[Federal Register: April 15, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 71)]
[Notices]
[Page 17549-17551]
[DOCID:fr15ap09-128]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

[Docket No. FMCSA-2008-0312]

Parts and Accessories Necessary for Safe Operation; Grant of
Exemption for DriveCam, Inc.

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

ACTION: Notice of final disposition.

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

SUMMARY: The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA)
announces its decision to grant an exemption to DriveCam, Inc.
(DriveCam) that will enable video event recorders to be mounted on
commercial motor vehicles lower in the windshield than is currently
permitted by the Agency's regulations. DriveCam requested the exemption
so that commercial motor vehicle operators would be able to use video
event recorders to increase safety through (1) identification and
remediation of risky driving behaviors such as distracted driving and
drowsiness; (2) enhanced monitoring of passenger behavior for CMVs in
passenger service; and (3) enhanced collision review and analysis.
FMCSA believes that permitting video event recorders to be mounted
lower than currently allowed, but still outside the driver's sight
lines to the road and highway signs and signals, will maintain a level
of safety that is equivalent to, or greater than, the level of safety
achieved without the exemption.

DATES: This exemption is effective from April 15, 2009 through April
15, 2011.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Luke W. Loy, Vehicle and Roadside
Operations Division, Office of Bus and

Truck Standards and Operations, MC-PSV,<PHONE_NUMBER>, Federal Motor
Carrier Safety Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington,
DC 20590-0001.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    Under 49 U.S.C. 31315 and 31136(e), FMCSA may grant an exemption
from the prohibition on obstructions to the driver's field of view
requirements in 49 CFR 393.60(e) 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 of safety that would be
achieved absent such exemption'' (49 CFR 381.305(a)).

DriveCam's Request for Exemption

    DriveCam applied for an exemption from 49 CFR 393.60(e)(1) to allow
the use of video event recorders on all commercial motor vehicles.
    Section 393.60(e)(1) of the FMCSRs prohibits the obstruction of the
driver's field of view by devices mounted at the top of the windshield.
Antennas, transponders and similar devices (devices) must not be
mounted more than 152 mm (6 inches) below the upper edge of the
windshield. These devices must be located outside the area swept by the
windshield wipers and outside the driver's sight lines to the road and
highway signs and signals.
    DriveCam states that one of the primary deployers of video event
recorders has been the motorcoach industry. DriveCam notes that over
the last several years, the structural and aesthetic design of buses
has changed considerably to include windshields that encompass a larger
percentage of the front area of a motor coach and that extend well
beyond the driver's useable sight line. As a result, manufacturers have
voluntarily installed larger windshield wipers on these windshields
that increase the swept area beyond the minimum required by Federal
Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 104, ``Windshield wiping and
washing systems.'' FMVSS No. 104 establishes the requirements
applicable to vehicle and equipment manufacturers for windshield wiper
system coverage for passenger cars, multi-purpose passenger vehicles,
trucks and buses.
    DriveCam states that video event recorders, for optimal
effectiveness, are mounted on the vehicle windshield on the interior of
the vehicle in a position that enables the video-capture of what is
happening in front of the vehicle as well as an internal video-capture
of the driver (and passengers in passenger carrier vehicles). The view
toward the front requires that the forward lens of the recorder be in
the swept area of the windshield for a clear view in inclement weather.
DriveCam states:

    Section 393.60(e)(1) was designed to avoid placement of devices
on the windshield that would obstruct a driver's useful view of the
roadway. However, because of the increase of the size of motorcoach
windows and the corresponding increase in the area swept by the
windshield wipers, video event recorders now must be mounted so high
on the window as to limit the view of drivers, passengers, and
collision events. Thus, the level of safety that can be produced by
use of video event recorders is limited by the current regulation.
By comparison, the proposed alternative will enable DriveCam to
lower the placement of the video event recorders to a level, which
will maximize the external and internal views of the recorders while
still having them mounted high enough so as not to limit the field
of vision of the driver.

    DriveCam notes in its exemption application that the Commercial
Vehicle Safety Alliance (CVSA) submitted a petition for rulemaking to
FMCSA on October 18, 2007, to amend 49 CFR 393.60(e). The CVSA petition
requests that the FMCSRs be amended to permit video event recorders and
similar devices that require a clear forward facing visual field to be
mounted not more than 50 mm (2 inches) below the upper edge of the area
swept by the windshield wipers, provided that they are located outside
the driver's sight lines to the road and highway signs and signals.
DriveCam proposes that motor carriers utilizing the exemption be
required to comply with the standard proposed in the CVSA petition if
it is adopted during the 2-year exemption period. Copies of DriveCam's
application for exemption and the CVSA petition are available for
review in the docket for this notice.
    DriveCam contends that video event recorders, once intergrated into
fleets, have been shown to reduce the incidence of preventable vehicle
incidents and crashes by 30-40 percent when used with a program to (1)
review non-crash events, and (2) coach drivers to improve driving
behavior. DriveCam provided a number of case studies of commercial
fleets that it has conducted to support these claims.

Comments

    On October 31, 2008, FMCSA published notice of the DriveCam
application and asked for public comment (73 FR 65008). The Agency
received two comments.
    1. Mr. Richard L. Cofer, of Southern Company, a large utility with
over 2,500 commercial motor vehicles, stated that Southern supports the
use of video event recorders, and does not object to granting the
exemption. Mr. Cofer stated that the devices present relatively minor
visual obstruction when placed directly under the rear view mirror. Mr.
Cofer stated that if an exemption is granted, the Agency should
specifically identify where the devices can be placed.
    FMCSA Response: DriveCam proposed to require motor carriers to
mount video event recorders not more than 50 mm (2 inches) below the
upper edge of the area swept by the windshield wipers, and outside the
driver's sight lines to the road and highway signs and signals in
accordance with the CVSA petition for rulemaking. As noted below, the
Agency has adopted these parameters as conditions of the exemption.
    2. The California Highway Patrol (CHP) stated that the windshield
visibility requirements in the California Vehicle Code (CVC), Section
26708, are based on the preemptive requirements of the Federal Motor
Carrier Safety Standards (FMVSS) (49 CFR part 571.104) and cannot be
changed without a statutory amendment. Until that step is taken, CHP
asserted that the installation of video event recorders as proposed by
DriveCam would be prohibited in California. In addition, CHP expressed
concern regarding the lack of any safety studies and related supporting
data to support the exemption application.
    FMCSA Response: While FMCSA acknowledges that DriveCam did not
present specific studies or data showing that safety will not be
degraded, the Agency believes that placement of video event recorders
just below the top of the swept area of the windshield wipers will (1)
be well outside the drivers' sight lines, (2) allow the Agency to test,
on an interim basis, an innovative safety management control system,
and (3) not negatively affect safety. The FMCSA encourages any party
having information that motor carriers utilizing this exemption are not
achieving the requisite level of safety immediately to notify the
Agency. If safety is being compromised, or if the continuation of the
exemption is not consistent with 49 U.S.C. 31315(b) and 31136(e), FMCSA
will take immediate steps to revoke the exemption.
    FMVSS 104, Windshield Wiping and Washing Systems (49 CFR 571.104),
applies to vehicle manufactures, while this exemption applies to
individuals or businesses that purchase and operate the vehicles.
Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 31315(d) (as implemented by 49 CFR 381.600),
``[d]uring the period that a[n] * * * exemption * * * is in effect * *
* no State shall enforce any law or regulation that conflicts with or
is

inconsistent with the * * * exemption * * * with respect to a person
operating under the * * * exemption * * *.'' To the extent CVC 26708
conflicts with this exemption, it is preempted by Federal law and may
not be enforced.

