[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 86 (Friday, May 3, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 26096-26099]
[FR Doc No: 2013-10445]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-69471; File No. SR-Phlx-2013-09]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NASDAQ OMX PHLX LLC; Order
Approving Proposed Rule Change To Enhance the Functionality Offered on
the Options Floor Broker Management System (``FBMS'') by, Among Other
Things, Automating Functions Currently Performed by Floor Brokers

April 29, 2013.

I. Introduction

    On February 6, 2013, NASDAQ OMX PHLX LLC (``Phlx'' or ``Exchange'')
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission''),
pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ a proposed rule change to
enhance the functionality offered on the Options Floor Broker
Management System (``FBMS'') by, among other things, automating
functions currently performed by Floor Brokers manually. The proposed
rule change was published for comment in the Federal Register on
February 26, 2013.\3\ On April 12, 2013, the Exchange extended the time
for Commission action to April 29, 2013. The Commission received no
comment letters on the proposal. This order approves the proposed rule
change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 68960 (February 20,
2013), 78 FR 13132.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Description of the Proposal

    Exchange options Floor Brokers are registered with the Exchange for
the purpose, while on the options floor, of accepting and executing
options orders received from members and member organizations.\4\
Historically, Floor Brokers received orders at their booths on the
trading floor and executed such orders manually and in person. The
implementation of the Consolidated Options Audit Trail System
(``COATS'') in 2000 required the capture of certain options order
information, including the time of order receipt and execution,
contemporaneously with receipt and execution.\5\ As a result of these
changes, the Exchange introduced FBMS, a component of the Exchange's
electronic trading system, Phlx XL. FBMS enables Floor Brokers and/or
their employees to enter, route, and report transactions stemming from
options orders received on the Exchange. FBMS also establishes an
electronic audit trail for options orders represented by Floor Brokers
on the Exchange. Floor Brokers can use FBMS to submit orders, including
Complex Orders,\6\ to Phlx XL, rather than executing the orders in the
trading crowd. Orders submitted through FBMS are processed like any
other electronic order on the Exchange. Floor Brokers may use FBMS to
submit orders for a variety of reasons, including that the order is far
away from the market such that the Floor Broker would prefer to place
it on the electronic book or that there is a contra-side order on the
book with which the order can trade.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See Exchange Rule 1060. A floor broker who is the nominee of
a member organization qualified to transact business with the public
may accept orders from public customers of the member organization.
See id.
    \5\ See In the Matter of Certain Activities of Options
Exchanges, Administrative Proceeding File No. 3-10282, Securities
Exchange Act Release No. 43268 (September 11, 2000) (Order
Instituting Public Administrative Proceedings Pursuant to Section
19(h)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, Making Findings and
Imposing Remedial Sanctions) (``Options Settlement Order'').
    \6\ Complex Orders are defined in Phlx Rule 1080.08.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange proposes to make several changes to FBMS.

A. Order Execution in FBMS

    The Exchange proposes to enhance FBMS functionalities. Currently,
FBMS is a system that is primarily used by Floor Brokers to enter
orders and report executed transactions. The Exchange proposes to
expand FBMS such that it would become an order execution system as
well.
    As proposed, all options transactions on the Exchange would be
executed: (1) automatically by Phlx XL; (2) by and among members in the
trading crowd (as long as none of them is a Floor Broker); or (3)
through the FBMS for trades involving at least one Floor Broker.\7\ The
Exchange proposes three exceptions that would allow Floor Brokers to
execute orders manually: (1) If the Exchange determines to permit
manual executions in the event of a problem with Exchange systems; (2)
Floor Brokers are handling accommodation transactions \8\ or FLEX
trades; \9\ or (3) where an order has more than 15 legs.\10\ The
Exchange also proposes to amend its rules to state that certain trades
executed by Floor Brokers pursuant to Rule 1064--namely, crossing,
facilitation, and solicited orders--must be executed through the
FBMS.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See proposed Phlx Rule 1000(f).
    \8\ As explained in Phlx Rule 1059, specialists--and not FBMS--
execute accommodation transactions made pursuant to cabinet trading.
    \9\ FLEX orders will continue to be executable by Floor Brokers
in the trading crowd pursuant to Exchange Rules 1079 and 1079A,
rather than through FBMS because FBMS will not be able to accept
FLEX orders, which have varied and complicated terms. Similarly,
accommodation transactions (also known as cabinet trades) will
continue to be executable by Floor Brokers in the trading crowd
pursuant to Exchange Rule 1059. According to the Exchange, neither
FLEX nor accommodation transactions are executed through Exchange
systems today.
    \10\ The Exchange proposes to limit the complexity of FBMS
functionality and does not believe that many orders fall into this
category or that Floor Brokers would be adversely affected.
    \11\ In addition to making these changes to Rule 1064, the
Exchange also proposes to delete Advice B-11, which generally tracks
the language of Rule 1064. In addition to generally repeating the
substance of Rule 1064, the Exchange noted that Advice B-11 does not
contain fine schedules adopted pursuant to the Exchange's minor rule
enforcement and reporting plan, unlike other Advices.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In connection with the proposal to add order execution functions to
FBMS, the Exchange is proposing to add new subsection (g) to Exchange
Rule 1000. The proposed rule would require bids and offers to either be
entered electronically or made by public outcry in the trading
crowd.\12\ The Exchange also proposes to define public outcry. As
proposed, a member shall be considered to be ``in'' on a bid or offer
while the member remains at the post, unless the member distinctly and
audibly states ``out.'' \13\ A member bidding and offering in immediate
and rapid succession shall be deemed ``in'' until the member shall
state ``out'' on either bid or offer.\14\ Once the crowd has provided a
quote, it will remain in effect until: (A) A reasonable amount of time
has passed; or (B) there is a significant change in the price of the
underlying security; or (C) the market given in response to the request
has been improved.\15\ With respect to orders involving a Floor Broker
using FBMS to execute an order, a member must audibly say ``out''
before the Floor Broker submits the order into the FBMS for execution
and, if the order is not executed, the member must audibly say ``out''
before each time the Floor Broker resubmits the order for
execution.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ See proposed Exchange Rule 1000(g). The proposed rule would
also require all bids and offers to be general and not be specified
for acceptance by particular members. See id.
    \13\ See proposed Exchange Rule 1000(g).
    \14\ See id.
    \15\ See id. In the case of a dispute, the term ``significant
change'' would be interpreted on a case-by-case basis by an Options
Exchange Official based upon the extent of the recent trading in the
option and, in the case of equity and index options, in the
underlying security, and any other relevant factors.
    \16\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In connection with order execution, the Exchange also proposes to
allow FBMS to execute two-sided orders entered by Floor Brokers,
including multi-leg orders up to 15 legs, after the

