altered to comply with all applicable standards in
effect at the time the vehicle is imported. The registered importer
must provide the Federal Government with a bond at least equal to
the dutiable value of the vehicle before it can be imported and must
bring the vehicle into full compliance before the vehicle may be
sold and the bond released.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Under this proposal, all motor carriers operating in interstate
commerce, including Mexico- and Canada-domiciled motor carriers, would
continue to be responsible for complying with FMCSA's vehicle-related
requirements in 49 CFR part 393, including the specific safety features
and equipment mandated by the FMVSS and cross-referenced in part 393.
Under FMCSA's Motor Carrier Safety Assistance Program, FMCSA and its
State and local partners conduct more than 3 million roadside
inspections each year on vehicles domiciled in the U.S., Mexico, and
Canada operating in interstate commerce. Enforcement of the FMCSRs, and
by extension the FMVSS they cross-reference, is the bedrock of these
compliance activities, and helps ensure that all CMVs on U.S. highways
are in safe and proper operating condition.

National Transportation Safety Board Recommendations

    On December 8, 2009, the NTSB issued a series of recommendations to
the Office of the Secretary of Transportation, FMCSA, and NHTSA
concerning measures to ensure that CMVs operated in the U.S. are
manufactured to comply with the applicable FMVSS. The recommendations
were included in the NTSB's highway crash report titled ``Motorcoach
Rollover on U.S. Highway 59 near Victoria, Texas on January 2, 2008''
(HAR-09/03/SUM, PB2009-916203). A copy of the report is included in the
docket referenced at the beginning of this notice.
    During its investigation of this crash, NTSB discovered that the
motorcoach did not display an FMVSS certification label despite being
registered in the U.S. While there is no indication that the absence of
the FMVSS certification contributed to the crash, the NTSB noted the
safety vulnerability of allowing vehicles without that certification to
operate on the Nation's highways. This rulemaking would help to address
the problem of U.S.-domiciled motor carriers acquiring and operating
CMVs that were neither manufactured for sale nor modified for use in
this country.

Effect of the Certification Label Requirements on U.S.-Domiciled Motor
Carrier Operations

    Generally, U.S.-domiciled motor carriers operating CMVs (as defined
in 49 CFR 390.5) in interstate commerce have access to vehicles that
were either originally manufactured domestically for use in the U.S.
and have the required certification label, or were imported in
accordance with the applicable NHTSA importation regulations. Imported
vehicles must have the required label certifying the vehicle is in
compliance with the applicable FMVSS. Therefore, most vehicles operated
by U.S.-domiciled motor carriers should have certification labels that
meet the requirements of 49 CFR part 567.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ The FMVSS and the certification label requirement are not
applicable to vehicles or items of equipment manufactured for, and
sold directly to, the Armed Forces of the United States in
conformance with contract specifications (49 CFR 571.7). Therefore,
when a motor carrier purchases surplus equipment from the Armed
Forces for subsequent use in interstate commerce, the vehicle may
not have a certification label. However, because the FMCSRs cross-
reference most of the FMVSS, the motor carrier would be required to
ensure that the vehicle was retrofitted to meet the referenced
standards, as well as all applicable motor carrier regulations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