Terms and Conditions for the Exemption

    Based on its evaluation of the application for an exemption, FMCSA
grants DriveCam's exemption application. The Agency believes that the
safety performance of motor carriers during the 2-year exemption period
will likely achieve a level of safety that is equivalent to, or greater
than, the level of safety achieved without the exemption because (1)
based on the technical information available, there is no indication
that the video event recorders would obstruct drivers' views of the
roadway, highway signs and surrounding traffic; (2) generally, trucks
and buses have an elevated seating position which greatly improves the
forward visual field of the driver, and any impairment of available
sight lines would be minimal; and (3) the location within the top two
inches of the area swept by the windshield wiper and out of the
driver's normal sightline should be reasonable and enforceable at
roadside. In addition, the Agency believes that the use of video event
recorders by fleets to deter unsafe driving behavior is likely to
improve the overall level of safety to the motoring public. Without the
exemption, FMCSA would be unable to test this innovative safety
management control system.
    The Agency hereby grants the exemption for a two-year period,
beginning April 15, 2009 and ending April 15, 2011.
    During the temporary exemption period, motor carriers using video
event recorders must ensure that the devices are mounted not more than
50 mm (2 inches) below the upper edge of the area swept by the
windshield wipers, and outside the driver's sight lines to the road and
highway signs and signals.

Preemption

    During the period the exemption is in effect, no state shall
enforce any law or regulation that conflicts with or is inconsistent
with this exemption with respect to a person operating under the
exemption.

    Issued on: April 6, 2009.
William A. Quade,
Acting Chief Safety Officer.
[FR Doc. E9-8595 Filed 4-14-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 141 (Tuesday, July 25, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 34547-34548]
[FR Doc No: 2017-15578]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Docket ID: FEMA-2017-0014; OMB No. 1660-0016]

Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection;
Comment Request; Revision to National Flood Insurance Program Maps:
Application Forms and Instructions for LOMRs and CLOMRs

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice and request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: The Federal Emergency Management Agency, as part of its
continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites
the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity
to comment on a reinstatement without change, of a previously approved
information collection for which approval has expired. In accordance
with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, this notice seeks comments
concerning information required by FEMA to revise National Flood
Insurance Program Maps.

DATES: Comments must be submitted on or before August 24, 2017.

ADDRESSES: Submit written comments on the proposed information
collection to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office
of Management and Budget. Comments should be addressed to the Desk
Officer for the Department of Homeland Security, Federal Emergency
Management Agency, and sent via electronic mail to
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Requests for additional information or
copies of the information collection should be made to Director,
Records Management Division, 500 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20472,
email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or
Brian Koper, Emergency Management Specialist, Federal Insurance and
Mitigation Administration, DHS/FEMA,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP)
is authorized by the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968, as amended,
42 U.S.C. 4001 et seq. The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)
administers the NFIP and maintains the maps that depict flood hazard
information. In 44 CFR 65.3, communities are required to submit
technical information concerning flood hazards and plans to avoid
potential flood hazards when physical changes occur. In 44 CFR 65.4,
communities are provided the right to submit technical information when
inconsistencies on maps are identified. In order to revise the Base (l-
percent annual chance) Flood Elevations (BFEs), Special Flood Hazard
Areas (SFHAs), and floodways presented on the NFIP maps, a community
must submit scientific or technical data demonstrating the need for a
revision. The NFIP regulations cited in 44 CFR part 65 outline the data
that must be submitted for these requests. This collection serves to
provide a standard format for the general information requirements
outlined in the NFIP regulations, and helps establish an organized
package of the data needed to revise NFIP maps.
    This proposed information collection previously published in the
Federal Register on May 9, 2017 at 82 FR 21547 with a 60-day public
comment period. No comments were received. This information collection
expired on May 31, 2017. FEMA is requesting a reinstatement, without
change, of a previously approved information collection for which
approval has expired. The purpose of this notice is to notify the
public that FEMA will submit the information collection abstracted
below to the Office of Management and Budget for review and clearance.

Collection of Information

    Title: Revision to National Flood Insurance Program Maps:
Application Forms and Instructions for LOMRs and CLOMRs.
    Type of Information Collection: Revision of a currently approved
information collection.
    OMB Number: 1660-0016.
    FEMA Forms: FEMA Form 086-0-27, Overview and Concurrence Form; FEMA
Form 086-0-27A, Riverine Hydrology and Hydraulics Form; FEMA Form 086-
0-27B, Riverine Structures Form; FEMA Form 086-0-27C, Coastal Analysis
Form; FEMA Form 086-0-27D, Coastal Structures Form; FEMA Form 086-0-
27E, Alluvial Fan Flooding Form.
    Abstract: The forms in this information collection are used to
determine if the collected data will result in the modification of a
BFE, a SFHA, or a floodway. Once the information is collected, it is
submitted to FEMA for review and is subsequently included on the NFIP
maps. Using these maps, lenders will determine the application of the
mandatory flood insurance purchase requirements, and insurance agents
will determine actuarial flood insurance rates.
    Affected Public: State, Local and Tribal Government and Business or
Other for-Profit Institutes.
    Estimated Number of Respondents: 5,291.
    Estimated Number of Responses: 5,291.
    Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 16,107.
    Estimated Total Annual Respondent Cost: $1,108,050.
    Estimated Respondents' Operation and Maintenance Costs:
$22,010,000.
    Estimated Respondents' Capital and Start-Up Costs: None.
    Estimated Total Annual Cost to the Federal Government: $24,559.06.

Comments

    Comments may be submitted as indicated in the ADDRESSES caption
above. Comments are solicited to (a) evaluate whether the proposed data
collection is necessary for the proper performance of the agency,
including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b)
evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the
proposed collection of information, including the validity of the
methodology and assumptions used; (c) enhance the quality, utility, and
clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) minimize the burden
of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including
through

the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other
technological collection techniques or other forms of information
technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses.

    Dated: July 19, 2017.
Tammi Hines,
Acting Records Management Program Chief, Mission Support, Federal
Emergency Management Agency, Department of Homeland Security.
[FR Doc. 2017-15578 Filed 7-24-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 9111-52-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 98 (Wednesday, May 21, 2014)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 29098]
[FR Doc No: 2014-11792]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[Docket No. USCG-2014-0282]

Safety Zone; Fourth of July Fireworks, Berkeley Marina, San
Francisco Bay, Berkeley, CA

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of enforcement of regulation.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard will enforce the safety zone for the Berkeley
Marina Fourth of July Fireworks display in the Captain of the Port, San
Francisco area of responsibility on July 4, 2014, from 9:30 p.m. to
10:30 p.m. This action is necessary to protect life and property of the
maritime public from the hazards associated with the fireworks display.
During the enforcement period, unauthorized persons or vessels are
prohibited from entering into, transiting through, or anchoring in the
safety zone, unless authorized by the Patrol Commander (PATCOM).