Floor Broker has represented the orders in the trading crowd.\17\ When
a Floor Broker submits an order for execution through FBMS, the order
would be executed based on market conditions and in accordance with
Exchange rules.\18\ FBMS execution functionality would assist the Floor
Broker in clearing the Exchange book, consistent with Exchange priority
rules.\19\ If the order cannot be executed, Phlx XL would attempt to
execute the order a number of times for a period of no more than one
second, which period shall be established by the Exchange and announced
by Options Trader Alert, after which the order would be returned to the
Floor Broker on the FBMS.\20\ The Floor Broker may resubmit the order
for execution, as long as the quotes/orders that comprise the cross
have not been withdrawn.\21\ Floor Brokers are responsible for handling
all FBMS orders in accordance with Exchange priority and trade-through
rules, including Exchange Rules 1014, 1033 and 1084.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ See proposed Exchange Rule 1063(e)(iv).
    \18\ See id.
    \19\ See id.
    \20\ See id.
    \21\ See id.
    \22\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Complex Calculator Function in FBMS

    The Exchange proposes to provide Floor Brokers with an enhanced
FBMS functionality called the complex calculator.\23\ FBMS would
calculate and display a suggested price of each individual component of
a multi-leg order, up to 15 legs, submitted on a net debit or credit
basis.\24\ The Exchange stated that this functionality should
substantially increase the speed with which Floor Brokers could
ascertain the marketability of multi-leg orders at a specified net
debit or credit price, and should result in more efficient executions
in the trading crowd.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ See proposed Exchange Rule 1063(e)(iii).
    \24\ See id. According to the Exchange, FBMS currently accepts
up to 20 legs of a complex order. The Exchange believes that
limiting the proposed complex calculator to 15 legs should be
sufficient for Floor Brokers' current business needs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Additionally, the Exchange proposes to change the manner in which
Complex Orders are entered into FBMS. Currently, Floor Brokers may
enter Complex Orders, as defined in Rule 1080.08, consisting of two
option legs into FBMS for execution using the Complex Order
functionality of Phlx XL, pursuant to Rule 180.08(b)(iii). The Exchange
proposes to allow Complex Orders consisting of up to six legs (one of
which may be stock) to be entered through FBMS.\25\ According to the
Exchange, this functionality should assist Floor Brokers in pricing
multi-leg orders for representation in the trading crowd, as well as
with pricing multi-leg orders for submission for execution as a two-
sided order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ See proposed Exchange Rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. Multi-Leg Order Spread Type Priority

    The Exchange proposes to apply a new spread priority to certain
multi-leg orders that are submitted to FBMS. This priority, which is
the same as the priority set forth in Rule 1080.08(c)(iii) that applies
to complex orders in Phlx XL, will apply to multi-leg orders that meet
the definition of a Complex Order as set forth in Rule 1080.08. This
priority will also apply to multi-leg orders that contain a conforming
ratio that complies with the conforming ratio set forth in Rule
1080.08(a)(ix).\26\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ As set forth in Rule 1080.08(a)(ix), a conforming ratio
``is where the ratio between the sizes of the options components of
a Complex Order is equal to or greater than one-to-three (.333) and
less than or equal to three-to-one (3.00).''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As set forth in proposed Rule 1033(i), Spread Type Orders \27\
consisting of a conforming ratio may be executed at a total credit or
debit price with priority over individual bids or offers established in
the marketplace (including customers) that are not better than the bids
or offers comprising such total credit or debit, provided that at least
one option leg is executed at a better price than the established bid
or offer for that option contract and no option leg is executed at a
price outside of the established bid or offer for that option contract.
Because certain orders will continue to be executed on the floor and
not through FBMS, the Exchange is retaining Rules 1033 (d), (e), (g),
and (h), which effectively require one leg of a spread to be improved
for every two legs of a multi-leg order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ A spread type order includes a spread, straddle and
combination order and is an order to buy a stated number of option
contracts and to sell a stated number of option contracts in a
different series of the same option and may be bid for or offered on
a total net debit or credit basis. See Exchange Rule 1066(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

D. Additional Changes

    The Exchange proposes to amend Exchange Rule 1014(g)(vi) and Option
Floor Procedure Advice F-2, which pertain to how trades are allocated,
matched and time stamped. Currently, trades executed electronically via
Phlx XL are automatically trade reported without further action
required by the executing parties. As proposed, trades executed
electronically through FBMS are also automatically reported.
    The Exchange also proposes to amend Exchange Rule 1066, Certain
Types of Orders Defined, and rename it ``Certain Types of Floor-Based
(Non-Phlx XL) Orders Defined'' to make clear that the order types in
the rule reflect what can be traded on the floor. The order types that
are handled and executed automatically by Phlx XL appear in Exchange
Rule 1080. The Exchange is also proposing introductory language
specifically stating that these order types are eligible for entry by a
Floor Broker for execution through FBMS and, with respect to
transactions when there is no Floor Broker involved, for execution by
members in the trading crowd. The Exchange also proposes to delete the
following order types, because FBMS will not accept these order types:
\28\ multi-part order, delta order, market-on-close order, and one-
cancels-the-other order.\29\ The Exchange stated that these order types
are being deleted because they are not easily automated and are rarely
used.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ The Exchange is also proposing to delete Exchange Rule
1033(i), Inter-Currency Spread Priority, because FBMS will not
handle multi-leg orders involving two different underlying
currencies.
    \29\ The Exchange is also deleting this order type in Exchange
Rule 1063(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange proposes to rename ``Hedge Order'' in Exchange Rule
1066(f) to ``Multi-leg Order,'' and make corresponding changes in
Exchange Rules 1033(d), 1063(e) and Option Floor Procedure Advices C-2
and F-14. A synthetic options order would be re-categorized as a type
of multi-leg order in Exchange Rule 1066(f)(5), rather than a separate
order type in Exchange Rule 1066(g). The definition and description of
an Intermarket Sweep Order would be moved from Exchange Rule 1066(i) to
Exchange Rule 1080.03 because such order is (and would continue to be)
only available on Phlx XL. Exchange Rule 1066(f) would also be amended
to add three new definitions--Spread Type Order; Complex Order (to help
distinguish between the multi-leg orders that also meet the definition
of Complex Order in Exchange Rule 1080.08 from those that do not); \30\
and DNA Order, which will now be submitted through FBMS. Exchange Rule
1066 would contain all of the order types available for open outcry
trading on the trading floor and through FBMS; Exchange Rule 1080
continues to govern the order types available through PHLX XL.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \30\ A spread type order, which can only be entered through
FBMS, can have up to 15 legs, while a Complex Order entered for
handling through PHLX XL can have up to six legs, each including the
underlying security.