FMCSA's Safety Responsibility

    NHTSA and FMCSA have complementary responsibilities to ensure
vehicle safety under their respective enabling legislation. NHTSA's
responsibility generally covers the design and safety compliance
testing of motor vehicles by manufacturers and others responsible for
those activities. FMCSA's responsibility concerns the safe operation of
CMVs in interstate commerce, and the regulatory compliance of motor
carriers and drivers conducting such operations. Generally, enforcement
of the FMCSRs by FMCSA and its State partners is accomplished through
roadside inspections. Under current roadside inspection enforcement
procedures, if violations or deficiencies of the FMCSRs are serious
enough to meet the current out-of-service criteria, the vehicle is
prohibited from operating until the problems are corrected. The
roadside inspection procedures are the same for all CMVs operated in
the U.S., regardless of the motor carrier's country of domicile.
    If FMCSA adopts the proposed rule, the Agency and its State
partners would then be able to enforce the prohibition in 49 U.S.C.
30112 against the use or importation of non-compliant CMVs by citing
U.S.-domiciled motor carriers that fail to display the required
certification label. Enforcement action would be taken in a manner
consistent with FMCSA's existing compliance policies and programs on
vehicle-oriented regulations under 49 CFR part 393.\5\ As it does with
other violations of the FMCSRs, the Agency would compile data regarding
uncertified vehicles and determine whether there are patterns of non-
compliance by specific U.S.-domiciled interstate motor carriers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ In other words, failure to display a certification label
could result in a citation and fine during a roadside inspection, or
a civil penalty as a result of a compliance review. Under the
current out-of-service criteria, it would not constitute grounds to
place a vehicle out of service in the absence of vehicle defects
meeting those criteria.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

V. Discussion of the Proposed Rule

    FMCSA is proposing to amend the FMCSRs to require that U.S.-
domiciled motor carriers ensure that their CMVs have a certification
label affixed to the vehicle by the vehicle manufacturer or by a DOT
Registered Importer that meets the requirements of 49 CFR part 567. If
a CMV operated by a U.S.-domiciled motor carrier is missing the
certification label because of vehicle damage, deliberate removal, or
other reasons, the motor carrier must obtain, and a driver must upon
demand present, a letter issued by the vehicle manufacturer stating
that the vehicle satisfied all applicable FMVSS in effect at the time
of manufacture. As explained above, U.S.-domiciled motor carriers
typically would have access only to vehicles that meet the applicable
FMVSS and display a certification label that meets the requirements of
49 CFR part 567. Therefore, FMCSA does not expect that motor carriers
would have to change the way they operate to comply with the
requirements proposed today. However, the proposed rule would require
U.S.-domiciled motor carriers to maintain the label affixed by the
manufacturer or DOT Registered Importer or other documentation that
confirms the CMV was manufactured per the applicable

FMVSS. The Agency seeks comment on potential costs involved to replace
the label in the instance of damage or other loss.

VI. Regulatory Analyses

Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review and DOT
Regulatory Policies and Procedures as Supplemented by E.O. 13563)

    FMCSA has determined that this proposed rule is not a significant
regulatory action within the meaning of Executive Order (E.O.) 12866,
as supplemented by E.O. 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011), or within
the meaning of DOT regulatory policies and procedures (DOT Order 2100.5
dated May 22, 1980; 44 FR 11034, February 2, 1979). The Agency believes
the potential economic impact is negligible because vehicles
manufactured for sale and use in the United States have FMVSS
certification labels or can be confirmed as being FMVSS-compliant by
the manufacturer through a comparison of the vehicle's VIN and the
manufacturer's production records. While a U.S.-domiciled carrier may
occasionally obtain a vehicle that does not have an FMVSS
certification, the Agency believes this practice would occur less
frequently under the proposed rule. As such, the costs of the rule
would not begin to approach the $100 million annual threshold for
economic significance. Moreover, the Agency does not expect the rule to
generate substantial congressional or public interest. This proposed
rule therefore has not been formally reviewed by the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB).

Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.)
requires Federal agencies to consider the effects of the regulatory
action on small business and other small entities and to minimize any
significant economic impact. The term ``small entities'' comprises
small businesses and not-for-profit organizations that are
independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields
and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000.
Accordingly, DOT policy requires an analysis of the impact of all
regulations on small entities and mandates that agencies strive to
lessen any adverse effects on these businesses.
    Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act, as amended by the Small
Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Title II, Pub. L.
104-121, 110 Stat. 857, March 29, 1996), FMCSA does not expect the
proposed rule to have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities. For those entities affected by this proposed
rule, in the absence of definitive data on the cost to demonstrate
FMVSS compliance at the time of manufacture for an otherwise FMVSS-
compliant vehicle, FMCSA assumes the cost is minimal and poses no
disproportionate burden to small entities.