DATES: The regulations in 33 CFR 165.1191, Table 1, Item number 8 will
be enforced from 9:30 p.m. to 10:30 p.m. on July 4, 2014.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this notice,
call or email Lieutenant Junior Grade William Hawn, U.S. Coast Guard
Sector San Francisco; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER> or email at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Coast Guard will enforce a 1,000 foot
safety zone around the Berkeley Pier in approximate position
37[deg]51'40'' N, 122[deg]19'19'' W (NAD 83) from 9:30 p.m. until 10:30
p.m. on July 4, 2014. Upon the commencement of the 60 minute fireworks
display, scheduled to begin at 9:30 p.m. on July 4, 2014, the safety
zone will encompass the navigable waters around and under the Berkeley
Pier within a radius 1,000 feet in approximate position 37[deg]51'40''
N, 122[deg]19'19'' W (NAD 83) for the Fourth of July Fireworks,
Berkeley Marina in 33 CFR 165.1191, Table 1, Item number 8. At the
conclusion of the fireworks display the safety zone shall terminate.
This safety zone will be in effect from 9:30 p.m. to 10:30 p.m. on July
4, 2014.
    Under the provisions of 33 CFR 165.1191, unauthorized persons or
vessels are prohibited from entering into, transiting through, or
anchoring in the safety zone during all applicable effective dates and
times, unless authorized to do so by the PATCOM. Additionally, each
person who receives notice of a lawful order or direction issued by an
official patrol vessel shall obey the order or direction. The PATCOM is
empowered to forbid entry into and control the regulated area. The
PATCOM shall be designated by the Commander, Coast Guard Sector San
Francisco. The PATCOM may, upon request, allow the transit of
commercial vessels through regulated areas when it is safe to do so.
    This notice is issued under authority of 33 CFR 165.1191 and 5
U.S.C. 552(a). In addition to this notice in the Federal Register, the
Coast Guard will provide the maritime community with extensive advance
notification of the safety zone and its enforcement period via the
Local Notice to Mariners.
    If the Captain of the Port determines that the regulated area need
not be enforced for the full duration stated in this notice, a
Broadcast Notice to Mariners may be used to grant general permission to
enter the regulated area.

    Dated: April 24, 2014.
Gregory G. Stump,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port San Francisco.
[FR Doc. 2014-11792 Filed 5-20-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register: August 9, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 153)]
[Notices]
[Page 45548-45550]
[DOCID:fr09au06-78]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2005-0203; FRL-8083-3]

Ethylene Oxide; Tolerance Reassessment Decision for Low Risk
Pesticide; Notice of Availability

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice announces the availability of EPA's Tolerance
Reassessment Decision (TRED) for the pesticide ethylene oxide, and
opens a public comment period on this document, related risk
assessments, and other support documents. EPA has reviewed this
pesticide ethylene oxide through a modified, streamlined version of the
public participation process that the Agency uses to involve the public
in developing pesticide tolerance reassessment and reregistration
decisions. Through the tolerance reassessment program, EPA is ensuring
that all pesticides meet current health and food safety standards.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before October 10, 2006.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by docket identification
(ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2005-0203, by one of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.

Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments.
     Mail: Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP) Regulatory Public
Docket (7502P), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania
Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001.
     Delivery: OPP Regulatory Public Docket (7502P),
Environmental Protection Agency, Rm. S-4400, One Potomac Yard (South
Building), 2777 S. Crystal Drive, Arlington, VA. Deliveries are only
accepted during the Docket's normal hours of operation (8:30 a.m. to 4
p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays). Special
arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed information. The
Docket telephone number is<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-
2005-0203. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included
in the docket without change and may be made available on-line at
http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information

provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you
consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through http://www.regulations.gov or E-mail. The Federal http://www.regulations.gov

Web site is an ``anonymous access'' system, which means EPA will not
know your identity or contact information unless you provide it in the
body of your comment. If you send an E-mail comment directly to EPA
without going through http://www.regulations.gov, your E-mail address

will be automatically captured and included as part of the comment that
is placed in the docket and made available on the Internet. If you
submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name
and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any
disk or CD-ROM you submit. 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. Electronic files should avoid
the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of
any defects or viruses.
    Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the docket index.
Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly
available, e.g., CBI or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted
material, is not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available
only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are
available either in the electronic docket at http://www.regulations.gov
, or, if only available in hard copy, at the OPP

Regulatory Public Docket in Rm. S-4400, One Potomac Yard (South
Building), 2777 S. Crystal Drive, Arlington, VA. The hours of operation
of this Docket Facility are from 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through
Friday, excluding legal holidays. The Docket telephone number is (703)
305-5805.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Joy Schnackenbeck, Special Review and
Reregistration Division (7508P), 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<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. What Should I Consider as I Prepare My Comments for EPA?

    1. Submitting CBI. Do not submit this information to EPA through
http://www.regulations.gov or E-mail. Clearly mark the part or all of

the information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information in a disk
or CD ROM that you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD ROM
as CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD ROM the
specific information that is claimed as CBI. In addition to one
complete version of the comment that includes information claimed as
CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information
claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket.
Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with
procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2.
    2. Tips for preparing your comments. When submitting comments,
remember to:
    i. Identify the document by docket ID number and other identifying
information (subject heading, Federal Register date and page number).
    ii. Follow directions. The Agency may ask you to respond to
specific questions or organize comments by referencing a Code of
Federal Regulations (CFR) part or section number.
    iii. Explain why you agree or disagree; suggest alternatives and
substitute language for your requested changes.
    iv. Describe any assumptions and provide any technical information
and/or data that you used.
    v. If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how you
arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be
reproduced.
    vi. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns and
suggest alternatives.
    vii. Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the use of
profanity or personal threats.
    viii. Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period
deadline identified.

II. Background

    EPA has reassessed the uses of ethylene oxide (ETO), and reassessed
the four existing tolerances or legal residue limits established for
residues of this fumigant/sterilant. Additional tolerances are to be
proposed for ethylene chlorhydrin (ECH), a reaction product of ETO. As
a fumigant/sterilant, ETO is used to sterilize medical or laboratory
equipment, pharmaceuticals, and aseptic packaging (21 CFR part 201), or
to reduce microbial load on cosmetics, whole and ground spices or other
seasoning materials (40 CFR part 180) and artifacts, archival material
or library objects. Sterilization/fumigation with ETO must be performed
only in vacuum or gas tight chambers designed for use with ETO. It is
applied by commercial applicators only; there are no residential uses
of ETO.
    The Agency is now issuing for comment the resulting Report on Food
Quality Protection Act (FQPA) Tolerance Reassessment Progress and Risk
Management Decision for ethylene oxide, known as a TRED, as well as
related risk assessments and technical support documents. This TRED
will be followed by a Reregistration Eligibility Decision (RED) for
ETO, scheduled for 2007. The RED will be prepared once the Agency's
Office of Research and Development (ORD) completes its assessment of
ETO carcinogenicity. These results will be incorporated into the Office
of Pesticide Programs' (OPP) risk assessment for ETO and a RED will be
prepared.
    EPA developed the ETO TRED through a modified, streamlined version
of its public process for making tolerance reassessment and
reregistration eligibility decisions. Through these programs, the
Agency is ensuring that pesticides meet current standards under the
Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA) and the Federal
Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), as amended by
FQPA. EPA must review tolerances and tolerance exemptions that were in
effect when the FQPA was enacted, to ensure that these existing
pesticide residue limits for food and feed commodities meet the safety
standard established by the new law. Tolerances are considered
reassessed once the safety finding has been made or a revocation
occurs. EPA has reviewed and made the requisite safety finding for the
ETO tolerances.
    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 of May 14,
2004 (69 FR 26819) (FRL-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
issues, and degree of public concern associated with each pesticide.
EPA can expeditiously reach decisions for pesticides like ETO, which
pose no risk concerns after risk mitigation. This mitigation includes
the voluntary cancellation of ethylene oxide use on basil and the
mandatory requirement of a sterilization method that uses a single
sterilization chamber to pre-condition and aerate with an alternating
vacuum and aeration purging procedure which reduces ethylene oxide and
reaction product residues. Once EPA assesses uses and risks for such
low risk pesticides, the Agency may go directly to a decision and
prepare a document summarizing its findings, such as the ETO TRED.
    The tolerance reassessment program is being conducted under
Congressionally mandated time frames, and EPA recognizes the need both
to make timely decisions and to involve the public in finding ways to
effectively mitigate pesticide risks. ETO, however, poses no risks
after mitigation. The Agency therefore is issuing the ETO TRED, its
risk assessments, and related support documents simultaneously for
public comment. The comment period is intended to provide an
opportunity for public input and a mechanism for initiating any
necessary amendments to the TRED. All comments should be submitted
using the methods in ADDRESSES, and must be received by EPA on or
before the closing date. These comments will become part of the Agency
docket for ETO. Comments received after the close of the comment period
will be marked ``late.'' EPA is not required to consider these late
comments.
    EPA will carefully consider all comments received by the closing
date and will provide a Response to Comments Memorandum in the docket
and http://www.regulations.gov. If any comment significantly affects

