[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 163 (Thursday, August 24, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 40199-40202]
[FR Doc No: 2017-17905]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-81432; File No. SR-MSRB-2017-04]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Municipal Securities Rulemaking
Board; Notice of Filing of Amendment No. 1 and Order Granting
Accelerated Approval of a Proposed Rule Change, as Modified by
Amendment No. 1, Consisting of Proposed Amendments to MSRB Rule G-
21(e), on Municipal Fund Security Product Advertisements

August 18, 2017.

I. Introduction

    On June 22, 2017, the Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board (the
``MSRB'' or ``Board'') filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission (the ``SEC'' or ``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 consisting of proposed
amendments to MSRB Rule G-21(e), on municipal fund security product
advertisements, to address important regulatory developments and to
enhance investor protection in connection with municipal fund
securities (the ``proposed rule change''). The proposed rule change was
published for comment in the Federal Register on July 7, 2017.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ Securities Exchange Act Release No. 81060 (June 30, 2017)
(the ``Notice of Filing''), 82 FR 31644 (July 7, 2017).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission received two comment letters on the proposed rule
change.\4\ On August 9, 2017, the MSRB responded to those comments \5\
and filed Amendment No. 1 to the proposed rule change (``Amendment No.
1'').\6\ The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments
on Amendment No. 1 to the proposed rule change from interested parties
and is approving the proposed rule change, as modified by Amendment No.
1, on an accelerated basis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See Letter to Secretary, Commission, from Michael Koffler,
Eversheds Sutherland (US) LLP (``Eversheds Sutherland''), dated July
28, 2017 (the ``Eversheds Sutherland Letter''); and, Letter to
Secretary, Commission, from Robin Traxler, Esq., Vice President,
Regulatory Affairs & Associate General Counsel, Financial Services
Institute (``FSI''), dated July 28, 2017 (the ``FSI Letter'').
    \5\ See Letter to Secretary, Commission, from Pamela K. Ellis,
Associate General Counsel, MSRB, dated August 9, 2017 (the ``MSRB
Response Letter''), available at https://www.sec.gov/comments/sr-msrb-2017-04/msrb201704-2205630-160509.pdf.
    \6\ Id. In Amendment No. 1, the MSRB proposed to amend the
proposed rule change to Rule G-21(e)(i)(A)(2)(c) to make a minor
technical change to clarify that the proposed rule change to that
provision would apply to an advertisement of a municipal fund
security ``that has an investment option that invests solely in a
money market fund.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Description of Proposed Rule Change

    In the Notice of Filing and Amendment No. 1, the MSRB stated that
the purpose of the proposed rule change is to reflect relevant
regulatory developments; enhance the ``out-of-state disclosure
obligation'' about the potential other benefits an investor may be
provided by investing in a 529 college savings plan offered by the home
state of the investor or of the designated beneficiary; clarify that
certain advertisements that contain performance data may include a
hyperlink to a Web site that contains more recent performance data; and
include several revisions that are designed to promote understanding of
and compliance with the rule.\7\ The MSRB stated that the proposed rule
change would amend Rule G-21(e) to reflect two regulatory
developments--the SEC's money market reforms and the formation of the
Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc. (``FINRA'').\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See Notice of Filing and Amendment No. 1.
    \8\ See Notice of Filing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As further described by the MSRB in the Notice of Filing, Rule G-
21(e)(i)(A)(2)(c) currently requires that a municipal fund security
advertisement

of an investment option that the issuer holds out as having the
characteristics of a money market fund include certain disclosures.\9\
The MSRB stated that Board designed those disclosures to protect
investors by alerting them to the potential risks of investing in that
investment option, and modeled the disclosures on the disclosures
required for money market fund advertisements by SEC Rule 482(b)(4)
\10\ under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended (the ``1933
Act'').\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See Notice of Filing.
    \10\ 17 CFR 230.482(b)(4).
    \11\ See Notice of Filing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The MSRB stated that the proposed rule change, as amended by
Amendment No.1, would require that a municipal fund security
advertisement of an investment option that invests solely in a money
market fund include enhanced disclosure about the risks associated with
investing in that investment option.\12\ The MSRB stated that the
disclosures that would be required by the proposed rule change reflect
the SEC's money market reforms.\13\ The MSRB noted that the Board
tailored the proposed disclosure for each of the three categories of
money market funds in which a municipal fund security investment option
could invest.\14\ According to the MSRB, those categories are: (i)
Money market funds that are not government money market funds or retail
money market funds with floating net asset values that may impose
liquidity fees and that may temporarily suspend redemptions; (ii) money
market funds that are government money market funds or retail money
market funds that maintain stable net asset values that may impose
liquidity fees or that may temporarily suspend redemptions; and (iii)
money market funds that are government money market funds that maintain
stable net asset values and that have elected not to impose liquidity
fees or to temporarily suspend redemptions.\15\ The MSRB stated that
the proposed rule change to Rule G-21(e)(i)(A)(2)(c) is substantially
similar to the SEC's amendments to SEC Rule 482(b)(4) under the 1933
Act, as modified to reflect the differences in the characteristics
between municipal fund securities and money market funds. Specifically,
the MSRB noted that an interest in a 529 college savings plan is an
interest in an account (a ``unit'') and that the account, in turn, may
invest in mutual funds such as a money market fund.\16\ The MSRB stated
that, as a result, the proposed rule change, unlike SEC Rule
482(b)(4)'s disclosure for mutual funds, refers to an investment in an
investment option and an investor only indirectly investing in a money
market fund through an underlying mutual fund offered by an investment
option.\17\ As discussed by the MSRB in the Notice of Filing, the
proposed rule change does not refer to direct investments in a mutual
fund.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ See Notice of Filing and Amendment No. 1.
    \13\ See Notice of Filing.
    \14\ Id.
    \15\ Id.
    \16\ Id.
    \17\ Id.
    \18\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The MSRB stated that the current disclosure required by Rule G-
21(e)(i)(A)(2)(c) alerts a 529 college savings plan investor that an
investment option that that invests solely in a money market fund (i)
is not insured or guaranteed by the Federal Deposit Insurance
Corporation or any other government agency (unless such guarantee is
provided by or on behalf of such issuer) and (ii) if the money market
fund is held out as maintaining a stable net asset value, that although
the issuer seeks to preserve the value of the investment at $1.00 per
share or such other applicable fixed share price, it is possible to
lose money by investing in the investment option.\19\ In addition to
the current disclosure, the MSRB stated that the proposed rule change
would require enhanced disclosure to alert the investor that, as
applicable, the underlying mutual fund may impose a liquidity fee or
suspend redemptions and that the investor should not expect the
underlying fund sponsor to provide financial support to the underlying
mutual fund.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ See Notice of Filing and Amendment No. 1.
    \20\ See Notice of Filing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed rule change also would update Rule G-21(e)(ii)(F) and
Rule G-21(e)(vi) to substitute FINRA for references to the National
Association of Securities Dealers, Inc. (``NASD'').\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed rule change would, according to the MSRB, enhance the
out-of-state disclosure required by Rule G-21(e)(i)(A)(2)(b).\22\ Under
Rule G-21(e)(i)(A)(2)(b), certain advertisements for a 529 college
savings plan must provide disclosure that an investor should consider,
before investing, whether the investor's or the designated
beneficiary's home state offers any state tax or other benefits that
are only available for investment in such state's 529 college savings
plan. The MSRB stated that proposed rule change would--to assist an
investor's understanding of what those other state benefits may
include--require disclosure that those other state benefits may include
financial aid, scholarship funds, and protection from creditors.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ Id.
    \23\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The MSRB stated that the proposed rule change would provide two
clarifications to the legend that must be provided in an advertisement
of performance data by a municipal fund security.\24\ Current Rule G-
21(e)(i)(A)(3)(a) requires that a municipal fund security's
advertisement of performance data include a legend that discloses that
the performance data set forth in the advertisement represents past
performance; that past performance does not guarantee future results;
that the investment return and the value of the investment will
fluctuate so that an investor's shares, when redeemed, may be worth
more or less than their original cost; and that current performance may
be lower or higher than the performance data included in the
advertisement. The proposed rule change would, according to the MSRB,
clarify that an investment option that invests in a government money
market fund or a retail money market fund may omit the disclosure
required by the legend about principal value fluctuation.\25\ The MSRB
stated that its believes that clarification is consistent with SEC Rule
482(b)(3) under the 1933 Act that permits government money market funds
and retail money market funds to omit that disclosure.\26\ In addition,
the MSRB stated that the proposed rule change would clarify that the
advertisement may provide a hyperlink to the Web site where the
investor may obtain total return quotations current to most recent
month end for which such total return information is available.\27\ The
MSRB noted that the Board believes that the use of the hyperlink to a
Web site will assist investors in obtaining more current performance
data.\28\ The MSRB further stated that the use of a hyperlink to
provide certain data is consistent with the rules of other financial
regulators.\29\ Current Rule G-21(e)(i)(A)(3)(a) requires that the
legend in a municipal fund security's advertisement of performance data
that is not current to the most recent month ended seven business days
before the date of any use of the advertisement, also must disclose
where the investor may obtain more current performance data. Current
Rule G-21(e)(i)(A)(3)(a)

