[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 201 (Monday, October 19, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 63267-63269]
[FR Doc No: 2015-26424]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-76135; File No. SR-BX-2015-058]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NASDAQ OMX BX, Inc.; Notice of
Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Relating to
Mini Options

 October 13, 2015.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that
on October 8, 2015, NASDAQ OMX BX, Inc. (``BX'' or ``Exchange'') filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'') the
proposed rule change as described in Items I and II below, which Items
have been prepared by the Exchange. 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange proposes to amend Supplementary Material .08 to
Chapter IV, Section 6 (Series of Options Contracts Open for Trading),
entitled ``Mini Options Contracts.'' Specifically, the Exchange
proposes to replace the name ``Google Inc.'' with ``Alphabet Inc.''
    The Exchange requests that the Commission waive the 30-day
operative delay period contained in Exchange Act Rule 19b-
4(f)(6)(iii).\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's
Web site at http://nasdaqomxbx.cchwallstreet.com, at the principal
office of the Exchange, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

    In its filing with the Commission, the 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
    The Exchange proposes to amend Supplementary Material .08 to
Chapter IV, Section 6, regarding Mini Options traded on BX, to replace
the name ``Google Inc.'' with ``Alphabet Inc.'' Google Inc.
(``Google'') recently announced plans to reorganize and create a new
public holding company, which will be called Alphabet Inc.
(``Alphabet''). As a result of the holding company reorganization, each
share of Class A Common Stock (``GOOGL''), which the Exchange has
listed as a Mini Option, will automatically convert into an equivalent
corresponding share of Alphabet Inc. stock.\4\ The symbol ``GOOGL''
remains unchanged.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ The Class C Capital Stock (``GOOG'') which is also impacted
by the reorganization are not eligible to be listed as Mini Options
on the Exchange, only the Class A Common Stock.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange is proposing to make this change to Supplementary
Material .08 to Chapter IV, Section 6 to enable the continued trading
of Mini Options on Google's, now Alphabet's Class A shares. The
Exchange is proposing to make this change because, on October 5, 2015
Google reorganized and as a result underwent a name change.
    The purpose of this change is to ensure that Supplementary Material
.08 to Chapter IV, Section 6 reflects the intention and practice of the
Exchange to trade Mini Options on only an exhaustive list of underlying
securities outlined in Supplementary Material .08. This change is meant
to continue the inclusion of Class A shares of Google in the current
list of underlying securities that Mini Options can be traded on, while
continuing to make clear that class C shares of Google are not part of
that list as that class of options has not been approved for Mini
Options trading. As a result, the proposed change will help avoid
confusion.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the ``Act'') and the rules and
regulations thereunder applicable to the Exchange and, in particular,
the requirements of Section 6(b) of the Act.\5\ Specifically, the
Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with the
Section 6(b)(5) \6\ requirements that the rules of an exchange 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 securities, to remove impediments to and perfect the
mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system, and,
in general, to protect investors and the public interest. Additionally,
the Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with the
Section 6(b)(5) \7\ requirement that the rules of an exchange not be
designed to permit unfair discrimination between customers, issuers,
brokers, or dealers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
    \7\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In particular, the proposed rule change to change the name Google
to Alphabet to reflect the new ownership structure is consistent with
the Act because the proposed change is merely updating the current name
associated with the stock symbol GOOGL to allow for continued mini
option trading on Google's class A shares. The proposed change will
allow for continued benefit to investors by providing them with
additional investment alternatives.

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

    BX does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any
burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The proposed change does not
impose any burden on intra-market competition because it applies to all
members and member organizations uniformly. There is no burden on
inter-market competition because the Exchange is merely attempting to
continue to permit trading of GOOGL as a Mini Options, as is the case
today. As a result, there will be no substantive changes to the
Exchange's operations or its rules.

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

    No written comments were either solicited or received.

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

    Because the 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 if consistent with the protection of investors
and the public interest, the proposed rule change has become effective
pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \8\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(6)
thereunder.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \9\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). In addition, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii)
requires the Exchange to give the Commission written notice of the
Exchange's 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
Commission deems this requirement to have been met.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A proposed rule change filed under Rule 19b-4(f)(6) \10\ normally
does not become operative for 30 days after the date of filing.
However, pursuant to Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii) \11\ the Commission may
designate a shorter time if such action is consistent with the
protection of investors and the public interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
    \11\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange has asked the Commission to waive the 30-day operative
delay so that the proposal may become operative immediately upon
filing. The Commission believes that waiving the 30-day operative delay
is consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest,
as it will allow the Exchange to continue to list mini options on the
Google Class A shares, now Alphabet's Class A shares, following
Google's reorganization. For this reason, the Commission designates the
proposed rule change to be operative upon filing.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ For purposes only of waiving the 30-day operative delay,
the Commission has also 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.