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

E. Implementation

    The Exchange proposes to implement the enhancements with a trial
period of two to four weeks, to be determined by the Exchange, during
which the new FBMS enhancements and related rules would operate along
with the existing FBMS and rules. The Exchange seeks to begin
implementation on June 1, 2013.\31\ During this period, Floor Brokers
would still be able to execute orders verbally in the trading crowd and
submit the execution reports through FBMS, like they do currently.
Floor Brokers would also be able to use the new FBMS to execute trades.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \31\ Phlx confirmed that the implementation of FBMS will begin
on June 1, 2013. See email from Edith Hallahan, Phlx, to Dhawal
Sharma, Attorney Advisor, Division of Trading and Markets,
Commission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Discussion and Commission Findings

    After careful consideration, the Commission finds that the proposed
rule change is consistent with the requirements of the Act and rules
and regulations thereunder applicable to a national securities
exchange.\32\ In particular, the Commission finds that the proposed
rule change is consistent with Section 6(b)(5) of the Act \33\ in that
it is designed to promote just and equitable principles of trade, to
remove impediments and to perfect the mechanism of a free and open
market and a national market system, and, in general, to protect
investors and the public interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \32\ In approving the proposed rule change, the Commission has
considered its impact on efficiency, competition, and capital
formation. See 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).
    \33\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange proposes to amend its rules to, among other things,
require Floor Brokers to execute orders via FBMS rather than manually
on the trading floor, unless one of the enumerated exceptions
applies.\34\ In part, the proposal would allow Floor Brokers to use
FBMS to cross orders, including multi-leg orders with up to 15 legs.
The Commission believes that such automation may benefit the Exchange,
its members and users, and other market participants by, for example,
producing more accurate and timely trade reporting. The Commission
believes that this proposal should allow Floor Brokers to better manage
orders and is reasonably designed to increase compliance with
applicable Commission rules and regulations and with Exchange rules.
For example, the FBMS would prohibit an execution of a two-sided order
if that cross would trade through a better price on the book or on
another market.\35\ Automating formerly manual trades should help
ensure that trades do not violate the priority of orders on the book or
trade through the NBBO.\36\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \34\ As part of these changes, the Exchange will delete Advice
B-11, which generally tracks the language of Rule 1064, which the
Exchange proposes to amend.
    \35\ The Exchange noted that Floor Brokers may choose not to
execute the cross if orders exist on the book that would prevent the
cross from executing. In this scenario, the FBMS would notify the
Floor Brokers that such orders on the book exist, and the Floor
Broker would have to exercise his discretion as to whether to
proceed.
    \36\ Also of relevance is Rule 155, which requires that ``a
Floor Broker handling an order is to use due diligence to execute
the order at the best price or prices available to him in accordance
with the Rules of the Exchange.'' The Commission notes that, with
the changes made to the FBMS and to the manner in which Floor
Brokers handle orders, Floor Brokers will still be obligated to
adhere to the principles articulated in Rule 155.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Moreover, the Commission finds that the enhanced functionality of
FBMS provided by the complex calculator, which would calculate and
display a suggested price of each individual component of a multi-leg
order, up to 15 legs, submitted on a net debit or credit basis, will
aid Floor Brokers in calculating the prices of the components of a
multi-leg order, which has the potential to increase the speed with
which Floor Brokers can represent such orders. Taken together, the
Commission believes that these changes will be beneficial to the market
as a whole by contributing to the efficient functioning of the
securities markets and the price discovery process and by contributing
to the efficient functioning of the securities markets.
    The Commission also finds that the proposed Spread Type Order
priority is consistent with the requirements of the Act. The FBMS would
validate that a multi-leg order meets the definition of Complex Order
(as defined in Exchange Rule 1080.08) and would apply the new spread
priority provision. If a multi-leg order does not meet the definition
of Complex Order because the multi-leg order has more than six legs,
then the proposed spread priority provision would nevertheless apply if
the multi-leg order has a conforming ratio (as defined in Exchange Rule
1080.08(a)(ix)). The Commission believes that the proposed Spread Type
Order priority could improve Floor Brokers' ability to execute multi-
leg orders, which could benefit investors and other market
participants. The Commission notes that other options exchanges have
similar complex order priority provisions for Complex Orders that do
not limit the number of legs and that require only one leg to be
improved.\37\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \37\ See, e.g., ISE Rule 722(b)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Additionally, the Commission finds that the Exchange's proposal to
amend Exchange Rule 1014(g)(vi) and Option Floor Procedure Advice F-2
so that trades executed electronically through FBMS will be
automatically reported (without further action required by executing
parties) is consistent with the requirements of the Act. Currently,
trades executed electronically via Phlx XL are automatically reported,
and the proposed change would ensure automatic reporting for trades
executed via FBMS. The Commission believes that this proposal will
benefit investors and other market participants by providing quicker
and more reliable confirmation of trade executions.
    The Commission also finds that the Exchange's proposed changes and
deletions to Exchange Rules 1033, 1063, 1066, and 1080 are consistent
with the Act. The Exchange is renaming Rule 1066 from ``Certain Types
of Orders Defined'' to ``Certain Types of Floor-Based (Non-Phlx XL)
Orders Defined,'' which the Commission believes will make clear to
investors and other market participants that the order types in the
rule reflect what can be traded on the floor. The Exchange is also
amending Rule 1080, which lists the order types that are handled and
executed automatically by Phlx XL, to provide introductory language
that specifically states that the listed order types are eligible
either for entry by a Floor Broker for execution through FBMS or for
execution by members in the trading crowd where the transaction does
not involve a Floor Broker. Additionally, the Exchange is deleting from
Rule 1066 several order types (multi-part order, delta order, market-
on-close order, and one-cancels-the-other order \38\) that are not
easily automated and rarely used. The Exchange is deleting from Rule
1033(i) the ``Inter-Currency Spread Priority'' because FBMS will not
handle multi-leg orders involving two different underlying currencies.
The Exchange is also renaming ``Hedge Order'' in Rule 1066(f) to
``Multi-leg Order,'' and making corresponding changes in Exchange Rules
1033(d), 1063(e), and the Option Floor Procedure Advices C-2 and F-14.
Additionally, a synthetic options order would be re-categorized as a
type of multi-leg order in Exchange Rule 1066(f)(5), rather than a
separate order type in Exchange Rule 1066(g). The definition and
description of an Intermarket Sweep Order would be