the document, EPA also will publish an amendment to the TRED in the
Federal Register. In the absence of substantive comments requiring
changes, the decisions reflected in the TRED will be implemented as
presented.

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

    Section 408(q) of the 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: August 1, 2006.
Debra Edwards,
Director, Special Review and Reregistration Division, Office of
Pesticide Programs.
[FR Doc. E6-12906 Filed 8-8-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-S


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 189 (Thursday, September 29, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 67023-67027]
[FR Doc No: 2016-23499]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-78925; File No. SR-FINRA-2016-023]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Financial Industry Regulatory
Authority, Inc.; Order Granting Approval of Proposed Rule Change
Relating to TRACE Reporting and Dissemination of CMO Transactions

September 23, 2016.

I. Introduction

    On June 27, 2016, the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc.
(``FINRA'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission''), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ a
proposed rule change related to Trade Reporting and Compliance Engine
(``TRACE'') reporting and dissemination of transactions in
Collateralized Mortgage Obligations (``CMOs'').\3\ The proposed rule
change was published for comment in the Federal Register on July 6,
2016.\4\ The Commission received three comments in response to the
proposal.\5\ FINRA responded to the comments on September 14, 2016.\6\
FINRA extended the time period within which the Commission shall
approve the proposed rule change, disapprove the proposed rule change,
or institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule change
should be disapproved to September 23, 2016.\7\ This order grants
approval of the proposed rule change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ The term ``Collateralized Mortgage Obligation'' is defined
in FINRA Rule 6710(dd).
    \4\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 78196 (June 29,
2016), 81 FR 44065 (``Notice'').
    \5\ See letters to Brent J. Fields, Secretary, Commission, from
Mike Nicholas, Chief Executive Officer, BDA, dated July 27, 2016
(``BDA Letter''); Lynn Martin, President and Chief Operating
Officer, ICE Data Services, dated July 27, 2016 (``ICE Letter'');
and Chris Killian, Managing Director, Securitization, SIFMA, dated
July 27, 2016 (``SIFMA Letter'').
    \6\ See letter to Brent J. Fields, Secretary, Commission, from
Alexander Ellenberg, Associate General Counsel, Regulatory Policy
and Oversight, FINRA, dated September 14, 2016 (``FINRA Response
Letter'').
    \7\ See letter to Katherine England, Assistant Director,
Division of Trading and Markets, Commission, from Alexander L.
Ellenberg, Assistant General Counsel, Regulatory Policy and
Oversight, FINRA, dated August 9, 2016 (extending to September 9,
2016); letter to Katherine England, Assistant Director, Division of
Trading and Markets, Commission, from Alexander L. Ellenberg,
Associate General Counsel, Regulatory Policy and Oversight, FINRA,
dated September 2, 2016 (extending to September 23, 2016).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Description of the Proposed Rule Change

    Historically, FINRA has utilized TRACE to collect from its members
and publicly disseminate information on secondary, over-the-counter
transactions in corporate debt securities, Agency Debt Securities,\8\
and certain primary market transactions. For certain other asset types,
FINRA utilized TRACE to collect transaction information, but until
recently, did not disseminate such information publicly. FINRA has been
working to phase-in the dissemination of transaction information for
these previously non-disseminated asset types. To date, FINRA has
implemented dissemination of Agency Pass-Through Mortgage-Backed
Securities and SBA-Backed ABS; \9\ TRACE-Eligible

Securities effected as Rule 144A transactions; \10\ and Asset-Backed
Securities.\11\ The remaining types of Securitized Products \12\ not
yet subject to dissemination are CMOs, commercial mortgage-backed
securities (``CMBSs''), and collateralized debt obligations
(``CDOs'').\13\ FINRA now has proposed to provide for public
dissemination of certain information about CMO transactions,\14\ to
reduce the time period within which a CMO transaction must be reported
to TRACE, and to make conforming and technical revisions to its rules,
as described below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ The term ``Agency Debt Security'' is defined in FINRA Rule
6710(l).
    \9\ On November 12, 2012, FINRA began disseminating transactions
in Agency Pass-Through Mortgage-Backed Securities traded TBA. See
Securities Exchange Act Release No. 66829 (April 18, 2012), 77 FR
24748 (April 25, 2012) (approving SR-FINRA-2012-020); FINRA's
Regulatory Notice 12-26 (May 2012) and Regulatory Notice 12-48
(November 2012). On July 22, 2013, FINRA began disseminating
transactions in Agency Pass-Through Mortgage-Backed Securities
traded in Specified Pool Transactions and SBA-Backed ABS traded TBA
or in Specified Pool Transactions. See Securities Exchange Act
Release No. 68084 (October 23, 2012), 77 FR 65436 (October 26, 2012)
(approving SR-FINRA-2012-042); FINRA's Regulatory Notice 12-56
(December 2012). The terms ``TBA,'' ``Agency Pass-Through Mortgage-
Backed Security,'' ``Specified Pool Transaction,'' and ``SBA-Backed
ABS'' are defined in FINRA Rule 6710(u), (v), (x), and (bb),
respectively.
    \10\ On June 30, 2014, FINRA began disseminating transactions in
TRACE-Eligible Securities effected as Rule 144A transactions,
provided that such transactions were in securities that would be
subject to dissemination if effected in non-Rule 144A transactions.
See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 70345 (September 6, 2013),
78 FR 56251 (September 12, 2013) (approving SR-FINRA-2013-029);
Securities Exchange Act Release No. 70691 (October 16, 2013), 78 FR
62788 (October 22, 2013) (SR-FINRA-2013-043); FINRA's Regulatory
Notice 13-35 (October 2013). ``TRACE-Eligible Security'' is defined
in FINRA Rule 6710(a).
    \11\ On June 1, 2015, FINRA began disseminating transactions in
a group of newly-defined Asset-Backed Securities. See Securities
Exchange Act Release No. 71607 (February 24, 2014), 79 FR 11481
(February 28, 2014) (approving SR-FINRA-2013-046); FINRA's
Regulatory Notice 14-34 (August 2014). ``Asset-Backed Security'' is
defined in FINRA Rule 6710(cc).
    \12\ ``Securitized Product'' is defined in FINRA Rule 6710(m).
    \13\ See Notice, 81 FR at 44066.
    \14\ FINRA stated that CMOs are the largest and most actively
traded of the remaining Securitized Product types and typically have
relatively smaller transaction sizes than CMBSs and CDOs. See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dissemination of CMO Transaction Information