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-BX-2015-058 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-BX-2015-058. 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 such filing also will be available
for inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. 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-BX-2015-058, and should be
submitted on or before November 9, 2015.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Robert W. Errett,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2015-26424 Filed 10-16-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


  MacroButton macIb01 i

EPA REGISTRATION DIVISION COMPANY NOTICE OF FILING FOR PESTICIDE
PETITIONS PUBLISHED IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER

EPA Registration Division contact: Hope Johnson,<PHONE_NUMBER>

Syngenta Crop Protection, LLC

Petition #4F8323

	EPA has received a pesticide petition (4F8323) from Syngenta Crop
Protection, LLC, 410 Swing Road, Greensboro, NC 27409 requesting,
pursuant to section 408(d) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act
(FFDCA), 21 U.S.C. 346a(d), to amend 40 CFR part 180

	1. by establishing a tolerance for residues of

	Mefenoxam: methyl N-(2,6-dimethylphenyl)-N-(methoxyacetyl)-DL-alaninate
in or on the raw agricultural commodity Rapeseed Crop Subgroup 20A at
0.05 parts per million (ppm). EPA has determined that the petition
contains data or information regarding the elements set forth in section
408 (d)(2) of  FDDCA; however, EPA has not fully evaluated the
sufficiency of the submitted data at this time or whether the data
supports granting of the petition. Additional data may be needed before
EPA rules on the petition.

A. Residue Chemistry

	1. Plant metabolism. [The metabolism of mefenoxam is adequately
understood for the purpose of the proposed tolerance.]

	2. Analytical method. [Canola: The analytical method used was Novartis
Crop Protection Method 456-98, “Confirmatory Analytical Method for the
Enantioselective Determination of Residues of Parent Metalaxyl
(CGA-48988) or Mefenoxam (CGA-329351) in Crop Substrates by Chiral High
Performance Liquid Chromatography with Mass Spectrometric Detection”,
March 1999, MRID 44976201.

	3. Magnitude of residues. [Complete residue data to support the
requested tolerances have been submitted. The requested tolerances are
adequately supported by previously submitted studies. In support of the
requested tolerances, Syngenta has conducted the necessary trials in
accordance with the requirements of the EPA Residue Chemistry Guidelines
860.1500 to determine the magnitude of residue of mefenoxam in or on
requested commodities.]

B. Toxicological Profile

1. Acute toxicity. [The toxicological endpoints for mefenoxam are
discussed in B.4. of the Federal Register Notice of July 25, 1997, (62
FR 40084) (FRL-5726-4). The acute toxicity profile can be summarized as
follows:

Rat acute oral study with LD50 value of 490 milligrams/kilograms
(mg/kg).

Rat acute dermal study with LD50 >2,000 mg/kg.

Rat inhalation study with a LC50 >2.29 milligram/liter (mg/L) air.

Primary eye irritation study in rabbit shows mefenoxam as severely
irritating. Primary dermal irritation study in rabbit shows mefenoxam as
slightly irritating. Skin sensitization studies in guinea pigs
(maximization and Buehler Test) show mefenoxam is not a sensitizer.]

2. Genotoxicty. [The toxicological endpoints for mefenoxam are discussed
in B.4. of the Federal Register Notice of July 25, 1997, (62 FR 40084).
The genotoxicity profile can be summarized as follows:

In vitro gene mutation test: Ames test-negative.

In vitro chromosomal aberration test: Chinese hamster ovary
(CH0)-negative.

In vitro gene mutation tests: Ames tests (3 independent studies)-
negative;

gene mutation in mouse lymphoma cells-negative; reverse mutation in
saccharomyces cerevisiae-negative.

In vitro chromosomal aberration tests: Chinese hamster bone marrow
cytogenetic test-negative. DNA repair study in rat
hepatocytes-negative.]