also requires that the legend must include a toll-free number or a Web
site where the investor may obtain that information.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ Id.
    \25\ Id.
    \26\ Id.
    \27\ Id.
    \28\ Id.
    \29\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The MSRB stated the proposed rule change would make certain
revisions to the provisions of Rule G-21(e) to assist the reader's
understanding of the disclosure and to assist with a dealer's
compliance with the rule.\30\ The proposed rule change would amend Rule
G-21(e) to use terms more commonly used with municipal fund securities
and that are used with the MSRB's other rules applicable to municipal
fund securities (e.g., the term ``investment option''), such as MSRB
Rule G-45, on reporting of information on municipal fund
securities.\31\ The proposed rule change also would amend Rule G-
21(e)(i)(A)(2)(c) and Rule G-21(e)(i)(A)(3)(c) to clarify that a
municipal fund security offers investment options and that those
investment options, in turn, may invest in mutual funds.\32\ Proposed
paragraph .01 of the Supplementary Material would clarify that the term
``investment option'' shall have the same meaning as defined in Rule G-
45(d)(vi).\33\ Proposed paragraph .02 of the Supplementary Material
would clarify that under Rule G-21(e)(i)(A)(2)(c), a dealer may omit
the last sentence of the required disclosure if that disclosure is not
applicable to the underlying fund according to SEC Rule 482(b)(4) under
the 1933 Act.\34\ The proposed rule change also would amend Rule G-
21(e)(i)(A)(3)(a) to clarify that an investor receives units in the
municipal fund security.\35\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \30\ Id.
    \31\ Id.
    \32\ Id.
    \33\ Id.
    \34\ 17 CFR 230.482(b)(4).
    \35\ See Notice of Filing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Summary of Comments Received and MSRB's Responses to Comments

    As noted previously, the Commission received two comment letters on
the proposed rule change, as well as the MSRB Response Letter and
Amendment No. 1. FSI supported the proposed rule change,\36\ and
Eversheds Sutherland suggested a minor technical revision.\37\ The MSRB
stated that it believes the proposed rule change is consistent with its
statutory mandate and has responded to the comments, as discussed
below.\38\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \36\ See FSI Letter.
    \37\ See Eversheds Sutherland Letter.
    \38\ See MSRB Response Letter and Amendment No. 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Eversheds Sutherland suggested that the MSRB make a minor technical
change to clarify that the proposed rule change to Rule G-
21(e)(i)(A)(2)(c) would apply to an advertisement of a municipal fund
security ``that has an investment option that invests solely in a money
market fund.'' \39\ Eversheds Sutherland stated that the suggested
revision was necessary for purposes of accuracy and internal
consistency.\40\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \39\ See Eversheds Sutherland Letter.
    \40\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The MSRB stated that it agreed with Eversheds Sutherland.\41\ In
response to the comment from Eversheds Sutherland, the MSRB proposed,
in Amendment No. 1, to amend the proposed rule change to clarify that
the amendments to Rule G-21(e)(i)(A)(2)(c) would apply to an
advertisement of a municipal fund security ``that has an investment
option that invests solely in a money market fund.'' \42\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \41\ See MSRB Response Letter and Amendment No. 1.
    \42\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Discussion and Commission Findings

    The Commission has carefully considered the proposed rule change,
the comment letters received, the MSRB Response Letter, and Amendment
No. 1. The Commission finds that the proposed rule change, as modified
by Amendment No. 1, is consistent with the requirements of the Act and
the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to the MSRB.
    In particular, the proposed rule change, as modified by Amendment
No. 1, is consistent with Sections 15B(b)(2) and 15B(b)(2)(C) of the
Act.\43\ Section 15B(b)(2) of the Act requires the MSRB to adopt rules
to effect the purposes of that title with respect to transactions in
municipal securities effected by brokers, dealers, and municipal
securities dealers and advice provided to or on behalf of municipal
entities or obligated persons by brokers, dealers, municipal securities
dealers, and municipal advisors with respect to municipal financial
products, the issuance of municipal securities, and solicitations of
municipal entities or obligated persons undertaken by brokers, dealers,
municipal securities dealers, and municipal advisors.\44\ Section
15B(b)(2)(C) of the Act requires that the MSRB's rules be designed to
prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to promote just
and equitable principles of trade, to foster cooperation and
coordination with persons engaged in regulating, clearing, settling,
processing information with respect to, and facilitating transactions
in municipal securities and municipal financial products, to remove
impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market in
municipal securities and municipal financial products, in general, to
protect investors, municipal entities, obligated persons, and the
public interest.\45\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \43\ 15 U.S.C. 78o-4(b)(2); 78o-4(b)(2)(C) and 78o-4(b)(2)(G).
    \44\ See 15U.S.C. 78o-4(b)(2).
    \45\ See 15U.S.C. 78o-4(b)(2)(C).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission believes that the proposed rule change, as modified
by Amendment No. 1, is consistent with the provisions of Sections
15B(b)(2) \46\ and 15B(b)(2)(C) \47\ of the Act because it would update
and modernize the MSRB's municipal fund security product advertising
rule applicable to dealers and would enhance certain disclosures
required by the rule to reflect relevant regulatory developments. The
Commission believes that those enhanced disclosures would protect
investors by alerting investors about certain risks of investing in
investment options that in turn invest in money market funds. Further,
the Commission believes that the proposed rule change would protect
investors by providing the investor with (i) enhanced out-of-state
disclosure concerning the potential other benefits that may be offered
by investing in the 529 college saving plan offered by the investor's
or the designated beneficiary's home state and (ii) the ability to
obtain more current performance information through the use of a
hyperlink to a Web site. In addition, the Commission believes that by
providing investors with enhanced disclosure, each investor will have
more information to evaluate the municipal fund security advertisement,
which in turn, would help prevent fraudulent acts and practices as well
as promote just and equitable principles of trade. The Commission also
believes that the enhanced disclosures would facilitate transactions in
municipal fund securities by eliminating certain discordance between
the disclosure required by Rule G-21(e) relating to investment options
that invest in money market funds and the disclosure required by the
advertising rules applicable to money market funds registered with the
Commission. By so doing, the Commission believes that it would
facilitate efficient and uniform examination and enforcement by the
regulators that enforce the MSRB's rules.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \46\ See 15 U.S.C. 78o-4(b)(2).
    \47\ See 15 U.S.C. 78o-4(b)(2)(C).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In approving the proposed rule change, the Commission also has
considered the impact of the proposed rule change, as modified by
Amendment