moved from Exchange Rule 1066(i) to Exchange Rule 1080.03 because such
order is (and would continue to be) only available on Phlx XL. Exchange
Rule 1066(f) would also be amended to add three new definitions--Spread
Type Order; Complex Order and DNA Order. The Commission believes that
these changes are consistent with and necessary in light of the changes
being made to FBMS, and are appropriate and beneficial to investors
because they update the Exchange's Rules and provide the investing
public with clearer information on order types available for execution
on the Exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \38\ The ``one-cancels-the-other order'' type is also being
deleted from Exchange Rule 1063(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission also finds that the addition of new subsection (g)
to Exchange Rule 1000 is consistent with the Act. Exchange Rule 1000(g)
would require bids and offers to either be entered electronically or
made by public outcry in the trading crowd. As described above, public
outcry is defined in Rule 1000(g). The Commission believes that the
additional clarity provided by Rule 1000(g) on how bids and offers are
made and maintained on the trading floor is appropriate because, in
light of the elimination of most Floor Broker verbal executions,
additional emphasis will be placed on how long a bid/offer is in
effect.
    The Commission finds that it is consistent with the Act for the
Exchange to begin implementation of the new FBMS enhancements and
related rules on June 1, 2013, with a two to four week trial period.
The Commission believes that this will provide Floor Brokers and other
market participants with an appropriate amount of time to familiarize
themselves with the changes, and, similarly, a trial period of two to
four weeks will allow the Exchange and market participants to work
together in making a transition from floor based executions to FBMS.

IV. Conclusion

    It is therefore ordered, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act
\39\ that the proposed rule change (SR-Phlx-2013-09) is approved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \39\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\40\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \40\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2013-10445 Filed 5-2-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 135 (Monday, July 15, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 42153-42155]
[FR Doc No: 2013-16792]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

[Docket No. NHTSA-2013-0074]

Decision That Certain Nonconforming Motor Vehicles Are Eligible
for Importation

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, DOT.

ACTION: Grant of petitions.

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

SUMMARY: This document announces decisions by NHTSA that certain motor
vehicles not originally manufactured to comply with all applicable
Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS) are eligible for
importation into the United States because they are substantially
similar to vehicles originally manufactured for sale in the United
States and certified by their manufacturers as complying with the
safety standards, and they are capable of being readily altered to
conform to the standards or because they have safety features that
comply with, or are capable of being altered to comply with, all
applicable FMVSS.

DATES: These decisions became effective on the dates specified in Annex
A.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Coleman Sachs, Office of Vehicle
Safety Compliance, NHTSA<PHONE_NUMBER>).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    Under 49 U.S.C. 30141(a)(1)(A), a motor vehicle that was not
originally manufactured to conform to all applicable FMVSS shall be
refused admission into the United States unless NHTSA has decided that
the motor vehicle is substantially similar to a motor vehicle
originally manufactured for importation into and/or sale in the United
States, certified under 49 U.S.C. 30115, and of the same model year as
the model of the motor vehicle to be compared, and is capable of being

readily altered to conform to all applicable FMVSS.
    Where there is no substantially similar U.S.-certified motor
vehicle, 49 U.S.C. 30141(a)(1)(B) permits a nonconforming motor vehicle
to be admitted into the United States if its safety features comply
with, or are capable of being altered to comply with, all applicable
FMVSS based on destructive test data or such other evidence as NHTSA
decides to be adequate.
    Petitions for eligibility decisions may be submitted by either
manufacturers or importers who have registered with NHTSA pursuant to
49 CFR part 592. As specified in 49 CFR 593.7, NHTSA publishes notice
in the Federal Register of each petition that it receives, and affords
interested persons an opportunity to comment on the petition. At the
close of the comment period, NHTSA decides, on the basis of the
petition and any comments that it has received, whether the vehicle is
eligible for importation. The agency then publishes this decision in
the Federal Register.
    NHTSA received petitions from registered importers to decide
whether the vehicles listed in Annex A to this notice are eligible for
importation into the United States. To afford an opportunity for public
comment, NHTSA published notice of these petitions as specified in
Annex A. The reader is referred to those notices for a thorough
description of the petitions.
    Comments: No substantive comments were received in response to 16
of the 17 petitions identified in Appendix A. In response to the
remaining petition, which covers 2004 model year Ford F-150 Crew Cab
trucks that were manufactured for the Mexican Market (Docket No NHTSA-
2012-0162), the Ford Motor Company stated in pertinent part:

    Vehicles that are designed and manufactured for export to
markets outside of the United States are not necessarily tested for
compliance to all FMVSS requirements, unless the particular export
markets have entirely equivalent safety standards. Therefore, Ford
can neither confirm nor deny that a 2004 F-150 Crew Cab manufactured
for sale in the Mexican Market would have complied with FMVSS No.
208 at the time it was manufactured.

    The petitioner, Mesa Auto Wholesalers, responded in pertinent part:

    We at Mesa auto wholesalers have carefully looked at both a 2004
Ford F-150 that was sold for the American market and the subject
vehicle, in our research we discovered that both vehicles were
exactly the same and therefore conformed to the standard FMVSS No.
208 both units had factory installed airbags and seatbelts for all
seating positions including outward and center seat positions in
both the front seat and the rear seat.

    NHTSA believes this response fully addresses the comment. The
agency also notes that the comment lacks sufficient specificity to
provide a basis for the denial of the petition.
    NHTSA Decision: Accordingly, on the basis of the foregoing, NHTSA
hereby decides that each motor vehicle listed in Annex A to this
notice, which was not originally manufactured to comply with all
applicable FMVSS, is either substantially similar to a motor vehicle
manufactured for importation into and/or sale in the United States, and
certified under 49 U.S.C. 30115, as specified in Annex A, and is
capable of being readily altered to conform to all applicable FMVSS or
has safety features that comply with, or are capable of being altered
to comply with, all applicable Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards.
    Vehicle Eligibility Number For Subject Vehicles: The importer of a
vehicle admissible under any final decision must indicate on the form
HS-7 accompanying entry the appropriate vehicle eligibility number
indicating that the vehicle is eligible for entry. Vehicle eligibility
numbers assigned to vehicles admissible under this decision are
specified in Annex A.

    Authority:  49 U.S.C. 30141(a)(1)(A), (a)(1)(B) and (b)(1); 49
CFR 593.7; delegations of authority at 49 CFR 1.50 and 501.7.

    Issued on: July 2, 2013.
Claude H. Harris,
Director, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance.