3. Reproductive and developmental toxicity. [The toxicological endpoints
for mefenoxam are discussed in B.4. of the Federal Register Notice of
July 25, 1997, (62

FR 40084). The reproductive and developmental toxicity profile can be
summarized as follows:

Teratology study in rats with a maternal no observed adverse effect
level (NOAEL) of 10 mg/kg based on reduced body weight (bwt) gain.  The
fetuses remained entirely unaffected at the highest dose tested (HDT),
250 mg/kg.

Teratology study in rabbits with a maternal NOAEL of 150 mg/kg based on
bwt loss. The developmental NOAEL was greater than or equal to the HDT,
300 mg/kg.

Three-generation reproduction study in rats with a NOAEL of 1,250 ppm,
which was the HDT.  The treatment had no effect on reproduction or
fertility.

Dominant lethal study in mouse-negative. ]

4. Subchronic toxicity. [The toxicological endpoints for mefenoxam are
discussed in B.4. of the Federal Register Notice of July 25, 1997, (62
FR 40084). The subchronic toxicity profile can be summarized as follows:

A 28-day cumulative toxicity study in rats with a NOAEL of 50 mg/kg
based on liver changes.

A 90-day subchronic dietary toxicity study in rats with a NOAEL of 250
ppm

based on liver changes.

A 90-day subchronic dietary toxicity study in dogs with a NOAEL of 250
ppm based on changes in blood biochemistry and hematology indicative of
functional liver changes.

A 21-day dermal toxicity study in rats with a NOAEL equal to or higher
than the limit dose of 1,000 mg/kg. No local or systemic signs of
toxicity were found.

A 6-month dietary toxicity study in dogs with a NOAEL of 250 ppm based
on changes in blood biochemistry indicative of hepatocellular damage.]

5. Chronic toxicity. [The toxicological endpoints for mefenoxam are
discussed in B.4. of the Federal Register Notice of July 25, 1997, (62
FR 40084). The chronic toxicity profile can be summarized as follows:

A 24-month combined chronic toxicity/carcinogenicity study conducted in
rats with a NOAEL of 250 ppm based on liver changes. No evidence of
oncogenicity was seen.

A 24-month oncogenicity study conducted in mice with a NOAEL of 250 ppm
based on liver changes. No evidence of oncogenicity was seen.]

6. Animal metabolism. [The rat and goat rapidly metabolize and excrete
via the same metabolic pathways as plants. Urinary metabolites are
polar, primarily gucuronide and other conjugates. The parent compound is
not retained in animal tissues nor secreted in milk.]

7. Metabolite toxicology. [Metabolites are considered to be of equal or
less toxicity than the parent material]

8. Endocrine disruption. [Mefenoxam does not belong to a class of
chemicals known or suspected of having adverse effects on the endocrine
system. Furthermore, supporting developmental toxicity studies in rats
and rabbits, and a reproduction study in rats gave no indication of any
effects on endocrine function related to development and reproduction.
Subchronic and chronic treatment did not induce any morphological
changes in endocrine organs and tissues.]

C. Aggregate Exposure

1. Dietary exposure. [Tier II chronic and short-term aggregate exposure

evaluations were made for mefenoxam using the using the Dietary Exposure
Evaluation Model (DEEM-FCID™ Version 3.16) from Exponent, which
utilizes consumption data from the USDA NHANES “What We Eat in
America” survey, 2003-2008. Established tolerances for mefenoxam
and/or metalaxyl were used for all existing uses, as well as proposed
tolerances for the Oilseed Crop Group 20. Percent of crop treated values
were conservatively estimated based upon economic, pest, and competitive
pressures. Drinking water estimates were selected using the higher of
the estimated drinking water concentrations (EDWCs) for surface and
ground water.]

i. Food. [Acute Exposure. Acute dietary exposure assessments were not
performed since the EPA was has not established an acute endpoint of
concern for mefenoxam.