    Currently, FINRA Rule 6750 states that FINRA will not disseminate
information on a transaction in a TRACE-Eligible Security that is a
Securitized Product, with the following exceptions: An Agency Pass-
Through Mortgage-Backed Security, an SBA-Backed ABS, and an Asset-
Backed Security.\15\ FINRA has proposed to revise this rule to provide
for public dissemination of certain information on transactions in
CMOs, including those effected pursuant to Rule 144A. Accordingly,
FINRA has proposed to reframe the description of Securitized Products
not subject to dissemination to delineate those Securitized Products
that would remain outside of the scope of contemporaneous
dissemination: CMBSs, CDOs,\16\ and certain CMOs.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ See FINRA Rule 6750(b)(4).
    \16\ FINRA has proposed to define ``Collateralized Debt
Obligation'' (``CDO'') to mean ``a type of Securitized Product
backed by fixed-income assets (such as bonds, receivables on loans,
or other debt) or derivatives of these fixed-income assets,
structured in multiple classes or tranches with each class or
tranche entitled to receive distributions of principal and/or
interest in accordance with the requirements adopted for the
specific class or tranche. A CDO includes, but is not limited to, a
collateralized loan obligation (`CLO') and a collateralized bond
obligation (`CBO').'' See proposed FINRA Rule 6710(ff). FINRA also
has proposed to amend the definition of ``Asset-Backed Security'' to
harmonize with the newly defined term ``CDO.'' See proposed FINRA
Rule 6710(cc).
    \17\ See proposed FINRA Rule 6750(c)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Under the proposal, depending on the size of the transaction and
the number of transactions in the CMO security in a given period, a CMO
transaction could be subject to immediate trade-by-trade dissemination
or periodic aggregate dissemination, or remain exempt from
dissemination entirely. FINRA would immediately disseminate information
about a CMO transaction having a value under $1 million (calculated
based upon original principal balance of the particular CMO
security).\18\ For a CMO transaction having a value of $1 million or
more (calculated based upon original principal balance of the
particular CMO security) and where there have been five or more
transactions in that security of $1 million or more in the period
reported by at least two different market participant identifiers
(``MPIDs''), FINRA would disseminate aggregated information about
transactions in that security on a weekly and/or monthly basis.\19\ If
a CMO transaction does not meet the criteria for either immediate
trade-by-trade dissemination or, based on recent activity in that
particular CMO security, periodic aggregate dissemination, such
transaction would not be subject to public dissemination in any form
(but would, as described below, be available in the historic data
sets).\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ See proposed FINRA Rule 6750(a).
    \19\ See proposed FINRA Rule 6750(b). For a particular CMO
security, a weekly report would be issued for each week during which
at least five transactions in that security of $1 million or more
occurred and such transactions were reported by at least two unique
MPIDs. A monthly report for a CMO security would be issued for each
month during which at least five transactions in that security of $1
million or more occurred and such transactions were reported by at
least two unique MPIDs, regardless of whether such transactions had
qualified for weekly reporting. FINRA stated that, for purposes of
determining if a CMO security has been reported by at least two
unique MPIDs, FINRA would consider an interdealer trade to be
reported by one MPID (the sell side dealer), even though the trade
would be reported by both sides of the transaction. See Notice, 81
FR at 44066, n. 11.
    \20\ See proposed FINRA Rule 6750(c)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Reduction of Reporting Period

    FINRA also proposed to amend FINRA Rule 6730 to reduce the period
within which a member must report a CMO transaction executed on or
after issuance and to implement a clearer deadline for reporting a CMO
transaction executed prior to issuance. Currently, a CMO transaction
executed on or after issuance must be reported to TRACE no later than
the close of the TRACE system on the date of execution.\21\ FINRA has
proposed to require that each CMO transaction be reported to TRACE
within 60 minutes of execution.\22\ Currently, a CMO transaction
executed before the date of issuance of the security must be reported
to TRACE by the earlier of (i) the business day that the security is
assigned a CUSIP, a similar numeric identifier, or a FINRA symbol; or
(ii) the date of issuance of the security.\23\ Under the proposal, such
a CMO transaction would need to be reported to TRACE no later than the
first settlement date of the security.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ See FINRA Rule 6730(a)(3)(A). This rule contains exceptions
for transactions executed within 90 minutes of the close of the
TRACE system and transactions executed when the system is closed.
    \22\ See proposed FINRA Rule 6730(a)(3)(H)(ii). Exceptions for
transactions executed within 60 minutes of the close of the TRACE
system and transactions executed when the system is closed are set
forth in subparts (i), (iii), and (iv) of proposed FINRA Rule
6730(a)(3)(H).
    \23\ See FINRA Rule 6730(a)(3)(C).
    \24\ See proposed FINRA Rule 6730(a)(3)(C). FINRA stated its
belief that the proposal would provide a uniform reporting deadline
that could be easily ascertained by all firms because new issuances
in CMOs generally settle on the last business day of the month.
FINRA explained that, under the current rule, some firms have had
difficulty in determining with accuracy and in a timely manner when
the reporting obligation has been triggered, due to inconsistencies
in how underwriters and trading parties communicate relevant
information. See Notice, 81 FR at 44067.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Data Availability

    The proposal would amend FINRA Rule 7730, which establishes various
TRACE data products, to reflect the addition of CMO transactions to the
applicable data sets. Currently, the ``SP Data Set'' for real-time data
includes each transaction in a Securitized Product that is publicly
disseminated, except for a Rule 144A transaction. Under the proposal,
the SP Data Set would be expanded to include any transaction in a CMO
security that is disseminated on an immediate trade-by-trade basis or
included in a weekly or monthly aggregated report.\25\ Currently, the
``Historic SP Data Set'' includes each historic transaction in a
Securitized Product reported to TRACE, if a

transaction in that type of Securitized Product is subject to immediate
trade-by-trade dissemination, but excludes a historic transaction in a
Rule 144A security. Under the proposal, the Historic SP Data Set would
be expanded to include all non-Rule 144A CMO transactions, even if not
previously disseminated immediately or as part of a periodic
report.\26\ Currently, the ``Rule 144A Data Set'' and the ``Historic
Rule 144A Data Set'' include real-time data and historic data,
respectively, for Rule 144A transactions reported to TRACE. Under the
proposal, with respect to transactions in CMO securities issued
pursuant to Rule 144A, the Rule 144A Data Set would be expanded to
include transactions in CMO securities that had been disseminated on an
immediate trade-by-trade basis or on a periodic aggregate basis, and
the Historic Rule 144A Data Set would be expanded to include historic
data on all CMO transactions, whether or not they had been subject to
any form of dissemination previously.\27\ FINRA has not proposed to
amend the fees currently in effect for the SP Data Set, Historic SP
Data Set, Rule 144A Data Set, or Historic Rule 144A Data Set based on
inclusion of this additional data.\28\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ See proposed FINRA Rule 7730(c).
    \26\ See proposed FINRA Rule 7730(f)(4)(C). See also Notice, 81
FR at 44066, n. 12.
    \27\ See proposed FINRA Rule 7730(c), (f)(4)(D). See also
Notice, 81 FR 44066, n. 12.
    \28\ See Notice, 81 FR at 44066, n. 12 (stating that ``[t]he
inclusion of this additional data in such data sets will not affect
the fees currently in effect'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Other Technical Changes