Annex A--Nonconforming Motor Vehicles Decided To Be Eligible for
Importation

1. Docket No. NHTSA-2013-0032

Nonconforming Vehicles: 2005, 2006 & 2007 BMW 5 Series Passenger
Cars Manufactured before September 1, 2006
Substantially Similar U.S. Certified Vehicles: 2005, 2006 & 2007 BMW
5 Series Passenger Cars Manufactured before September 1, 2006
Notice of Petition
    Published at: 78 FR 24463 (April 25, 2013)
Vehicle Eligibility Number: VSP-555 (effective date June 7, 2013)

2. Docket No. NHTSA-2013-0031

Nonconforming Vehicles: 1991 Volkswagen Transporter Multipurpose
Passenger Vehicles

Substantially Similar U.S. Certified Vehicles: 1991 Volkswagen
Transporter Multipurpose Passenger Vehicles
Notice of Petition
    Published at: 78 FR 22944 (April 17, 2013)
Vehicle Eligibility Number: VSP-554 (effective date June 7, 2013)

3. Docket No. NHTSA-2013-0022

Nonconforming Vehicles: 2010 BMW Z4 Passenger Cars
Substantially Similar U.S. Certified Vehicles: 2010 BMW Z4 Passenger
Cars
Notice of Petition
    Published at: 78 FR 20385 (April 4, 2013)
Vehicle Eligibility Number: VSP-553 (effective date May 28, 2013)

4. Docket No. NHTSA-2013-0015

Nonconforming Vehicles: 2012 Porsche GT3 RS Passenger Cars
Substantially Similar U.S. Certified Vehicles: 2012 Porsche GT3 RS
Passenger Cars
Notice of Petition
    Published at: 78 FR 20386 (April 4, 2013)
Vehicle Eligibility Number: VSP-552 (effective date May 21, 2013)

5. Docket No. NHTSA-2012-0164

Nonconforming Vehicles: 2007 Ford Escape Multipurpose Passenger
Vehicles Manufactured for the Mexican Market
Substantially Similar U.S. Certified Vehicles: Ford Escape
Multipurpose Passenger Vehicles
Notice of Petition
    Published at: 78 FR 20388 (April 4, 2013)
Vehicle Eligibility Number: VSP-551 (effective date May 20, 2013)

6. Docket No. NHTSA-2013-0016

Nonconforming Vehicles: 1992, 1993 & 1994 BMW 3 Series Passenger
Cars
Substantially Similar U.S. Certified Vehicles: 1992, 1993 & 1994 BMW
3 Series Passenger Cars
Notice of Petition
    Published at: 78 FR 19364 (March 29, 2013)
Vehicle Eligibility Number: VSP-550 (effective date May 6, 2013)

7. Docket No. NHTSA-2013-0012

Nonconforming Vehicles: 2005 Mercedes-Benz G Class (463 chassis)
Long-Wheelbase (LWB) Multipurpose Passenger Vehicles
Substantially Similar U.S. Certified Vehicles: 2005 Mercedes-Benz G
Class (463 chassis) Long-Wheelbase (LWB) Multipurpose Passenger
Vehicles
Notice of Petition
    Published at: 78 FR 10686 (February 14, 2013)
Vehicle Eligibility Number: VSP-549 (effective date April 22, 2013)

8. Docket No. NHTSA-2012-0162

Nonconforming Vehicles: 2004 Ford F-150 Crew Cab Trucks Manufactured
for the Mexican Market
Substantially Similar U.S. Certified Vehicles: 2004 Ford F-150 Crew
Cab Trucks
Notice of Petition
    Published at: 78 FR 13754 (February 28, 2013)
Vehicle Eligibility Number: VSP-548 (effective date April 17, 2013)

9. Docket No. NHTSA-2012-0161

Nonconforming Vehicles: 2003 Jeep Wrangler Multipurpose Passenger
Vehicles Manufactured for the Mexican Market
Substantially Similar U.S. Certified Vehicles: 2003 Jeep Wrangler
Multipurpose

Passenger Vehicles
Notice of Petition
    Published at: 78 FR 13755 (February 28, 2013)
Vehicle Eligibility Number: VSP-547 (effective date April 17, 2013)

10. Docket No. NHTSA-2013-0014

Nonconforming Vehicles: 1992 Porsche Carrera (964 Series) Passenger
Cars
Substantially Similar U.S. Certified Vehicles: 1992 Porsche Carrera
(964 Series) Passenger Cars
Notice of Petition
    Published at: 78 FR 10687 (February 14, 2013)
Vehicle Eligibility Number: VSP-546 (effective date March 26, 2013)

11. Docket No. NHTSA-2012-0163

Nonconforming Vehicles: 2005 Ferrari 612 Scaglietti Passenger Cars
Substantially Similar U.S. Certified Vehicles: 2005 Ferrari 612
Scaglietti Passenger Cars
Notice of Petition
    Published at: 77 FR 76599 (December 28, 2012)
Vehicle Eligibility Number: VSP-545 (effective date February 12,
2013)

12. Docket No. NHTSA-2012-0151

Nonconforming Vehicles: 2007 Chevrolet Corvette Passenger Cars
Substantially Similar U.S. Certified Vehicles: 2007 Chevrolet
Corvette Passenger Cars
Notice of Petition
    Published at: 77 FR 69539 (November 19, 2012)
Vehicle Eligibility Number: VSP-544 (effective date January 16,
2013)

13. Docket No. NHTSA-2012-0150

Nonconforming Vehicles: 2009 Porsche Cayenne S Multipurpose
Passenger Vehicles
Substantially Similar U.S. Certified Vehicles: 2009 Porsche Cayenne
S Multipurpose Passenger Vehicles
Notice of Petition
    Published at: 77 FR 67732 (November 13, 2012)
Vehicle Eligibility Number: VSP-543 (effective date January 16,
2013)

14. Docket No. NHTSA-2012-0160

Nonconforming Vehicles: 2009 Porsche 911 (997) Passenger Cars
Substantially Similar U.S. Certified Vehicles: 2009 Porsche 911
(997) passenger cars
Notice of Petition
    Published at: 77 FR 70541 (November 26, 2012)
Vehicle Eligibility Number: VSP-542 (effective date January 16,
2013)

15. Docket No. NHTSA-2012-0095

Nonconforming Vehicles: 2005 Chevrolet Suburban Multipurpose
Passenger Vehicles
Substantially Similar U.S. Certified Vehicles: 2005 Chevrolet
Suburban Multipurpose Passenger Vehicles
Notice of Petition
    Published at: 77 FR 46803 (August 6, 2012)
Vehicle Eligibility Number: VSP-541 (effective date November 27,
2012)

16. Docket No. NHTSA-2013-0035

Nonconforming Vehicles: 2011 Thule 3008 BL Boat Trailer
Because there are no substantially similar U.S.-certified version
2011 Thule 3008 BL Boat Trailer the petitioner sought import
eligibility under 49 U.S.C. 30141(a)(1)(B).
Notice of Petition:
    Published at: 78 FR 24464 (April 25, 2013)
Vehicle Eligibility Number: VCP-52 (effective date June 7, 2013)

17. Docket No. NHTSA-2012-0148

Nonconforming Vehicles: 1991 Mercedes-Benz G Class (463 chassis)
Multipurpose Passenger Vehicles
Because there are no substantially similar U.S.-certified version
1991 Mercedes-Benz G Class (463 chassis) Multipurpose Passenger
Vehicles the petitioner sought import eligibility under 49 U.S.C.
30141(a)(1)(B).
Notice of Petition
    Published at: 77 FR 65444 (October 26, 2012)
Vehicle Eligibility Number: VCP-51 (effective date December 11,
2012)