No. 1, on efficiency, competition, and capital formation.\48\ The
Commission does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose
any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in furtherance
of the purposes of the Act. The Commission believes the proposed rule
change would apply equally to all municipal fund securities dealers and
may reduce inefficiencies and confusion for dealers by harmonizing MSRB
rule requirements with comparable SEC requirements on advertising. The
Commission believes that investors should benefit from better
information in the form of more consistent and accurate advertising
through updated requirements for certain municipal fund security
advertisements, as investors generally value ease of comparison of
different financial products.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \48\ 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As noted above, the Commission received two comment letters on the
filing. The Commission believes that the MSRB, through its responses
and through Amendment No. 1, has addressed commenters' concerns.
    For the reasons noted above, the Commission believes that the
proposed rule change, as modified by Amendment No. 1, is consistent
with the Act.

V. Solicitation of Comments on Amendment No. 1

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

Electronic Comments

     Use of the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-MSRB-2017-04 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-MSRB-2017-04. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549 on official business days between the hours of
10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available
for inspection and copying at the principal office of the MSRB. All
comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does
not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should
submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All
submissions should refer to File Number SR-MSRB-2017-04 and should be
submitted on or before September 14, 2017.

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

    The Commission finds good cause for approving the proposed rule
change, as amended by Amendment No. 1, prior to the 30th day after the
date of publication of notice of Amendment No. 1 in the Federal
Register. As noted by the MSRB, Amendment No. 1 does not raise any
significant issues with respect to the proposed rule change and only
provides a minor technical change that clarifies that the proposed rule
change to Rule G-21(e)(i)(A)(2)(c) would apply to an advertisement of a
municipal fund security ``that has an investment option that invests
solely in a money market fund.''
    For the foregoing reasons, the Commission finds good cause for
approving the proposed rule change, as modified by Amendment No. 1, on
an accelerated basis, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act.

VIII. Conclusion

    It is therefore ordered, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the
Act,\49\ that the proposed rule change, as modified by Amendment No. 1
(SR-MSRB-2017-04) be, and hereby is, approved on an accelerated basis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \49\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).

    For the Commission, pursuant to delegated authority.\50\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \50\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Robert W. Errett,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2017-17905 Filed 8-23-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 48 (Thursday, March 12, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 13070-13072]
[FR Doc No: 2015-05258]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

[Docket No. FMCSA-1998-4334; FMCSA-2000-7006; FMCSA-2000-8398; FMCSA-
2005-20027]

Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; Vision

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

ACTION: Notice of renewal of exemptions; request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: FMCSA announces its decision to renew the exemptions from the
vision requirement in the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations for
4 individuals. FMCSA has statutory authority to exempt individuals from
the vision requirement if the exemptions granted will not compromise
safety. The Agency has concluded that granting these exemption renewals
will provide a level of safety that is equivalent to or greater than
the level of safety maintained without the exemptions for these
commercial motor vehicle (CMV) drivers.

DATES: This decision is effective April 5, 2015. Comments must be
received on or before April 13, 2015.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments bearing the Federal Docket
Management System (FDMS) numbers: Docket No. [Docket No. FMCSA-1998-
4334; FMCSA-2000-7006; FMCSA-2000-8398; FMCSA-2005-20027], using any of
the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line instructions for submitting
comments.

     Mail: Docket Management Facility; U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., West Building Ground Floor,
Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
     Hand Delivery or Courier: West Building Ground Floor, Room
W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and
5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal Holidays.
     Fax: 1-202-493-2251.
    Instructions: Each submission must include the Agency name and the
docket number for this notice. Note that DOT posts all comments
received without change to http://www.regulations.gov, including any
personal information included in a comment. Please see the Privacy Act
heading below.
    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or
comments, go to http://www.regulations.gov at any time or Room W12-140
on the ground level of the West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE.,
Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays. The Federal Docket Management System (FDMS) is
available 24 hours each day, 365 days each year. If you want
acknowledgment that we received your comments, please include a self-
addressed, stamped envelope or postcard or print the acknowledgement
page that appears after submitting comments on-line.
    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.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Charles A. Horan, III, Director,
Carrier, Driver and Vehicle Safety Standards,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>FMCSA, Department of Transportation, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Room W64-224, Washington, DC 20590-0001. Office
hours are from 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m. Monday through Friday, except
Federal holidays.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    Under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, FMCSA may renew an exemption
from the vision requirements in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10), which applies to
drivers of CMVs in interstate commerce, for a two-year period if it
finds ``such exemption would likely achieve a level of safety that is
equivalent to or greater than the level that would be achieved absent
such exemption.'' The procedures for requesting an exemption (including
renewals) are set out in 49 CFR part 381.

II. Exemption Decision

    This notice addresses 4 individuals who have requested renewal of
their exemptions in accordance with FMCSA procedures. FMCSA has
evaluated these 4 applications for renewal on their merits and decided
to extend each exemption for a renewable two-year period. They are:
Richard D. Carlson (MN); Robert P. Conrad, Sr. (MD); Donald P. Dodson,
Jr. (WV); Ralph A. Thompson (KY).
    The exemptions are extended subject to the following conditions:
(1) That each individual has a physical examination every year (a) by
an ophthalmologist or optometrist who attests that the vision in the
better eye continues to meet the requirements in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10),
and (b) by a medical examiner who attests that the individual is
otherwise physically qualified under 49 CFR 391.41; (2) that each
individual provides a copy of the ophthalmologist's or optometrist's
report to the medical examiner at the time of the annual medical
examination; and (3) that each individual provide a copy of the annual
medical certification to the employer for retention in the driver's
qualification file and retains a copy of the certification on his/her
person while driving for presentation to a duly authorized Federal,
State, or local enforcement official. Each exemption will be valid for
two years unless rescinded earlier by FMCSA. The exemption will be
rescinded if: (1) The person fails to comply with the terms and
conditions of the exemption; (2) the exemption has resulted in a lower
level of safety than was maintained before it was granted; or (3)
continuation of the exemption would not be consistent with the goals
and objectives of 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315.