Assistance for Small Entities

    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996, FMCSA wants to assist small entities in
understanding this proposed rule so that they can better evaluate its
effects on them and participate in the rulemaking initiative. If the
proposed rule would affect your small business, organization, or
governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its
provisions or options for compliance, please consult the FMCSA point of
contact listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of the
proposed rule.
    Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal
employees who enforce or otherwise determine compliance with Federal
regulations to the Small Business Administration's Small Business and
Agriculture Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small
Business Regulatory Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these
actions annually and rates each agency's responsiveness to small
business. If you wish to comment on actions by employees of FMCSA, call
1-888-REG-FAIR (1-888-734-3247). DOT has a policy ensuring the rights
of small entities to regulatory enforcement fairness and an explicit
policy against retaliation for exercising these rights.

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

    This proposed rule would not impose an unfunded Federal mandate, as
defined by the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1532 et
seq.), that would result in the expenditure by State, local, and tribal
governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $151
million (which is the value of $100 million in 2012 after adjusting for
inflation) or more in any 1 year.

Executive Order 13132 (Federalism)

    A rule has Federalism implications if it has a substantial direct
effect on State or local governments and would either preempt State law
or impose a substantial direct cost of compliance on the States. FMCSA
has analyzed this proposed rule under Executive Order 13132 and
determined that it does not have Federalism implications.

Executive Order 12988 (Civil Justice Reform)

    This proposed rule meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and
3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize
litigation, eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden.

Executive Order 13045 (Protection of Children)

    E.O. 13045, Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks
and Safety Risks (62 FR 19885, Apr. 23, 1997), requires agencies
issuing ``economically significant'' rules, if the regulation also
concerns an environmental health or safety risk that an agency has
reason to believe may disproportionately affect children, to include an
evaluation of the regulation's environmental health and safety effects
on children. The Agency determined this proposed rule is not
economically significant. Therefore, no analysis of the impacts on
children is required. In any event, the Agency does not anticipate that
this regulatory action could in any respect present an environmental or
safety risk that could disproportionately affect children.

Executive Order 12630 (Taking of Private Property)

    FMCSA reviewed this notice of proposed rulemaking in accordance
with Executive Order 12630, Governmental Actions and Interference with
Constitutionally Protected Property Rights, and has determined it will
not effect a taking of private property or otherwise have taking
implications.

Privacy Impact Assessment

    Section 522 of title I of division H of the Consolidated
Appropriations Act, 2005, enacted December 8, 2004 (Pub. L. 108-447,
118 Stat. 2809, 3268, 5 U.S.C. 552a note), requires the Agency to
conduct a privacy impact assessment of a regulation that will affect
the privacy of individuals. This rule does not require the collection
of any personally identifiable information.
    The Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. 552a) applies only to Federal agencies
and any non-Federal agency that receives records contained in a system
of records from a Federal agency for use in a matching program. FMCSA
has determined this proposed rule will not result in a new or revised
Privacy Act System of Records for FMCSA.

Executive Order 12372 (Intergovernmental Review)

    The regulations implementing Executive Order 12372 regarding
intergovernmental consultation on Federal programs and activities do
not apply to this program.

Paperwork Reduction Act

    Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501 et
seq.), Federal agencies must obtain approval from OMB for each
collection of information they conduct, sponsor, or require through
regulations. FMCSA determined that no new information collection
requirements are associated with this NPRM. The information collection
requirements associated with FMVSS certification labels are covered by
NHTSA under OMB Control Number 2127-0512, ``Consolidated Labeling
Requirements for Motor Vehicles (Except the VIN Numbers).''

National Environmental Policy Act and Clean Air Act

    FMCSA analyzed this proposed rule in accordance with the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) and
determined under our environmental procedures Order 5610.1 (69 FR 9680,
March 1, 2004) that this action does not have any effect on the quality
of the environment. Therefore, this NPRM is categorically excluded (CE)
from further analysis and documentation in an environmental assessment
or environmental impact statement under FMCSA Order 5610.1, paragraph
6(b) of Appendix 2. The CE under paragraph 6(b) addresses rulemakings
that make editorial or other minor amendments to existing FMCSA
regulations. A Categorical Exclusion Determination is available for
inspection or copying in the Regulations.gov Web site listed under
ADDRESSES.
    FMCSA also analyzed this proposed rule under the Clean Air Act, as
amended (CAA), section 176(c) (42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.), and
implementing regulations promulgated by the Environmental Protection
Agency. Approval of this action is exempt from the CAA's general
conformity requirement since it does not affect direct or indirect
emissions of criteria pollutants.