    FINRA has proposed to amend a provision in FINRA Rule 6730(a) that
provides general requirements for reporting Securitized Products to
make clear that this provision will apply specifically to CDOs and
CMBSs.\29\ FINRA also has proposed to eliminate certain provisions that
have expired in FINRA Rule 6730(a).\30\ Finally, FINRA has proposed to
make technical and conforming changes to the FINRA Rule 7730 and the
Rule 6700 series to reflect the changes to the TRACE reporting and
dissemination requirements for CMO transactions discussed above.\31\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ See proposed FINRA Rule 6730(a)(3)(A). FINRA noted that
after the proposed rule change becomes effective, this provision
would apply only to these two types of Securitized Products. See
Notice, 81 FR at 44067, n. 15.
    \30\ See proposed FINRA Rule 6730(a)(3)(B).
    \31\ See Notice, 81 FR at 44065.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Effective Date of Proposed Rule Change

    FINRA has stated that it would announce the operative date of the
proposed rule change in a Regulatory Notice to be published no later
than 90 days following Commission approval, and that the operative date
would be no later than 365 days following publication of that
Regulatory Notice.\32\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \32\ See id. at 44067.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Summary of Comments and FINRA's Response

    The Commission received three comments on the proposed rule change
\33\ and a response letter from FINRA.\34\ All three commenters were
generally supportive but suggested certain revisions to the proposal.
For example, all three commenters questioned the proposed $1 million
threshold for immediate trade-by-trade dissemination, but they
suggested conflicting alternatives. One commenter argued that the $1
million threshold is too high and suggested lowering the threshold to
no more than $500,000 ``to ensure only truly retail-sized transactions
are subject to real-time dissemination.'' \35\ This commenter stated
that its members ``recognize the benefits to the market of greater
price transparency, but at the same time recent experience with TBAs,
specified pools, and other types of securities illustrate the
detrimental impact overly broad TRACE dissemination can have,
particularly with respect to the ability for market participants to
easily transact in size.'' \36\ Further, this commenter noted that,
because in the CMO market ``the securities are even less liquid and
more unique, liquidity concerns are heightened.'' \37\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \33\ See supra note 5.
    \34\ See supra note 6.
    \35\ SIFMA Letter at 1-2.
    \36\ Id. at 1.
    \37\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Another commenter argued that the $1 million threshold is too low
to meaningfully improve transparency and suggested that FINRA consider
incrementally increasing the threshold in stages until all CMO
transactions are disseminated on an immediate trade-by-trade basis.\38\
This commenter stated that limiting immediate dissemination to smaller
CMO transactions could be confusing to retail and smaller institutional
investors because the prices of smaller CMO trades are ``typically less
representative of where near-term next trading levels are typically
conducted.'' \39\ This commenter also recommended that FINRA set the
initial threshold for immediate dissemination at $1 million based on
the current principal balance, rather than on the original principal
balance.\40\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \38\ See ICE Letter at 2, 5.
    \39\ Id. at 3-4.
    \40\ See id. at 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A third commenter requested that FINRA remove the $1 million
threshold entirely, based on a view that the proposed thresholds for
dissemination on a trade-by-trade or on a periodic aggregate basis
``will create a bifurcated market that will disadvantage the smaller
trades that will be disseminated in real-time and small-to-medium sized
dealers that more frequently transact in smaller quantities compared to
the largest dealers.'' \41\ This commenter predicted that institutional
investors would ``avoid trading in sub-$1 million quantities . . . to
avoid information leakage'' and ``seek to transact with financial
institutions that are not required to report trades to TRACE.'' \42\
This commenter argued that greater trade-by-trade dissemination would
have a negative impact on liquidity and the proposal would ``almost
exclusively impair market liquidity for transactions of $1 million and
less.'' \43\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \41\ BDA Letter at 1.
    \42\ Id. at 1-2.
    \43\ Id. at 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In response to these comments, FINRA stated that it ``continues to
believe that the $1 million threshold is an appropriate balance between
transparency and the risk of decreased liquidity provision.'' \44\
FINRA explained that it received similar comments on an earlier
iteration of the proposal and took these comments into account when
finalizing the proposed rule change, based on the reasons explained in
the Notice and the economic analysis contained therein.\45\ FINRA also
stated that it will assess whether there is a need for additional
transparency in the future.\46\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \44\ FINRA Response Letter at 2.
    \45\ See id.
    \46\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    One commenter recommended a higher minimum activity level threshold
for new-issue CMO transactions to be included in periodic aggregate
reports so that dissemination would focus on secondary market
activity.\47\ FINRA responded that the proposed threshold of five
transactions, combined with the use of periodic aggregate reports
rather than trade-by-trade dissemination for certain transactions,
should satisfy the commenter's concern and that FINRA's proposed
approach was appropriate.\48\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \47\ See SIFMA Letter at 2. This commenter also recommended that
multiple dealer-to-dealer trades done in the same CMO security at
the time of the initial distribution be counted as one trade for
purposes of calculating the periodic aggregate dissemination
threshold. See id.
    \48\ See FINRA Response Letter at 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Another commenter suggested that the periodic aggregate reports
should include the most recent trade price, as

this would allow retail investors to reference the last trade price
when engaging in price discovery for future trades and thereby better
align retail and institutional execution quality.\49\ FINRA responded
that it previously considered including the last sale price in the
reports, but modified an earlier version of the proposal to remove this
and other data fields in response to concerns about the potential for
reverse-engineering the data.\50\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \49\ See ICE Letter at 5.
    \50\ See FINRA Response Letter at 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Two commenters commented on the proposed shortening of the
reporting period for CMO transactions executed on or after issuance
from end-of-day to within 60 minutes of execution. One commenter
supported this aspect of the proposal and stated that, as compared to
an even shorter time period considered initially, this reporting period
``is a vast improvement for smaller dealers that have fewer operational
and trading personnel focused on trade reporting.'' \51\ Another
commenter suggested a six-month pilot period to phase in the reduction
in reporting time, as has been done for other product types.\52\ This
commenter acknowledged that many of its members currently report CMO
transactions in less than 60 minutes, but noted that this is not always
the case and that a pilot period ``would help ensure that dealers are
able to implement necessary system changes and avoid errors.'' \53\
FINRA responded that it initially considered a shorter reporting
timeframe with a phased-in implementation period, but modified its
proposal to a reporting period longer than either phase proposed
initially ``to lessen the potential costs of the Proposal while still
providing sufficiently timely transparency to the market.'' \54\ FINRA
noted that 84% of CMO transactions are already reported to TRACE within
60 minutes and that it continues to believe that the proposed reporting
timeframe is appropriate and not unduly burdensome.\55\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \51\ BDA Letter at 1. Under a previous version of the proposal,
FINRA had considered reducing the reporting timeframe to 15 minutes.
See Notice, 81 FR at 44071.
    \52\ See SIFMA Letter at 3.
    \53\ Id.
    \54\ FINRA Response Letter at 3-4.
    \55\ See id. at 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Two commenters expressed their support for the revised reporting
timeframe for CMO transactions executed before issuance. One commenter
noted that its members strongly support the revised reporting time and
that it had requested this change because of resource constraints faced
by some small and mid-sized firms that prevent them from actively
monitoring all CMO data feeds and thereby knowing if a particular CUSIP
has been issued.\56\ Another commenter stated the new standard ``should
provide dealers with sufficient flexibility to report a transaction as
early as one or two days prior to the first settlement date, if
settlement details are available.'' \57\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \56\ See SIFMA Letter at 3.
    \57\ BDA Letter at 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, one commenter requested clarification of the definition of
``CMO'' because the current definition encompasses Ginnie Mae Project
Loans, which (according to the commenter) market participants consider
agency CMBS, in apparent conflict with FINRA's stated intention that
the proposed rule change would apply to CMOs, but not CMBSs or CDOs.
This commenter suggested that project loan securities should be outside
the scope of the proposed rule change and the definition of ``CMO''
should be adjusted accordingly.\58\ FINRA responded that agency CMBSs
fall within the definition of ``CMO'' and are within the intended scope
of the proposal, while other CMBSs that are not specifically included
within the definition of ``CMO'' are not within scope.\59\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \58\ See SIFMA Letter at 2-3.
    \59\ See FINRA Response Letter at 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Discussion and Commission Findings