III. Basis for Renewing Exemptions

    Under 49 U.S.C. 31315(b)(1), an exemption may be granted for no
longer than two years from its approval date and may be renewed upon
application for additional two year periods. In accordance with 49
U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, each of the 4 applicants has satisfied the
entry conditions for obtaining an exemption from the vision
requirements (63 FR 66226; 64 FR 16517; 65 FR 20245; 65 FR 57230; 65 FR
78256; 66 FR 16311; 66 FR 17994; 67 FR 57266; 68 FR 13360; 68 FR 15037;
69 FR 52741; 70 FR 2701; 70 FR 12265; 70 FR 14747; 70 FR 16887; 72 FR
12665; 74 FR 9329; 76 FR 15360; 78 FR 16035). Each of these 4
applicants has requested renewal of the exemption and has submitted
evidence showing that the vision in the better eye continues to meet
the requirement specified at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10) and that the vision
impairment is stable. In addition, a review of each record of safety
while driving with the respective vision deficiencies over the past two
years indicates each applicant continues to meet the vision exemption
requirements.
    These factors provide an adequate basis for predicting each
driver's ability to continue to drive safely in interstate commerce.
Therefore, FMCSA concludes that extending the exemption for each
renewal applicant for a period of two years is likely to achieve a
level of safety equal to that existing without the exemption.

IV. Public Participation and Request for Comments

    FMCSA encourages you to participate by submitting comments and
related materials.

Submitting Comments

    If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this
notice (FMCSA-1998-4334; FMCSA-2000-7006; FMCSA-2000-8398; FMCSA-2005-
20027), 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 the
Agency can contact you if it has questions regarding your submission.
    To submit your comment online, got to http://www.regulations.gov
and put the docket number, ``FMCSA-1998-4334; FMCSA-2000-7006; FMCSA-
2000-8398; FMCSA-2005-20027'' in the ``Keyword'' box, and click
``Search.'' When the new screen appears, click on ``Comment Now!''
button and type your comment into the text box in the following screen.
Choose whether you are submitting your comment as an individual or on
behalf of a third party and then submit. If you submit your comments by
mail or hand delivery, submit them in an unbound format, no larger than
8\1/2\ by 11 inches, suitable for copying and electronic filing. If you
submit comments by mail and would

like to know that they reached the facility, please enclose a stamped,
self-addressed postcard or envelope. FMCSA will consider all comments
and material received during the comment period and may change this
notice based on your comments.

Viewing Comments and Documents

    To view comments, as well as any documents mentioned in this
preamble as being available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov and in the search box insert the docket number,
``FMCSA-1998-4334; FMCSA-2000-7006; FMCSA-2000-8398; FMCSA-2005-20027''
in the ``Keyword'' box and click ``Search.'' Next, click ``Open Docket
Folder'' button choose the document listed 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 DOT 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.

    Issued On: March 2, 2015.
Larry W. Minor,
Associate Administrator for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2015-05258 Filed 3-11-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 83 (Monday, May 1, 2023)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 26495-26498]
[FR Doc No: 2023-09121]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 180

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2022-0596; FRL-10910-01-OCSPP]

Poly (oxy-1,2-ethanediyl), [alpha],[alpha]'-[[[4-[2-(4-methyl-2-
benzothiazolyl)diazenyl]phenyl]imino]di-2,1-ethanediyl]bis[[omega]-
hydroxy- in Pesticide Formulations; Tolerance Exemption

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This regulation establishes an exemption from the requirement
of a tolerance for residues of poly (oxy-1,2-ethanediyl),
[alpha],[alpha]'-[[[4-[2-(4-methyl-2-
benzothiazolyl)diazenyl]phenyl]imino]di-2,1-ethanediyl]bis[[omega]-
hydroxy- (CAS Reg. No. 158172-12-4), herein referred to as polymeric
red, when used as an inert ingredient (colorant) on growing crops and
raw agricultural commodities pre- and post-harvest. Milliken Chemical
submitted a petition to EPA under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic
Act (FFDCA), requesting establishment of an exemption from the
requirement of a tolerance. This regulation eliminates the need to
establish a maximum permissible level for residues of polymeric red,
when used in accordance with the terms of the exemption.

DATES: This regulation is effective May 1, 2023. Objections and
requests for hearings must be received on or before June 30, 2023 and
must be filed in accordance with the instructions provided in 40 CFR
part 178 (see also Unit I.C. of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION).

ADDRESSES: The docket for this action, identified by docket
identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2022-0596, is available at
https://www.regulations.gov or at the Office of Pesticide Programs
Regulatory Public Docket (OPP Docket) in the Environmental Protection
Agency Docket Center (EPA/DC), West William Jefferson Clinton Bldg.,
Rm. 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460-0001. The
Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through
Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public
Reading Room and the OPP docket is<PHONE_NUMBER>. For the latest
status information on EPA/DC services, docket access, visit https://www.epa.gov/dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Charles Smith, Director, Registration
Division (7505T), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental
Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460-
0001; main telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email address:
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. Does this action apply to me?

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

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

    You may access a frequently updated electronic version of 40 CFR
part 180 through the Office of the Federal Register's e-CFR site at
https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-40.

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

    Under FFDCA section 408(g), 21 U.S.C. 346a(g), any person may file
an objection to any aspect of this regulation and may also request a
hearing on those objections. You must file your objection or request a
hearing on this regulation in accordance with the instructions provided
in 40 CFR part 178. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, you must identify
docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2022-0596 in the subject line on the first
page of your submission. All objections and requests for a hearing must
be in writing and must be received by the Hearing Clerk on or before
June 30, 2023. Addresses for mail and hand delivery of objections and
hearing requests are provided in 40 CFR 178.25(b).
    In addition to filing an objection or hearing request with the
Hearing Clerk as described in 40 CFR part 178, please submit a copy of
the filing (excluding any Confidential Business Information (CBI)) for
inclusion in the public docket. Information not marked confidential
pursuant to 40 CFR part 2 may be disclosed publicly by EPA without
prior notice. Submit the non-CBI copy of your objection or hearing
request, identified by docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2022-0596, by one of
the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Do not submit
electronically any information you consider to be CBI or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
     Mail: OPP Docket, Environmental Protection Agency Docket
Center (EPA/DC), (28221T), 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC
20460-0001.
     Hand Delivery: To make special arrangements for hand
delivery or delivery of boxed information, please follow the
instructions at https://www.epa.gov/dockets/where-send-comments-epa-dockets#express.
    Additional instructions on commenting or visiting the docket, along
with more information about dockets generally, is available at https://www.epa.gov/dockets.