[FR Doc. 2013-16792 Filed 7-12-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P


[Federal Register: December 30, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 250)]
[Notices]
[Page 77382-77384]
[DOCID:fr30de05-45]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2005-0231; FRL-7754-7]

Metaldehyde Risk Assessments; Notice of Availability and Risk
Reduction Options

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice announces the availability of EPA's risk
assessments, and related documents for the pesticide metaldehyde, and
opens a public comment period on these documents. The public is
encouraged to suggest risk management ideas or proposals to address the
risks identified. EPA is developing a Reregistration Eligibility
Decision (RED) for metaldehyde through a modified, 4-Phase public
participation process that the Agency uses to involve the public in
developing pesticide reregistration and tolerance reassessment
decisions. Through these programs, EPA is ensuring that all pesticides
meet current health and safety standards.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before February 28, 2006.

ADDRESSES:  Comments identified by docket identification (ID) number
EPA-HQ-OPP-2005-0231, may be submitted electronically, by mail, or
through hand delivery/courier. Follow the detailed instructions as
provided in Unit I. of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:  Jill Bloom, Special Review and
Reregistration Division (7508C), Office of Pesticide Programs,
Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW.,
Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax
number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. Does this Action Apply to Me?

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

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

    1. Docket. EPA has established an official public docket for this
action under docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2005-0231. The official public
docket consists of the documents specifically referenced in this
action, any public comments received, and other information related to
this action. Although a part of the official docket, the public docket
does not include Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. The official
public docket is the collection of materials that is available for
public viewing at the Public Information and Records Integrity Branch
(PIRIB), Rm. 119, Crystal Mall 2, 1801 S. Bell St., Arlington,
VA. This docket facility is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday
through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The docket telephone number
is<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    2. Electronic access. You may access this Federal Register document
electronically through the EPA Internet under the ``Federal Register''
listings at  http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/.

     EDOCKET, EPA's electronic public docket and comment system was
replaced on November 25, 2005, by an enhanced Federal-wide electronic
docket management and comment system located at http://www.regulations.gov/.
 Follow the on-line instructions.

    An electronic version of the public docket is available through
EPA's electronic public docket and comment system, EPA Dockets. You may
use EPA Dockets at http://www.epa.gov/edocket/ to submit or view public

comments, access the index listing of the contents of the official
public docket, and to access those documents in the public docket that
are available electronically. Once in the system, select ``search,''
then key in the appropriate docket ID number.
    Certain types of information will not be placed in the EPA Dockets.
Information claimed as CBI and other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute, which is not included in the official public
docket, will not be available for public viewing in EPA's electronic
public docket. EPA's policy is that copyrighted material will not be
placed in EPA's electronic public docket but will be available only in
printed, paper form in the official public docket. To the extent
feasible, publicly available docket materials will be made available in
EPA's electronic public docket. When a document is selected from the
index list in EPA Dockets, the system will identify whether the
document is available for viewing in EPA's electronic public docket.
Although not all docket materials may be available electronically, you
may still access any of the publicly available docket materials through
the docket facility identified in Unit I.B.1. EPA intends to work
towards providing electronic access to all of the publicly available
docket materials through EPA's electronic public docket.
    For public commenters, it is important to note that EPA's policy is
that public comments, whether submitted electronically or in paper,
will be made available for public viewing in EPA's electronic public
docket as EPA receives them and without change, unless the comment
contains copyrighted material, CBI, or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. When EPA identifies a comment
containing copyrighted material, EPA will provide a reference to that
material in the version of the comment that is placed in EPA's
electronic public docket. The entire printed comment, including the
copyrighted material, will be available in the public docket.
    Public comments submitted on computer disks that are mailed or

delivered to the docket will be transferred to EPA's electronic public
docket. Public comments that are mailed or delivered to the docket will
be scanned and placed in EPA's electronic public docket. Where
practical, physical objects will be photographed, and the photograph
will be placed in EPA's electronic public docket along with a brief
description written by the docket staff.

C. How and to Whom Do I Submit Comments?

    You may submit comments electronically, by mail, or through hand
delivery/courier. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, identify the
appropriate docket ID number in the subject line on the first page of
your comment. Please ensure that your comments are submitted within the
specified comment period. Comments received after the close of the
comment period will be marked ``late.'' EPA is not required to consider
these late comments. If you wish to submit CBI or information that is
otherwise protected by statute, please follow the instructions in Unit
I.D. Do not use EPA Dockets or e-mail to submit CBI or information
protected by statute.
    1. Electronically. If you submit an electronic comment as
prescribed in this unit, EPA recommends that you include your name,
mailing address, and an e-mail address or other contact information in
the body of your comment. Also include this contact information on the
outside of any disk or CD ROM you submit, and in any cover letter
accompanying the disk or CD ROM. This ensures that you can be
identified as the submitter of the comment and allows EPA to contact
you in case EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties
or needs further information on the substance of your comment. EPA's
policy is that EPA will not edit your comment, and any identifying or
contact information provided in the body of a comment will be included
as part of the comment that is placed in the official public docket,
and made available in EPA's electronic public docket. If EPA cannot
read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you
for clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment.
    i. EPA Dockets. Your use of EPA's electronic public docket to
submit comments to EPA electronically is EPA's preferred method for
receiving comments. Go directly to EPA Dockets at http://www.epa.gov/edocket/
, and follow the online instructions for submitting comments.

Once in the system, select ``search,'' and then key in docket ID number
EPA-HQ-OPP-2005-0231. The system is an ``anonymous access'' system,
which means EPA will not know your identity, e-mail address, or other
contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment.
    ii.  E-mail. Comments may be sent by e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
Attention: Docket ID Number EPA-HQ-OPP-2005-0231. In contrast to EPA's
electronic public docket, EPA's e-mail system is not an ``anonymous
access'' system. If you send an e-mail comment directly to the docket
without going through EPA's electronic public docket, EPA's e-mail
system automatically captures your e-mail address. E-mail addresses
that are automatically captured by EPA's e-mail system are included as
part of the comment that is placed in the official public docket, and
made available in EPA's electronic public docket.
    iii. Disk or CD ROM. You may submit comments on a disk or CD ROM
that you mail to the mailing address identified in Unit I.C.2. These
electronic submissions will be accepted in WordPerfect or ASCII file
format. Avoid the use of special characters and any form of encryption.
    2.  By mail. Send your comments to: Public Information and Records
Integrity Branch (PIRIB) (7502C), Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP),
Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW.,
Washington, DC 20460-0001, Attention: Docket ID Number EPA-HQ-OPP-2005-
0231.
    3. By hand delivery or courier. Deliver your comments to: Public
Information and Records Integrity Branch (PIRIB), Office of Pesticide
Programs (OPP), Environmental Protection Agency, Rm. 119, Crystal Mall
2, 1801 S. Bell St., Arlington, VA, Attention: Docket ID
Number EPA-HQ-OPP-2005-0231. Such deliveries are only accepted during
the docket's normal hours of operation as identified in Unit I.B.1.