    After careful review, the Commission finds that the proposed rule
change is consistent with the requirements of the Act and the rules and
regulations thereunder applicable to a national securities
association.\60\ In particular, the Commission finds that the proposed
rule change is consistent with Section 15A(b)(6) of the Act,\61\ which
requires, among other things, that FINRA's rules be designed to prevent
fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to promote just and
equitable principles of trade, and, in general, to protect investors
and the public interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \60\ In approving this proposed rule change, the Commission has
considered the proposed rule's impact on efficiency, competition,
and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).
    \61\ 15 U.S.C. 78o-3(b)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On numerous occasions, the Commission has stated that price
transparency plays a fundamental role in promoting the fairness and
efficiency of U.S. capital markets.\62\ The Commission believes that,
to further the goal of increasing price transparency in the debt
markets in general and the CMO market in particular, it is reasonable
and consistent with the Act for FINRA to extend post-trade price
transparency to CMO transactions in the manner set forth in the
proposal. FINRA will effect immediate trade-by-trade dissemination of
CMO transactions with a transaction value under $1 million and issue
periodic aggregate reports of transactions in a particular CMO security
having a transaction value of $1 million or more and meeting thresholds
for trading frequency and the number of members reporting transactions
in that particular security. FINRA has not proposed either immediate
trade-by-trade dissemination or periodic aggregate dissemination of CMO
transactions with a transaction value of $1 million or more that do not
meet those thresholds. The Commission acknowledges that this proposal
thereby tailors public dissemination only to a segment of the CMO
market in which there are smaller transactions or activity among a
wider number of market participants. The Commission notes one
commenter's concern that price levels for smaller transactions in a
particular CMO security may be less representative of subsequent
trading levels for that security \63\ and another commenter's concern
that restricting immediate trade-by-trade public dissemination to only
the smallest trades could impair market liquidity in that segment of
the market.\64\ Nevertheless, the Commission believes that the proposal
represents a reasonable first step to introduce post-trade transparency
to this asset class, and in approving this proposal notes FINRA's
representation that it ``will continue to monitor the market and assess
the need for additional transparency.'' \65\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \62\ See, e.g., Securities Exchange Act Release No. 43873
(January 23, 2001), 66 FR 8131, 8136 (January 29, 2001) (SR-NASD-99-
65) (approving initial TRACE proposal).
    \63\ See ICE Letter at 3-4.
    \64\ See BDA Letter at 2.
    \65\ FINRA Response Letter at 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission believes that the proposed reduction in reporting
times for CMO transactions executed on or after issuance appears
reasonably designed to contribute to enhanced price transparency for
CMOs. Additionally, the Commission believes that the proposed revision
to the reporting period for CMO transactions executed prior to issuance
will provide greater clarity to market participants and help promote
compliance with applicable reporting rules.
    Furthermore, the Commission believes that including CMO transaction
data in the various TRACE data sets is reasonable and consistent with
the Act. The rules that establish these data sets have been approved by
the

Commission,\66\ and expanding the data sets to include CMO transactions
does not appear to raise any issues. Finally, the Commission believes
that the proposal's minor, conforming, and technical revisions to FINRA
Rule 7730 and the Rule 6700 series are consistent with the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \66\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 66829 (April 18,
2012), 77 FR 24748 (April 25, 2012) (approving SR-FINRA-2012-020);
Securities Exchange Act Release No. 68084 (October 23, 2012), 77 FR
65436 (October 26, 2012) (approving SR-FINRA-2012-042); Securities
Exchange Act Release No. 70345 (September 6, 2013), 78 FR 56251
(September 12, 2013) (approving SR-FINRA-2013-029); Securities
Exchange Act Release No. 71607 (February 24, 2014), 78 FR 11481
(February 28, 2014) (approving SR-FINRA-2013-046).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Conclusion

    It is therefore ordered, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the
Act,\67\ that the proposed rule change (SR-FINRA-2016-023) be, and
hereby is, approved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \67\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\68\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \68\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Brent J. Fields,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2016-23499 Filed 9-28-16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 70 (Wednesday, April 12, 2023)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 21900-21902]
[FR Doc No: 2023-07588]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2022-0679; Project Identifier MCAI-2021-01213-T;
Amendment 39-22392; AD 2023-06-06]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; MHI RJ Aviation ULC (Type Certificate
Previously Held by Bombardier, Inc.) Airplanes; Correction

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule; correction.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA is correcting an airworthiness directive (AD) that was
published in the Federal Register. That AD applies to all MHI RJ
Aviation ULC Model CL-600-2C10 (Regional Jet Series 700, 701 & 702)
airplanes, Model CL-600-2C11 (Regional Jet Series 550) airplanes, Model
CL-600-2D15 (Regional Jet Series 705) airplanes, Model CL-600-2D24
(Regional Jet Series 900) airplanes, and Model C-600-2E25 (Regional Jet
Series 1000) airplanes. As published, a portion of the initial
compliance time for doing the new ram-air valve task specified in the
regulatory text for certain airplanes is incorrect. This document
corrects that error. In all other respects, the original document
remains the same.

DATES: This correction is effective April 28, 2023. The effective date
of AD 2023-06-06 remains April 28, 2023.

ADDRESSES:
    AD Docket: You may examine the AD docket at regulations.gov under
Docket No. FAA-2022-0679; or in person at Docket Operations between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD
docket contains this final rule; correction, the mandatory continuing
airworthiness information (MCAI), any comments received, and other
information. The address for Docket Operations is U.S. Department of
Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor,
Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Chirayu A. Gupta, Aerospace Engineer,
Airframe and Propulsion Section, FAA, New York ACO Branch, 1600 Stewart
Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, NY 11590; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; email [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    AD 2023-06-06, Amendment 39-22392 (88 FR 17682, March 24, 2023) (AD
2023-06-06), requires revising the existing maintenance or inspection
program, as applicable, to incorporate two aircraft maintenance manual
(AMM) tasks. That AD applies to all MHI RJ Aviation ULC Model CL-600-
2C10 (Regional Jet Series 700, 701 & 702) airplanes, Model CL-600-2C11
(Regional Jet Series 550) airplanes, Model CL-600-2D15 (Regional Jet
Series 705) airplanes, Model CL-600-2D24 (Regional Jet Series 900)
airplanes, and Model CL-600-2E25 (Regional Jet Series 1000) airplanes.