II. Petition for Exemption

    In the Federal Register of August 30, 2022 (87 FR 52868) (FRL-9410-
04), EPA issued a document pursuant to FFDCA section 408, 21 U.S.C.
346a, announcing the filing of a pesticide petition (PP IN-11672) by
Milliken Chemical, 920 Milliken Road, M-209, Spartanburg, South
Carolina 29303. The petition requested that 40 CFR 180.910 be amended
by establishing an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance for
residues of polymeric red (CAS Reg. No. 158172-12-4) when used as an
inert ingredient (colorant) in pesticide formulations applied to
growing crops or raw agricultural commodities pre- and post-harvest.
That document referenced a summary of the petition prepared by Milliken
Chemical, which is available in the docket, https://www.regulations.gov. A comment was received on the notice of filing.
EPA's response to the comment is discussed in Unit V.B.

III. Inert Ingredient Definition

    Inert ingredients are all ingredients that are not active
ingredients as defined in 40 CFR 153.125 and include, but are not
limited to, the following types of ingredients (except when they have a
pesticidal efficacy of their own): solvents such as alcohols and
hydrocarbons; surfactants such as polyoxyethylene polymers and fatty
acids; carriers such as clay and diatomaceous earth; thickeners such as
carrageenan and modified cellulose; wetting, spreading, and dispersing
agents; propellants in aerosol dispensers; microencapsulating agents;
and emulsifiers. The term ``inert'' is not

intended to imply nontoxicity; the ingredient may or may not be
chemically active. Generally, EPA has exempted inert ingredients from
the requirement of a tolerance based on the low toxicity of the
individual inert ingredients.

IV. Aggregate Risk Assessment and Determination of Safety

    Section 408(c)(2)(A)(i) of FFDCA allows EPA to establish an
exemption from the requirement for a tolerance (the legal limit for a
pesticide chemical residue in or on a food) only if EPA determines that
the tolerance is ``safe.'' Section 408(c)(2)(A)(ii) of FFDCA defines
``safe'' to mean that ``there is a reasonable certainty that no harm
will result from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue,
including all anticipated dietary exposures and all other exposures for
which there is reliable information.'' This includes exposure through
drinking water and in residential settings but does not include
occupational exposure. When making a safety determination for an
exemption from the requirement of a tolerance, FFDCA section
408(c)(2)(B) directs EPA to take into account the considerations in
section 408(b)(2)(C) and (D). Section 408(b)(2)(C) of FFDCA requires
EPA to give special consideration to exposure of infants and children
to the pesticide chemical residue in establishing a tolerance and to
``ensure that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result
to infants and children from aggregate exposure to the pesticide
chemical residue. . . .'' Section 408(b)(2)(D) lists other factors for
EPA's consideration in making safety determinations, e.g., the
validity, completeness, and reliability of available data, nature of
toxic effects, available information concerning the cumulative effects
of the pesticide chemical and other substances with a common mechanism
of toxicity, and available information concerning aggregate exposure
levels to the pesticide chemical and other related substances, among
other factors.
    EPA establishes exemptions from the requirement of a tolerance only
in those cases where it can be clearly demonstrated that the risks from
aggregate exposure to pesticide chemical residues under reasonably
foreseeable circumstances will pose no harm to human health. In order
to determine the risks from aggregate exposure to pesticide inert
ingredients, the Agency considers the toxicity of the inert in
conjunction with possible exposure to residues of the inert ingredient
through food, drinking water, and through other exposures that occur as
a result of pesticide use in residential settings. If EPA is able to
determine that a finite tolerance is not necessary to ensure that there
is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result from aggregate
exposure to the inert ingredient, an exemption from the requirement of
a tolerance may be established.
    Consistent with FFDCA section 408(c)(2)(A), and the factors
specified in FFDCA section 408(c)(2)(B), EPA has reviewed the available
scientific data and other relevant information in support of this
action. EPA has sufficient data to assess the hazards of and to make a
determination on aggregate exposure for polymeric red, including
exposure resulting from the exemption established by this action. EPA's
assessment of exposures and risks associated with polymeric red
follows.

A. Toxicological Profile

    EPA has evaluated the available toxicity data and considered their
validity, completeness, and reliability as well as the relationship of
the results of the studies to human risk. EPA has also considered
available information concerning the variability of the sensitivities
of major identifiable subgroups of consumers, including infants and
children. Specific information on the studies received and the nature
of the adverse effects caused by polymeric red as well as the no-
observed-adverse-effect-level (NOAEL) and the lowest-observed-adverse-
effect-level (LOAEL) from the toxicity studies are discussed in this
unit.
    Polymeric red exhibits low levels of acute toxicity via the oral
route of exposure. Based on physical and chemical properties, it is not
expected to be of concern via the acute dermal and inhalation routes of
exposure. It is not a skin or eye irritant and it is not expected to be
a dermal sensitizer. No adverse effects were reported in the combined
28-day oral with reproduction/developmental toxicity screening study in
rats. No adverse maternal, reproduction or offspring effects were found
in this study. No oral chronic or carcinogenicity studies are available
for review, and structural alerts for potential carcinogenicity due to
the formation of aromatic amines were identified. However, the concern
is low for carcinogenicity based on negative results in a modified Ames
test designed to identify mutagenicity due to the formation of aromatic
amines, and the lack of toxicity in the available studies. No evidence
of neurotoxicity or immunotoxicity was seen in the database.

B. Toxicological Points of Departure/Levels of Concern

    Once a pesticide's toxicological profile is determined, EPA
identifies toxicological points of departure (POD) and levels of
concern to use in evaluating the risk posed by human exposure to the
pesticide. For hazards that have a threshold below which there is no
appreciable risk, the toxicological POD is used as the basis for
derivation of reference values for risk assessment. PODs are developed
based on a careful analysis of the doses in each toxicological study to
determine the dose at which no adverse effects are observed (the NOAEL)
and the lowest dose at which adverse effects of concern are identified
(the LOAEL). Uncertainty/safety factors are used in conjunction with
the POD to calculate a safe exposure level--generally referred to as a
population-adjusted dose (PAD) or a reference dose (RfD)--and a safe
margin of exposure (MOE). For non-threshold risks, the Agency assumes
that any amount of exposure will lead to some degree of risk. Thus, the
Agency estimates risk in terms of the probability of an occurrence of
the adverse effect expected in a lifetime. For more information on the
general principles EPA uses in risk characterization and a complete
description of the risk assessment process, see https://www.epa.gov/pesticide-science-and-assessing-pesticide-risks/assessing-human-health-risk-pesticides.
    The hazard profile of polymeric red is adequately defined. Overall,
polymeric red is of low acute, subchronic, and developmental toxicity.
No systemic toxicity is observed up to 1,000 mg/kg/day. Since signs of
toxicity were not observed, no toxicological endpoints of concern or
PODs were identified. Therefore, a qualitative risk assessment for
polymeric red can be performed.

C. Exposure Assessment

    1. Dietary exposure. In evaluating dietary exposure to polymeric
red, EPA considered exposure under the proposed exemption from the
requirement of a tolerance. EPA assessed dietary exposures from
polymeric red in food and drinking water as follows:
    Dietary exposure (food and drinking water) to polymeric red may
occur following ingestion of drinking water or foods with residues of
this chemical from their use in accordance with this exemption.
However, a quantitative dietary exposure assessment was not conducted
since a toxicological endpoint for risk assessment was not identified.