Executive Order 12898 (Environmental Justice)

    Under E.O. 12898, each Federal agency must identify and address, as
appropriate, ``disproportionately high and adverse human health or
environmental effects of its programs, policies, and activities on
minority populations and low-income populations'' in the United States,
its possessions, and territories. FMCSA evaluated the environmental
justice effects of this proposed rule in accordance with the E.O., and
has determined that no environmental justice issue is associated with
this proposed rule, nor is there any collective environmental impact
that would result from its promulgation.

Executive Order 13211 (Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use)

    FMCSA has analyzed this proposed rule under Executive Order 13211,
Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use. FMCSA has determined that it is not a
``significant energy action'' under that executive order because it is
not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive Order 12866 and
is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply,
distribution, or use of energy. Therefore, this proposed rule does not
require a Statement of Energy Effects under Executive Order 13211.

Executive Order 13175 (Indian Tribal Governments)

    This proposed rule does not have tribal implications under
Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal
Governments, because it does not have a substantial direct effect on
one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal
Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.

National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

    The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (15 U.S.C. 272
note) requires Federal agencies proposing to adopt technical standards
to consider whether voluntary consensus standards are available. If the
Agency chooses to adopt its own standards in place of existing
voluntary consensus standards, it must explain its decision in a
separate statement to OMB. Because this NPRM does not involve the
adoption of FMCSA technical standards, there is no need to submit a
separate statement to OMB on this matter.

E-Government Act of 2002

    The E-Government Act of 2002, Public Law 107-347, section 208, 116
Stat. 2899, 2921 (Dec. 17, 2002), requires Federal agencies to conduct
a privacy impact assessment for new or substantially changed technology
that collects, maintains, or disseminates information in an
identifiable form. No new or substantially changed technology would
collect, maintain, or disseminate information as a result of this
proposed rule. As a result, FMCSA has not conducted a privacy impact
assessment.

List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 393

    Highway safety, Motor carriers, Motor vehicle safety.

    For the reasons stated above, FMCSA proposes to amend title 49,
Code of Federal Regulations, chapter III, subchapter B part 393, as
follows:

PART 393--PARTS AND ACCESSORIES NECESSARY FOR SAFE OPERATION

0
1. The authority citation for part 393 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 31136, 31151, and 31502; sec. 1041(b) of
Pub. L. 102-240, 105 Stat. 1914, 1993 (1991); and 49 CFR 1.87.

0
2. Add Sec.  393.8 to subpart A to read as follows:

Sec.  393.8  Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard Certification
Labels.

    (a) Each commercial motor vehicle operated by a U.S.-domiciled
motor carrier, as indicated by its principal place of business, must be
built or modified to meet all applicable Federal Motor Vehicle Safety
Standards (FMVSS) (codified in 49 CFR part 571). The requirements must
be satisfied by:
    (1) A label affixed by the vehicle manufacturer certifying that the
vehicle was built to meet all applicable FMVSS in effect on the date of
manufacture; or
    (2) A label affixed by a DOT Registered Importer, as defined in 49
CFR part 592, certifying that the vehicle has been modified to conform
to all applicable FMVSS in effect on the date of manufacture; or
    (3) A letter issued by the vehicle manufacturer stating that the
vehicle satisfied all applicable FMVSS in effect at the time of
manufacture.
    (b) The certification labels required by this section must comply
with the requirements of 49 CFR part 567.

    Issued under the authority of delegation in 49 CFR 1.87 on: May
27, 2015.
T.F. Scott Darling, III,
Chief Counsel.
[FR Doc. 2015-14934 Filed 6-16-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P