Chronic Exposure. The mefenoxam chronic dietary (food only) risk
assessment was performed for all population subgroups with a chronic
reference dose (cRfD) of 0.074 mg/kg-bw/day based on a six-month feeding
study in dogs with a no observed adverse effect level (NOAEL) of 7.4
mg/kg-bw/day and an uncertainty factor of 100X. The 100X safety factor
includes intra- and inter-species variations. No additional FQPA safety
factor was applied. For the purpose of aggregate risk assessment, the
exposure values were expressed in terms of margin of exposure (MOE),
which was calculated by dividing the NOAEL by the exposure for each
population subgroup. In addition, exposure was expressed as a percent of
the reference dose (%RfD). Chronic (food only) exposure to the U.S.
population resulted in a MOE of 654 (15.3% of the cRfD of 0.074
mg/kg-bw/day). The most exposed sub-population was children (1-2 years
old) with a MOE of 267 (37.5% of the cRfD). Since the benchmark MOE for
these assessments was 100 and since EPA generally has no concern for
exposures above the benchmark or below 100% of the reference dose,
Syngenta believes that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will
result from dietary (food only) exposure to residues arising from the
current and proposed tolerances and label amendments for mefenoxam.

Cancer. Based on the classification of metalaxyl, mefenoxam is also
considered “not likely to be a human carcinogen”. Therefore, no
cancer risk assessment was performed for mefenoxam.]

ii. Drinking water. [The Estimated Drinking Water Concentrations (EDWCs)
of mefenoxam were determined using Tier l SCI-GROW (version 2.3), which
estimates pesticide concentrations in ground water and Tier II
PRZM/EXAMS (PE version 5.0) which estimates pesticide concentrations in
surface water. The application and use parameters for the proposed use
on oilseeds, crop group 20 were modeled along with the currently
registered uses to identify the highest EDWCs. The currently registered
use on citrus based on a treatment rate of 3.0 lbs ai/A, with 2
applications at an interval of 60 days was determined to be the crop
driver. For ground water, the SCI-GROW model provided a chronic EDWC of
1.72 ppb for mefenoxam. For surface water, employing the FL citrus
standard PRZM scenario, the PRZM/EXAMS output provided a chronic EDWC of
22.9 ppb for mefenoxam. This surface water EDWC has not been adjusted
for Percent Cropped Area. Since the surface water EDWC exceeds the
ground water EDWC, the surface water chronic exposure value will be used
for risk assessment purposes and considered protective for any ground
water concentration concerns.

Drinking water estimates were incorporated directly into the dietary
exposure assessment along with the food exposure using the higher of the
estimated drinking water concentrations (EDWCs) for surface water (22.9
ppb). Chronic drinking water exposure to the U.S. population resulted in
a MOE of 15,433 (0.6% of the cRfD of 0.074 mg/kg-bw/day). The most
exposed sub-population was infants <1 year old with a MOE of 5,985 (1.7%
of the cRfD). Since the benchmark MOE for these assessments was 100 and
since EPA generally has no concern for exposures above the benchmark or
below 100% of the reference dose, Syngenta believes that there is a
reasonable certainty that no harm will result from drinking water
exposure to residues arising from all current and proposed uses for
mefenoxam.]

2. Non-dietary exposure. [The use of mefenoxam on residential turf may
result in short- or intermediate-term exposures to selected subgroups. A
short-term inhalation toxicological endpoint of 50 mg/kg-bw/day was
selected based upon the no observed adverse effect level (NOAEL) from a
dev tox study in rats, with an uncertainty factor of 100X, which
includes intra- and inter-species variations; no additional FQPA safety
factor was applied. An intermediate-term inhalation toxicological
endpoint of 7.41 mg/kg-bw/day was selected based upon the no observed
adverse effect level (NOAEL) from a 6-month feeding study in the dog,
with an uncertainty factor of 100X, which includes intra- and
inter-species variations; no additional FQPA safety factor was applied.
Exposure values were expressed in terms of margin of exposure (MOE),
which was calculated by dividing the NOAEL by the exposure for each
subgroup. Residential exposure risk assessments were performed for use
of mefenoxam formulated as Subdue GR, Subdue WSP, and Subdue MAXX for
residential turf). Assessments were also performed for exposure due to
off-site drift of agricultural products. Application of mefenoxam by
residents is allowed; therefore residential handler exposure assessments
are required. Adults 13+ years old had a short-term residential MOE of
501,974 (hose-end sprayer; liquid concentrate); children 1-6 years old
had MOEs of 4,786 (hand-to-mouth; liquid concentrate). Since the
Benchmark MOE for this assessment was 100 and since the EPA generally
has no concern for exposures above the Benchmark MOE, Syngenta believes
that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result from
short- and intermediate-term residential exposure to residues arising
from all current and proposed uses of mefenoxam.]