    2. From non-dietary exposure. The term ``residential exposure'' is
used in this document to refer to non-occupational, non-dietary
exposure (e.g., textiles (clothing and diapers), carpets, swimming
pools, and hard surface disinfection on walls, floors, tables).
    Polymeric red may be present in pesticide products that may be used
in and around the home. However, a quantitative residential exposure
assessment was not conducted since a toxicological endpoint for risk
assessment was not identified.
    3. Cumulative effects from substances with a common mechanism of
toxicity. Section 408(b)(2)(D)(v) of FFDCA requires that, when
considering whether to establish, modify, or revoke a tolerance, the
Agency consider ``available information'' concerning the cumulative
effects of a particular pesticide's residues and ``other substances
that have a common mechanism of toxicity.''
    Based on the lack of toxicity in the available database, EPA has
not found polymeric red to share a common mechanism of toxicity with
any other substances, and polymeric red does not appear to produce a
toxic metabolite produced by other substances. For the purposes of this
tolerance exemption, therefore, EPA has assumed that polymeric red does
not have a common mechanism of toxicity with other substances. For
information regarding EPA's efforts to determine which chemicals have a
common mechanism of toxicity and to evaluate the cumulative effects of
such chemicals, see EPA's website at https://www.epa.gov/pesticide-science-and-assessing-pesticide-risks/cumulative-assessment-risk-pesticides.

D. Additional Safety Factor for the Protection of Infants and Children

    Section 408(b)(2)(C) of FFDCA provides that EPA shall apply an
additional tenfold (10X) margin of safety for infants and children in
the case of threshold effects to account for prenatal and postnatal
toxicity and the completeness of the database on toxicity and exposure
unless EPA determines based on reliable data that a different margin of
safety will be safe for infants and children. This additional margin of
safety is commonly referred to as the Food Quality Protection Act
safety factor. In applying this provision, EPA either retains the
default value of 10X, or uses a different additional safety factor when
reliable data available to EPA support the choice of a different
factor.
    Based on an assessment of polymeric red, EPA has concluded that
there are no toxicological endpoints of concern for the U.S.
population, including infants and children. Because there are no
threshold effects associated with polymeric red, EPA conducted a
qualitative assessment. As part of that assessment, the Agency did not
use safety factors for assessing risk, and no additional safety factor
is needed for assessing risk to infants and children.

E. Aggregate Risks and Determination of Safety

    Because no toxicological endpoints of concern were identified, EPA
concludes that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result
to the general population, or to infants and children from aggregate
exposure to polymeric red residues.

V. Other Considerations

A. Analytical Enforcement Methodology

    An analytical method is not required for enforcement purposes since
the Agency is establishing an exemption from the requirement of a
tolerance without any numerical limitation.

B. Response to Comment

    EPA received one comment in response to the notice of filing. The
comment concerns pesticide use generally and advocates for ``natural''
alternatives to chemicals. While the Agency recognizes that some people
oppose the use of chemicals in or on food commodities, the FFDCA allows
EPA to establish tolerances and exemptions for residues of pesticides
in or on food as long as the Agency can determine they are safe. The
Agency has evaluated the aggregate exposures of polymeric red and has
determined that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will
result to the general population, or to infants and children, from
aggregate exposure to polymeric red residues. The commenter has
provided no information to support a conclusion that the exemption from
the requirement of a tolerance is not safe.

VI. Conclusions

    Therefore, an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance is
established for residues of poly (oxy-1,2-ethanediyl),
[alpha],[alpha]'-[[[4-[2-(4-methyl-2-
benzothiazolyl)diazenyl]phenyl]imino]di-2,1-ethanediyl]bis[[omega]-
hydroxy- (CAS Reg. No. 158172-12-4) when used as an inert ingredient
(colorant) in pesticide formulations applied to growing crops and raw
agricultural commodities after harvest under 40 CFR 180.910.

VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

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

any enforceable duty or contain any unfunded mandate as described under
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) (2 U.S.C. 1501 et
seq.).
    This action does not involve any technical standards that would
require Agency consideration of voluntary consensus standards pursuant
to section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act (NTTAA) (15 U.S.C. 272 note).

VIII. Congressional Review Act

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

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 180

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

    Dated: April 25, 2023.
Charles Smith,
Director, Registration Division, Office of Pesticide Programs.

    Therefore, for the reasons stated in the preamble, EPA is amending
40 CFR chapter I as follows:

PART 180--TOLERANCES AND EXEMPTIONS FOR PESTICIDE CHEMICAL RESIDUES
IN FOOD

0
1. The authority citation for part 180 continues to read as follows:

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

0
2. In Sec.  180.910, amend table 1 to 180.910 by adding, in
alphabetical order, an entry for ``Poly (oxy-1,2-ethanediyl),
[alpha],[alpha]'-[[[4-[2-(4-methyl-2-
benzothiazolyl)diazenyl]phenyl]imino]di-2,1-ethanediyl]bis[[omega]-
hydroxy- (CAS Reg. No. 158172-12-4)'' to read as follows:

Sec.  180.910  Inert ingredients used pre- and post-harvest; exemptions
from the requirement of a tolerance.

* * * * *

                                               Table 1 to 180.910
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                     Inert ingredients                          Limits                      Uses
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
Poly (oxy-1,2-ethanediyl), [alpha],[alpha]'-[[[4-[2-(4-     ..............  Colorant.
 methyl-2-benzothiazolyl)diazenyl]phenyl]imino]di-2,1-
 ethanediyl]bis[[omega]-hydroxy- (CAS Reg. No. 158172-12-
 4).

                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 2023-09121 Filed 4-28-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 195 (Tuesday, October 9, 2018)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 50536-50537]
[FR Doc No: 2018-21661]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 21

[Docket No. FAA-2018-0860]

Proposed Primary Category Design Standards; Vertical Aviation
Technologies (VAT) Model S-52L Rotorcraft

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration, DOT.

ACTION: Notice shortening comment period.

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

SUMMARY: This action shortens the comment period for the notice of
availability; request for comments that was published on September 26,
2018. In that document, the FAA announced the existence of and
requested comments on the proposed airworthiness design standards for
acceptance of the Vertical Aviation Technologies (VAT) Model S-52L
rotorcraft under the regulations for primary category aircraft.

DATES: The comment period for the document published September 26,
2018, at 83 FR 48574, is shortened. Comments must be received on or
before October 26, 2018.

ADDRESSES: Send comments to the Federal Aviation Administration, Policy
and Innovation Division, Rotorcraft Standards Branch, AIR-681,
Attention: Michael Hughlett, 10101 Hillwood Parkway, Ft. Worth, Texas
76117. Comments may also be emailed to: [email protected].