Need for the Correction

    As published, a portion of the initial compliance time specified in
paragraph (g)(1)(ii) of AD 2023-06-06 is incorrect. The initial
compliance time specified in paragraph (g)(1)(ii) of AD 2023-06-06 is
within 90 days after the effective date of this AD or before
accumulating 3,000 total flight hours, ``whichever occurs later.'' That
compliance time should be within 90 days after the effective date of
this AD or before accumulating 3,000 total flight hours, ``whichever
occurs first.'' This is the compliance time provided in Transport
Canada AD CF-2021-38R1, dated May 25, 2022, which the FAA intended to
match.

Correction of Publication

    This document corrects an error and correctly adds the AD as an
amendment to 14 CFR 39.13. Although no other part of the preamble or
regulatory information has been corrected, the FAA is publishing the
entire rule in the Federal Register.
    The effective date of this AD remains April 28, 2023.
    Since this action only corrects a certain compliance time, it has
no adverse economic impact and imposes no additional unforeseen burden
on any person. Therefore, the FAA has determined that notice and public
procedures are unnecessary.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

    Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by
reference, Safety.

Adoption of the Amendment

0
Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me by the
Administrator,

the FAA amends part 39 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part
39) as follows:

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

0
1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.

Sec.  39.13  [Corrected]

0
2. The FAA amends Sec.  39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness
directive:

2023-06-06 MHI RJ Aviation ULC (Type Certificate Previously Held by
Bombardier, Inc.): Amendment 39-22392; Docket No. FAA-2022-0679;
Project Identifier MCAI-2021-01213-T.

(a) Effective Date

    This airworthiness directive (AD) is effective April 28, 2023.

(b) Affected ADs

    None.

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to all MHI RJ Aviation ULC airplanes,
certificated in any category, identified in paragraphs (c)(1)
through (5) of this AD.
    (1) Model CL-600-2C10 (Regional Jet Series 700, 701 & 702)
airplanes.
    (2) Model CL-600-2C11 (Regional Jet Series 550) airplanes.
    (3) Model CL-600-2D15 (Regional Jet Series 705) airplanes.
    (4) Model CL-600-2D24 (Regional Jet Series 900) airplanes.
    (5) Model CL-600-2E25 (Regional Jet Series 1000) airplanes.

(d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code: 21, Air
conditioning.

(e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by a determination that the existing
maintenance or inspection program, as applicable, must be revised to
incorporate two aircraft maintenance manual (AMM) tasks. The FAA is
issuing this AD to address in-service reports of emergency ram air
valve part number (P/N) GG670-95019-1 stuck in closed or partially
open positions, which, if not corrected could result in a complete
loss of outside air supply, leading to an increase in flight deck
and cabin temperatures and a possible increased level of
contaminated air (carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide, or ozone).

(f) Compliance

    Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified,
unless already done.

(g) Maintenance or Inspection Program Revision

    (1) Within 90 days after the effective date of this AD, revise
the existing maintenance or inspection program, as applicable, to
incorporate the information specified in figure 1 to the
introductory text of paragraph (g)(1) of this AD. The initial
compliance time for doing the task is at the applicable time
specified in paragraph (g)(1)(i) or (ii) of this AD.

Figure 1 to the Introductory Text of Paragraph (g)(1)--AMM Task for the
Ram-Air Valve

BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR12AP23.024

    (i) For airplanes that have accumulated less than 1,800 flight
hours since the last operational check of the ram air shutoff valve
was performed as specified in AMM Task 21-52-04-710-801-A01, and for
airplanes that have accumulated less than 1,800 flight hours from
the date of issuance of the original airworthiness certificate or
original export certificate of airworthiness: Within 90 days after
the effective date of this AD, or before accumulating 1,800 total
flight hours, whichever occurs later.
    (ii) For airplanes that have accumulated 1,800 flight hours or
more since the last operational check of the ram air shutoff valve
was performed as specified in AMM Task 21-52-04-710-801-A01, and for
airplanes that have accumulated 1,800 flight hours or more since the
date of issuance of the original airworthiness certificate or
original export certificate of airworthiness and for which no
operational check of the valve has been performed: Within 90 days
after the effective date of this AD or before accumulating 3,000
total flight hours, whichever occurs first.
    (2) Within 90 days after the effective date of this AD, revise
the existing maintenance or inspection program, as applicable, to
incorporate the information specified in figure 2 to the
introductory text of paragraph (g)(2) of this AD. The initial
compliance time for doing the task is at the applicable time
specified in paragraph (g)(2)(i) or (ii) of this AD.

Figure 2 to the Introductory Text of Paragraph (g)(2)--AMM Task for the
Pack Discharge and Ram-Air Supply Ducts
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR12AP23.025

BILLING CODE 4910-13-C
    (i) For airplanes that have accumulated less than 17,600 flight
hours since the last detailed inspection of the pack discharge and
ram air supply ducts was performed as specified in AMM Task 21-51-
00-220-801-A01, and for airplanes that have accumulated less than
17,600 flight hours since the date of issuance of the original
airworthiness certificate or original export certificate of
airworthiness: Within 90 days after the effective date of this AD,
or before accumulating 17,600 total flight hours, whichever occurs
later.
    (ii) For airplanes that have accumulated 17,600 flight hours or
more since the last detailed inspection of the pack discharge and
ram air supply ducts as specified in AMM Task 21-51-00-220-801-A01,
and for airplanes that have accumulated 17,600 flight hours or more
since the date of issuance of the original airworthiness certificate
or original export certificate of airworthiness, and for which no
detailed inspection of the pack discharge and ram air supply ducts
has been performed: Within 90 days after the effective date of this
AD.

(h) No Alternative Actions or Intervals

    After the existing maintenance or inspection program has been
revised as required by paragraph (g) of this AD, no alternative
actions (e.g., inspections) or intervals may be used unless the
actions and intervals are approved as an alternative method of
compliance (AMOC) in accordance with the procedures specified in
paragraph (i)(1) of this AD.

(i) Other FAA AD Provisions

    The following provisions also apply to this AD:
    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager, New
York ACO Branch, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this
AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In
accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your request to your principal
inspector or responsible Flight Standards Office, as appropriate. If
sending information directly to the manager of the certification
office, send it to ATTN: Program Manager, Continuing Operational
Safety, FAA, New York ACO Branch, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410,
Westbury, NY 11590; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>. Before using any
approved AMOC, notify your appropriate principal inspector, or
lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the responsible Flight
Standards Office.
    (2) Contacting the Manufacturer: For any requirement in this AD
to obtain instructions from a manufacturer, the instructions must be
accomplished using a method approved by the Manager, New York ACO
Branch, FAA; or Transport Canada; or MHI RJ Aviation ULC's Transport
Canada Design Approval Organization (DAO). If approved by the DAO,
the approval must include the DAO-authorized signature.

(j) Additional Information

    (1) Refer to Transport Canada AD CF-2021-38R1, dated May 25,
2022, for related information. This Transport Canada AD may be found
in the AD docket at regulations.gov under Docket No. FAA-2022-0679.
    (2) For more information about this AD, contact Chirayu A.
Gupta, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe and Propulsion Section, FAA, New
York ACO Branch, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, NY 11590;
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; email [email protected].

(k) Material Incorporated by Reference

    None.

    Issued on April 6, 2023.
Christina Underwood,
Acting Director, Compliance & Airworthiness Division, Aircraft
Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2023-07588 Filed 4-11-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P