D. Cumulative Effects

[Cumulative Exposure to Substances with a Common Mechanism of Toxicity.
Section 408(b)(2)(D)(v) 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”. The EPA does not have, at this time,
available data to determine whether mefenoxam has a common mechanism of
toxicity with other substances or how to include this pesticide in a
cumulative risk assessment. For the purposes of this tolerance action,
the EPA has not assumed that mefenoxam has a common mechanism of
toxicity with other substances.]

E. Safety Determination

1. U.S. population. [Using the conservative assumptions described above,
and based on the completeness and reliability of the toxicity data, the
short- and intermediate-term aggregate exposure calculations for all
current and proposed uses of mefenoxam provided MOEs of 4,238 and 628,
respectively, for the U.S. population. The chronic aggregate exposure
calculation for all current and proposed uses of mefenoxam provided a
MOE of 627 (15.9% of the cRfD 0f 0.074 mg/kg-bw/day) for the U.S.
population. Since the aggregate MOEs exceed the Benchmark MOE of 100,
Syngenta believes that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will
result from aggregate exposure to residues arising from all current and
proposed uses of mefenoxam, including anticipated dietary exposure from
food, water, and all other types of non-occupational residential
exposures.]

2. Infants and children. [Using the conservative assumptions described
above, and based on the completeness and reliability of the toxicity
data, the short- and intermediate-term aggregate exposure calculations
for all current and proposed uses of mefenoxam provided MOEs of 1,286
and 261, respectively, for children 1-2 years old. The chronic aggregate
exposure calculation for all current and proposed uses of mefenoxam
provided a MOE of 260 (38.4% of the cRfD 0f 0.074 mg/kg-bw/day) for
children 1-2 years old. Since the aggregate MOEs exceed the Benchmark
MOE of 100, Syngenta believes that there is a reasonable certainty that
no harm will result from aggregate exposure to residues arising from all
current and proposed uses of mefenoxam, including anticipated dietary
exposure from food, water, and all other types of non-occupational
residential exposures.]

F. International Tolerances

[There are no Codex MRLs established for residues of mefenoxam in any
plant or animal commodity. Codex MRLs have been established for
metalaxyl, the racemic fungicide mixture containing the active isomer
mefenoxam, in a number of commodities including asparagus, avocado,
broccoli, Brussels sprouts, cabbage, cacao, carrot, cauliflower, cereal
grains, citrus, cotton seed, cucumbers, grapes, hops, lettuce, melons,
onions, peanuts, peas (succulent), peppers, pome fruits, potatoes,
raspberries, soybeans, spices, spinach, squash, sugar beet, sunflower
seed, and tomatoes.]

 PAGE

 PAGE   6


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 236 (Monday, December 9, 2013)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 73751-73752]
[FR Doc No: 2013-29324]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2013-0916; Airspace Docket No. 13-AGL-30]

Proposed Amendment of Class E Airspace; Philip, SD

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: This action proposes to amend Class E airspace at Philip, SD.
Additional controlled airspace is necessary to accommodate new Standard
Instrument Approach Procedures (SIAPs) at Philip Airport. Geographic
coordinates of the airport also would be adjusted. The FAA is taking
this action to enhance the safety and management of Instrument Flight
Rules (IFR) operations for SIAPs at the airport.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before January 23, 2014.

ADDRESSES: Send comments on this proposal to the U.S. Department of
Transportation, Docket Operations, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., West
Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590-0001. You
must identify the docket number FAA-2013-0916/Airspace Docket No. 13-
AGL-30, at the beginning of your comments. You may also submit comments
through the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov. You may review the
public docket containing the proposal, any comments received, and any
final disposition in person in the Dockets Office between 9:00 a.m. and
5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The Docket
Office, telephone 1-800-647-5527, is on the ground floor of the
building at the above address.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Scott Enander, Central Service Center,
Operations Support Group, Federal Aviation Administration, Southwest
Region, 2601 Meacham Blvd., Fort Worth, TX 76137; telephone: 817-321-
7716.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    Interested parties are invited to participate in this proposed
rulemaking by submitting such written data, views, or arguments, as
they may desire. Comments that provide the factual basis supporting the
views and suggestions presented are particularly helpful in developing
reasoned regulatory decisions on the proposal. Comments are
specifically invited on the overall regulatory, aeronautical, economic,
environmental, and energy-related aspects of the proposal.
Communications should identify both docket numbers and be submitted in
triplicate to the address listed above. Commenters wishing the FAA to
acknowledge receipt of their comments on this notice must submit with
those comments a self-addressed, stamped postcard on which the
following statement is made: ``Comments to Docket No. FAA-2013-0916/
Airspace Docket No. 13-AGL-30.'' The postcard will be date/time stamped
and returned to the commenter.