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michael Hughlett, Aviation Safety
Engineer, Rotorcraft Standards Branch, Policy and Innovation Division,
FAA, 10101 Hillwood Pkwy., Fort Worth, Texas 76177; telephone (817)
222-5110; email [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    The FAA invites interested parties to submit comments on the
proposed airworthiness standards to the address specified above.
Commenters must identify the VAT Model S-52L on all submitted
correspondence. The most helpful comments reference a specific portion
of the airworthiness standards, explain the reason for any recommended
change, and include supporting data. The FAA will consider all comments
received on or before the closing date before issuing the final
acceptance. We will consider comments filed late if it is possible to
do so without incurring expense or delay. We

may change the proposed airworthiness standards based on received
comments.

Background

    On September 26, 2018, the FAA issued a notice of availability;
request for comments, entitled ``Proposed Primary Category Design
Standards; Vertical Aviation Technologies (VAT) Model S-52L
Rotorcraft'' (83 FR 48574) (``notice of availability''). The notice of
availability established a 60-day comment period.
    The FAA finds that a 30-day comment period is sufficient for the
public to analyze and provide meaningful comment to notice of
availability. The date by which to file comments is therefore shortened
from November 26, 2018, to October 26, 2018. The FAA does not
anticipate any further action to be taken regarding this comment
period.

Shortening of Comment Period

    Accordingly, the comment period for the notice of availability has
been shortened to close on October 26, 2018.

    Issued in Ft Worth, Texas, on September 27, 2018.
Jorge Castillo,
Acting Manager, Rotorcraft Standards Branch, Policy and Innovation
Division, Aircraft Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2018-21661 Filed 10-5-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 6 (Monday, January 11, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 2018-2020]
[FR Doc No: 2021-00196]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-90849; File No. SR-MEMX-2020-17]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; MEMX LLC; Notice of Filing and
Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To Amend Exchange
Rule 11.8(b) Relating to the Handling of Limit Orders When the National
Best Bid or Offer Is Not Available

January 5, 2021.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the ``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given
that on December 29, 2020, MEMX LLC (``MEMX'' or the ``Exchange'')
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the ``Commission'')
the proposed rule change as described in Items I, and II below, which
Items have been prepared by the Exchange. The Exchange filed the
proposal as a ``non-controversial'' proposed rule change pursuant to
Section 19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act \3\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(6)
thereunder.\4\ The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit
comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \4\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange is filing with the Commission a proposed rule change
to amend Exchange Rule 11.8(b) as it relates to the System's \5\
handling of Limit Orders \6\ when the national best bid or offer
(``NBBO'') is not available. The text of the proposed rule change is
provided in Exhibit 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ As defined in Rule 1.5(gg), the Exchange's ``System'' is the
electronic communications and trading facility designated by the
Board through which securities orders of Users are consolidated for
ranking, execution and, when applicable, routing. As defined in Rule
1.5(jj), a ``User'' is a member of the Exchange (``Member'') or
sponsored participant of a Member who is authorized to obtain access
to the System pursuant to Rule 11.3.
    \6\ Limit Orders are described in Exchange Rule 11.8(b) and
generally defined as an order to buy or sell a stated amount of a
security at a specified price or better.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements
concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and
discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The
text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in
Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in
Sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such
statements.

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

1. Purpose
    On May 4, 2020, the Commission approved the Exchange's Form 1
application for registration as a national securities exchange,
including the initial Rules of the Exchange.\7\ In preparation for the
Exchange's launch on September 21, 2020, the Exchange adopted in August
2020 certain additional Rules relating to the System's handling of
Market Orders \8\ and Limit Orders when the NBBO is not available.\9\
Specifically, the Exchange adopted Exchange Rule 11.8(a)(7), which
provides that a Market Order received by the System when the NBBO is
not available will be rejected or cancelled back to the entering User,
and Exchange Rule 11.8(b)(9), which similarly provides that a Limit
Order received by the System when the NBBO is not available will be
rejected or cancelled back to the entering User. These Rules were based
on language applicable to Pegged Orders \10\ set forth in Exchange Rule
11.8(c)(7) and were intended to match the handling of Market Orders and
Limit Orders with the handling of Pegged Orders when the NBBO is not
available under that Rule (i.e., that such orders will be rejected or
cancelled back to the entering User).\11\ The Exchange noted in the
proposal to adopt Exchange Rules 11.8(a)(7) and 11.8(b)(9) that it
believed that, at least in connection with the launch of the