D. How Should I Submit CBI to the Agency?

    Do not submit information that you consider to be CBI
electronically through EPA's electronic public docket or by e-mail. You
may claim information that you submit to EPA as CBI by marking any part
or all of that information as CBI (if you submit CBI on disk or CD ROM,
mark the outside of the disk or CD ROM as CBI and then identify
electronically within the disk or CD ROM the specific information that
is CBI). Information so marked will not be disclosed except in
accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2.
    In addition to one complete version of the comment that includes
any information claimed as CBI, a copy of the comment that does not
contain the information claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion
in the public docket and EPA's electronic public docket. If you submit
the copy that does not contain CBI on disk or CD ROM, mark the outside
of the disk or CD ROM clearly that it does not contain CBI. Information
not marked as CBI will be included in the public docket and EPA's
electronic public docket without prior notice. If you have any
questions about CBI or the procedures for claiming CBI, please consult
the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

E. What Should I Consider as I Prepare My Comments for EPA?

    You may find the following suggestions helpful for preparing your
comments:
    1. Explain your views as clearly as possible.
    2. Describe any assumptions that you used.
    3. Provide any technical information and/or data you used that
support your views.
    4. If you estimate potential burden or costs, explain how you
arrived at your estimate.
    5. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns.
    6. Offer alternatives.
    7. Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period deadline
identified.
    8. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, identify the appropriate docket
ID number in the subject line on the first page of your response. It
would also be helpful if you provided the name, date, and Federal
Register citation related to your comments.

II. Background

A. What Action is the Agency Taking?

    EPA is releasing for public comment its human health and
environmental fate and effects risk assessments and related documents
for metaldehyde, a pesticide, and soliciting public comment on risk
management ideas or proposals. Metaldehyde is a molluscicide used to
control slugs and snails on a variety of tree, fruit, and vegetable
crops in agricultural, horticultural, or residential settings. It is
also used on residential turf. Approximately 90% of metaldehyde usage
is in the Pacific Northwest. EPA developed the risk assessments and
risk characterization for metaldehyde through a modified version of its
public process for making pesticide reregistration eligibility and
tolerance reassessment decisions. Through these programs, EPA is
ensuring that

pesticides meet current standards under the Federal Insecticide,
Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) and the Federal Food, Drug, and
Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), as amended by the Food Quality Protection Act of
1996 (FQPA).
    EPA is providing an opportunity, through this notice, for
interested parties to provide comments and input on the Agency's risk
assessments for metaldehyde. Such comments and input could address, for
example, the availability of additional data to further refine the risk
assessments, such as percent crop treated information, or measures to
reduce exposure, such as reduction in application rates, reduction in
number of applications, etc., or comments on the Agency's risk
assessment methodologies and assumptions as applied to this specific
pesticide.
    Through this notice, EPA also is providing an opportunity for
interested parties to provide risk management proposals or otherwise
comment on risk management for metaldehyde. Risks of concern associated
with the use of metaldehyde include ecological effects and
contamination of groundwater; incident data additionally suggest
concern for domestic animals inadvertently exposed to metaldehyde
products. In targeting these risks of concern, the Agency solicits
information on effective and practical risk reduction measures.
    EPA seeks to achieve environmental justice, the fair treatment and
meaningful involvement of all people, regardless of race, color,
national origin, or income, in the development, implementation, and
enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and policies. To help
address potential environmental justice issues, the Agency seeks
information on any groups or segments of the population who, as a
result of their location, cultural practices, or other factors, may
have atypical, unusually high exposure to metaldehyde, compared to the
general population.
    EPA is applying the principles of public participation to all
pesticides undergoing reregistration and tolerance reassessment. The
Agency's Pesticide Tolerance Reassessment and Reregistration; Public
Participation Process, published in the Federal Register on May 14,
2004 (69 FR 26819) (FR-7357-9) explains that in conducting these
programs, the Agency is tailoring its public participation process to
be commensurate with the level of risk, extent of use, complexity of
the issues, and degree of public concern associated with each
pesticide. For metaldehyde, a modified, 4-Phase process with one
comment period and ample opportunity for public consultation seems
appropriate in view of its limited and geographically restricted use
and limited risks. However, if as a result of comments received during
this comment period EPA finds that additional issues warranting further
discussion are raised, the Agency may lengthen the process and include
a second comment period, as needed.
    All comments should be submitted using the methods in Unit I. of
the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION, and must be received by EPA on or before
the closing date. Comments will become part of the Agency Docket for
metaldehyde. Comments received after the close of the comment period
will be marked ``late.'' EPA is not required to consider these late
comments.

B. What is the Agency's Authority for Taking this Action?

    Section 4(g)(2) of FIFRA, as amended, directs that, after
submission of all data concerning a pesticide active ingredient, ``the
Administrator shall determine whether pesticides containing such active
ingredient are eligible for reregistration,'' before calling in product
specific data on individual end-use products and either reregistering
products or taking other ``appropriate regulatory action.''
    Section 408(q) of FFDCA, 21 U.S.C. 346a(q), requires EPA to review
tolerances and exemptions for pesticide residues in effect as of August
2, 1996, to determine whether the tolerance or exemption meets the
requirements of section 408(b)(2) or (c)(2) of FFDCA. This review is to
be completed by August 3, 2006.

List of Subjects

    Environmental protection, Pesticides and pests.

    Dated: December 21, 2005.
 Debra Edwards,
Director, Special Review and Reregistration Division, Office of
Pesticide Programs.
[FR Doc. E5-8041 Filed 12-29-05; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-S


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 38 (Wednesday, February 26, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 11107-11108]
[FR Doc No: 2020-03805]

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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Occupational Safety and Health Administration

[Docket No. OSHA-2009-0041]

The Formaldehyde Standard; Extension of the Office of Management
and Budget's (OMB) Approval of Information Collection (Paperwork)
Requirements

AGENCY: Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), Labor.

ACTION: Request for public comments.

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

SUMMARY: OSHA solicits public comments concerning the proposal to
extend the Office of Management and Budget's (OMB) approval of the
information collection requirements specified in the Formaldehyde
Standard.

DATES: Comments must be submitted (postmarked, sent, or received) by
April 27, 2020.