Availability of NPRMs

    An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded through the
Internet at http://www.regulations.gov. Recently published rulemaking
documents can also be accessed through the FAA's Web page at http://www.faa.gov/airports_airtraffic/air_traffic/publications/airspace_amendments/.
    You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any
comments received and any final disposition in person in the Dockets
Office (see ADDRESSES section for address and phone number) between
9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays. An informal docket may also be examined during normal
business hours at the office of the Central Service Center, 2601
Meacham Blvd., Fort Worth, TX 76137.
    Persons interested in being placed on a mailing list for future
NPRMs should contact the FAA's Office of Rulemaking<PHONE_NUMBER>, to
request a copy of Advisory Circular No. 11-2A, Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking Distribution System, which describes the application
procedure.

The Proposal

    This action proposes to amend Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations
(14 CFR), Part 71 by amending Class E airspace extending upward from
700 feet above the surface to accommodate new standard instrument
approach procedures at Philip Airport, Philip, SD. Accordingly,
additional segments would

extend from the 6.4-mile radius of the airport to 11.8 miles northwest
and 11.5 miles southeast of the airport, to retain the safety and
management of IFR aircraft in Class E airspace to/from the en route
environment. Geographic coordinates would also be updated to coincide
with the FAA's aeronautical database.
    Class E airspace areas are published in Paragraph 6005 of FAA Order
7400.9X, dated August 7, 2013 and effective September 15, 2013, which
is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class E airspace
designation listed in this document would be published subsequently in
the Order.
    The FAA has determined that this proposed regulation only involves
an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and
routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current.
It, therefore, (1) is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under
Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a ``significant rule'' under DOT
Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979);
and (3) does not warrant preparation of a Regulatory Evaluation as the
anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that
will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is
certified that this rule, when promulgated, will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the
criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
    The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is
found in Title 49 of the U.S. Code. Subtitle 1, Section 106 describes
the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation
Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority.
This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in
Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the
FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of
airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient
use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority
as it would amend controlled airspace at Philip Airport, Philip, SD.

Environmental Review

    This proposal will be subject to an environmental analysis in
accordance with FAA Order 1050.1E, ``Environmental Impacts: Policies
and Procedures'' prior to any FAA final regulatory action.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

The Proposed Amendment

    In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation
Administration proposes to amend 14 CFR Part 71 as follows:

PART 71--DESIGNATION OF CLASS A, B, C, D, AND E AIRSPACE AREAS; AIR
TRAFFIC SERVICE ROUTES; AND REPORTING POINTS

0
1. The authority citation for part 71 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g); 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854, 24
FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.

Sec.  71.1  [Amended]

0
2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of FAA Order 7400.9X,
Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 7, 2013, and
effective September 15, 2013, is amended as follows:

Paragraph 6005 Class E Airspace areas extending upward from 700
feet or more above the surface of the earth.

* * * * *

AGL SD E5 Philip, SD [Amended]

Philip Airport, SD
    (Lat. 44[deg]02'55'' N., long. 101[deg]35'56'' W.)

Philip VOR/DME
    (Lat. 44[deg]03'30'' N., long. 101[deg]39'51'' W.)

    That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface
within a 6.4-mile radius of Philip Airport, and within 2 miles each
side of the 308[deg] bearing from the airport extending from the
6.4-mile radius to 11.8 miles northwest of the airport, and within 2
miles each side of the 128[deg] bearing from the airport extending
from the 6.4-mile radius to 11.5 miles southeast of the airport, and
that airspace bounded by a line 7 miles south of and parallel to the
Philip VOR/DME 102[deg] radial extending from the VOR/DME to 2.7
miles east of the VOR/DME, and within 4 miles north and 8.3 miles
south of the Philip VOR/DME 282[deg] radial extending from the VOR/
DME to 16.1 miles west of the VOR/DME.

    Issued in Fort Worth, TX, on November 27, 2013.
David P. Medina,
Manager, Operations Support Group, ATO Central Service Center.
[FR Doc. 2013-29324 Filed 12-6-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4901-13-P