Exchange, it should not accept orders (of any type) when there is no
available NBBO in the applicable security, as the Exchange believed
that the absence of an NBBO may be indicative of a potential market
problem and that many of the protections in place for the protection of
investors may be absent when there is no NBBO.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 88806 (May 4, 2020),
85 FR 27451
    (May 8, 2020) (the ``Approval Order'').
    \8\ Market Orders are described in Exchange Rule 11.8(a) and
generally defined as an order to buy or sell a stated amount of a
security that is to be executed at the NBBO or better when the order
reaches the Exchange.
    \9\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 89581 (August 17,
2020), 85 FR 51799 (August 21, 2020) (SR-MEMX-2020-04).
    \10\ In addition to Market Orders and Limit Orders, Pegged
Orders are the third of three primary order types offered by the
Exchange. Pegged Orders are described in Exchange Rules 11.6(h) and
11.8(c) and generally defined as an order that is pegged to a
reference price and automatically re-prices in response to changes
in the NBBO. The two types of peg instructions for Pegged Orders
are: (1) Primary Peg, which pegs to the NBB (NBO) for buy (sell)
orders; and (2) Midpoint Peg, which pegs to the midpoint of the
NBBO.
    \11\ See Exchange Rule 11.8(c)(7).
    \12\ See supra note 9 at 51805.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange now proposes to delete Exchange Rule 11.8(b)(9) to
allow the System to accept Limit Orders when the NBBO is not available
and handle such orders in accordance with the User's instructions and
the Rules of the Exchange. Since its launch, the Exchange has had
direct experience with handling orders when the NBBO is not available,
and the Exchange believes that potential problems applicable to Market
Orders and Pegged Orders when the NBBO is not available are not
applicable to Limit Orders. For instance, with respect to Market
Orders, the Exchange believes that the absence of an NBBO may be
problematic because such orders must, by definition, be executed at the
NBBO or better when the order reaches the Exchange, and thus when no
NBBO is available the System is not able to execute at the NBBO and
does not have a price to reference for determining what constitutes an
appropriate price.\13\ Moreover, because Market Orders are not subject
to any further price limitations entered by the User, the System could
execute an accepted Market Order when no NBBO is available against a
marketable contra-side order resting on the Exchange that is priced far
away from the last sale price or last disseminated NBBO, which the
Exchange believes would rarely be intended. Therefore, to protect
against executions of Market Orders at unintended price levels, the
Exchange believes that rejecting or cancelling such orders is still
appropriate. With respect to Pegged Orders, the Exchange believes that
the absence of an NBBO may be problematic because such orders, by
definition, must be pegged to (i) the NBB (NBO) for buy (sell) orders
for a Primary Peg instruction, or (ii) the midpoint of the NBBO for a
Midpoint Peg instruction, and thus when no NBBO is available there is
no reference price to which such orders can be pegged. Therefore, the
Exchange believes that rejecting or cancelling such orders is still
appropriate. Accordingly, the Exchange believes the protection afforded
by Exchange Rules 11.8(a)(7) and 11.8(c)(7) for Market Orders and
Pegged Orders when the NBBO is not available (i.e., that such orders
will be rejected or cancelled back to the entering User) is still
appropriate and the Exchange does not propose to delete or amend these
Rules.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ See Exchange Rule 11.8(b)(9).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Unlike Market Orders and Pegged Orders, a Limit Order requires the
entering User to specify a dollar price that the System must execute
the order at or better than instead of execution of the order being
based on the NBBO. Therefore, for Limit Orders, the entering User is
able to establish its own protection in the form of a specified price
limitation. Thus, even when the NBBO is not available, the possibility
of executing at an unintended price is not present for a Limit Order
because the User must specify the most aggressive price at which it is
willing to execute. Additionally, the Exchange believes that the
proposed change would result in Members sending additional liquidity in
the form of Limit Orders to the Exchange when there is otherwise no
available NBBO, which would deepen the liquidity on the Exchange and
potentially establish the NBBO to the benefit of all Members and the
market generally.
    The Exchange also notes that its initial Rules previously approved
by the Commission in the Approval Order did not contain Exchange Rule
11.8(b)(9). Rather, as noted above, this provision was subsequently
adopted by the Exchange in connection with the Exchange's initial
launch so the Exchange could evaluate the necessity of this
functionality while gaining operational experience and data. The
Exchange now believes that the rejection of Limit Orders when no NBBO
is available pursuant to Exchange Rule 11.8(b)(9) is unnecessary for
the reasons stated above. The Exchange also notes that deletion of
Exchange Rule 11.8(b)(9) is consistent with the existing rules and
functionality of other exchanges.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ See, e.g., Cboe EDGX Exchange, Inc. Rule 11.8(b) regarding
limit orders, which does not have a comparable provision to Exchange
Rule 11.8(b)(9); Cboe EDGA Exchange, Inc. Rule 11.8(b) regarding
limit orders, which does not have a comparable provision to Exchange
Rule 11.8(b)(9).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with Section 6(b)(5) of the Act,\15\ which requires, among other
things, that the Exchange's rules must be designed to prevent
fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to promote just and
equitable principles of trade, and to remove impediments to and perfect
the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system,
and, in general, to protect investors and the public interest, and
Section 6(b)(8) of the Act,\16\ which requires that the Exchange's
rules not impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or
appropriate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
    \16\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(8).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As noted above, the proposed change is intended to revert the
System's handling of Limit Orders when there is no available NBBO to
the functionality contemplated by the Exchange's initial Rules
previously approved by the Commission in the Approval Order. The
Exchange believes that permitting Members to submit Limit Orders to the
Exchange when the NBBO is not available is appropriate and consistent
with the Act as the Exchange believes that its Members would want to
utilize this functionality, thereby resulting in additional liquidity
in the form of Limit Orders being sent to the Exchange when there is
otherwise no available NBBO, which would deepen the liquidity on the
Exchange and potentially establish the NBBO to the benefit of all
Members and the market generally. Furthermore, the proposed change
would make the System's functionality consistent with the functionality
offered by certain other exchanges with respect to accepting Limit
Orders when no NBBO is available.\17\ Thus, the Exchange believes the
proposed changes in this regard would promote just and equitable
principles of trade, remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of
a free and open market and a national market system, and, in general,
would protect investors and the public interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ See supra note 14.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change would
result in any burden on competition that is not necessary or
appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The Exchange
reiterates that the proposed rule change would revert the System's
functionality to that contemplated by the Exchange's initial Rules
previously approved by the Commission in the Approval Order, which is
also consistent with the functionality offered by other exchanges.\18\
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change would not burden
intramarket competition because the ability to submit Limit Orders to
the Exchange when the NBBO is not available would be open to all
Members. The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change would not
burden, but rather increase,

intermarket competition as the Exchange belives [sic] that permitting
Members to submit Limit Orders to the Exchange when the NBBO is not
available would ultimately enable the Exchange to better compete with
other exchanges that offer this same functionality. Thus, the Exchange
believes this proposed rule change will facilitate fair competition
among national securities exchanges. In addition, the Exchange believes
the proposed rule change will all benefit Members and market
participants in that the change would allow for additional orders,
particularly when there is not already an active market in a particular
security, to be sent to the Exchange, thereby deepening the Exchange's
liquidity and possibly establishing the NBBO when it is not otherwise
available.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ See supra note 14.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange neither solicited nor received comments on the
proposed rule change.

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

    Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not: (i)
Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public
interest; (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii)
become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or
such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become
effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \19\ and Rule 19b-
4(f)(6) thereunder.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \20\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). In addition, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii)
requires a self-regulatory organization to give the Commission
written notice of its intent to file the proposed rule change, along
with a brief description and text of the proposed rule change, at
least five business days prior to the date of filing of the proposed
rule change, or such shorter time as designated by the Commission.
The Exchange has satisfied this requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A proposed rule change filed pursuant to Rule 19b-4(f)(6) under the
Act \21\ normally does not become operative for 30 days after the date
of its filing. However, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii) \22\ permits the
Commission to designate a shorter time if such action is consistent
with the protection of investors and the public interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
    \22\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed change will allow the Exchange to accept Limit Orders
when the NBBO is not available, in which case the Exchange will handle
such orders in accordance with the User's instructions and the Rules of
the Exchange. The Exchange believes that waiver of the operative delay
is consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest
because the proposed functionality will allow market participants to
submit limit orders to MEMX when the NBBO is not available, just as
they can do to other exchanges, which can provide additional liquidity
on MEMX and contribute to the formation of two-sided quotes that are
publicly available. In addition, the Exchange states in its filing that
its proposal is consistent with the initial applicable rule for the
Exchange that was previously approved by the Commission in connection
with its initial exchange registration, and also is consistent with
existing rules and functionality offered by other exchanges.\23\ The
Commission believes that waiver of the 30-day operative delay is
consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest
because the proposed rule change does not raise any new or novel
issues. Therefore, the Commission hereby waives the operative delay and
designates the proposal as operative upon filing.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ See supra note 14. In its filing, the Exchange stated that
it proposes to implement the proposed rule change on or about
January 15, 2021.
    \24\ For purposes only of waiving the 30-day operative delay,
the Commission also has considered the proposed rule's impact on
efficiency, competition, and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C.
78c(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule
change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule
change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or
appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or
otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission
takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings under
Section 19(b)(2)(B) \25\ of the Act to determine whether the proposed
rule change should be approved or disapproved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2)(B).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Solicitation of Comments

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and
arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule
change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of
the following methods:

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number
    SR-MEMX-2020-17 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-MEMX-2020-17. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's internet website (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml).
Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written
statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with
the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed
rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those
that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions
of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for website viewing and printing in
the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC
20549, on official business days between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and
3:00 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available for inspection
and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All comments
received will be posted without change. Persons submitting comments are
cautioned that we do not redact or edit personal identifying
information from comment submissions. You should submit only
information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions
should refer to File Number SR-MEMX-2020-17 and should be submitted on
or before February 1, 2021.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\26\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

J. Matthew DeLesDernier,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2021-00196 Filed 1-8-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P