ADDRESSES: Electronically: You may submit comments and attachments
electronically at http://www.regulations.gov, which is the Federal
eRulemaking Portal. Follow the instructions online for submitting
comments.
    Facsimile: If your comments, including attachments, are not longer
than 10 pages you may fax them to the OSHA Docket Office at (202) 693-
1648.
    Mail, hand delivery, express mail, messenger, or courier service:
When using this method, you must submit your comments and attachments
to the OSHA Docket Office, Docket No. OSHA-2009-0041, Occupational
Safety and Health Administration, U.S. Department of Labor, Room N-
3653, 200 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20210. Deliveries
(hand, express mail, messenger, and courier service) are accepted
during the Docket Office's normal business hours, 10:00 a.m. to 3:00
p.m., ET.
    Instructions: All submissions must include the agency name and the
OSHA docket number (OSHA-2009-0041) for the Information Collection
Request (ICR). All comments, including any personal information you
provide, such as social security numbers and date of birth, are placed
in the public docket without change, and may be made available online
at http://www.regulations.gov. For further information on submitting
comments see the ``Public Participation'' heading in the section of
this notice titled SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION.
    Docket: To read or download comments or other material in the
docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov or the OSHA Docket Office at
the above address. All documents in the docket (including this Federal
Register notice) are listed in the http://www.regulations.gov index;
however, some information (e.g., copyrighted material) is not publicly
available to read or download from the website. All submissions,
including copyrighted material, are available for inspection and
copying at the OSHA Docket Office. You also may contact Theda Kenney at
the below phone number to obtain a copy of the ICR.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Theda Kenney or Seleda Perryman,
Directorate of Standards and Guidance, OSHA, U.S. Department of Labor;
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    The Department of Labor, as part of its continuing effort to reduce
paperwork and respondent (i.e., employer) burden, conducts a
preclearance consultation program to provide the public with an
opportunity to comment on proposed and continuing information
collection requirements in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act
(PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)). This program ensures that information
is in the desired format, reporting burden (time and costs) is minimal,
collection instruments are clearly understood, and OSHA's estimate of
the information collection burden is accurate. The Occupational Safety
and Health Act of 1970 (the OSH Act) (29 U.S.C. 651 et seq.) authorizes
information collection by employers as necessary or appropriate for
enforcement of the OSH Act or for developing information regarding the
causes and prevention of occupationl injuries, illnesses, and accidents
(29 U.S.C. 657). The OSH Act also requires that OSHA obtain such
information with minimum burden upon employers, especially those
operating small businesses, and to reduce to the maximum extent
feasible unnecessary duplication of efforts in obtaining information
(29 U.S.C. 657).
    The standard protects workers from the adverse health effects from
occupational exposure to formaldehyde, including an itchy, runny, and
stuffy

nose; a dry or sore throat; eye irritation; headaches; and cancer of
the lung, buccal cavity (mouth), and pharynyx (throat). Formaldehyde
solutions can damage the skin and burn the eyes.
    The standard specifies a number of collections of information. The
following is a brief description of the collection of information
contained in the Formaldehyde Standard. The standard requires employers
to conduct worker exposure monitoring to determine workers' exposure to
formaldehyde, notify workers of their formaldehyde exposures, provide
medical surveillance to workers, provide examining physicians with
specific information, ensure that workers receive a copy of their
medical examination results, maintain workers' exposure monitoring and
medical records for specific periods, and provide access to these
records by the affected workers, and their authorized representatives.

II. Special Issues for Comment

    OSHA has a particular interest in comments on the following issues:
     Whether the proposed information collection requirements
are necessary for the proper performance of the agency's functions,
including whether the information is useful;
     The accuracy of OSHA's estimate of the burden (time and
costs) of the information collection requirements, including the
validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
     The quality, utility, and clarity of the information
collected; and
     Ways to minimize the burden on employers who must comply;
for example, by using automated or other technological information
collection and transmission techniques.

III. Proposed Actions

    OSHA is requesting that OMB extend the approval of the collection
of information (paperwork) requirements contained in the Formaldehyde
Standard. The agency is requesting a 1,859 hour adjustment increase
(from 238,435 hours to 240,294 burden hours). The agency is using
fractions rather than decimals in its calculations, so this accounts
for the change in the number of burden hours.
    Type of Review: Extension of a currently approved collection.
    Title: Formaldehyde Standard (29 CFR 1910.1048).
    OMB Number: 1218-0145.
    Affected Public: Businesses or other for-profits.
    Number of Respondents: 86,320.
    Frequency of Response: Various.
    Total Responses: 906,101.
    Average Time per Response: Various.
    Estimated Total Burden Hours: 240,294.
    Estimated Cost (Operation and Maintenance): $46,843,874.

IV. Public Participation--Submission of Comments on this Notice and
Internet Access to Comments and Submissions

    You may submit comments in response to this document as follows:
(1) Electronically at http://www.regulations.gov, which is the Federal
eRulemaking Portal; (2) by facsimile; or (3) by hard copy. All
comments, attachments, and other material must identify the agency name
and the OSHA docket number for this ICR (Docket No. OSHA-2009-0041).
You may supplement electronic submissions by uploading document files
electronically. If you wish to mail additional materials in reference
to an electronic or facsimile submission, you must submit them to the
OSHA Docket Office (see the section of this notice titled ADDRESSES).
The additional materials must clearly identify your electronic comments
by your name, date, and the docket number so the agency can attach them
to your comments.
    Because of security procedures, the use of regular mail may cause a
significant delay in the receipt of comments. For information about
security procedures concerning the delivery of materials by hand,
express delivery, messenger, or courier service, please contact the
OSHA Docket Office at<PHONE_NUMBER>, (TTY<PHONE_NUMBER>).
    Comments and submissions are posted without change at http://www.regulations.gov. Therefore, OSHA cautions commenters about
submitting personal information such as your social security number and
date of birth. Although all submissions are listed in the http://www.regulations.gov index, some information (e.g., copyrighted
material) is not publicly available to read or download from this
website. All submissions, including copyrighted material, are available
for inspection and copying at the OSHA Docket Office. Information on
using the http://www.regulations.gov website to submit comments and
access the docket is available at the website's ``User Tips'' link.
Contact the OSHA Docket Office for information about materials not
available from the website, and for assistance in using the internet to
locate docket submissions.

V. Authority and Signature

    Loren Sweatt, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary of Labor for
Occupational Safety and Health, directed the preparation of this
notice. The authority for this notice is the Paperwork Reduction Act of
1995 (44 U.S.C. 3506 et seq.) and Secretary of Labor's Order No. 1-2012
(77 FR 3912).

    Signed at Washington, DC, on February 20, 2020.
Loren Sweatt,
Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety
and Health.
[FR Doc. 2020-03805 Filed 2-25-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-26-P