[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 109 (Monday, June 8, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 32430-32431]
[FR Doc No: 2015-13893]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

[Summary Notice No. FAA-2015-35]

Petition for Exemption; Summary of Petition Received;
International Council of Air Shows (ICAS); Experimental Aircraft
Association (EAA) Warbirds of America

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice.

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

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

DATES: Comments on this petition must identify the petition docket
number and must be received on or before June 29, 2015.

ADDRESSES: Send comments identified by docket number FAA-2015-0809
using any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and follow the online instructions for sending your
comments electronically.
     Mail: Send comments to Docket Operations, M-30; U.S.
Department of Transportation (DOT), 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Room
W12-140, West Building Ground Floor, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
     Hand Delivery or Courier: Take comments to Docket
Operations in Room W12-140 of the West Building Ground Floor at 1200
New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
     Fax: Fax comments to Docket Operations at<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Privacy: In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits comments
from the public to better inform its rulemaking process. DOT posts
these comments, without edit, including any personal information the
commenter provides, to

http://www.regulations.gov, as described in the system of records
notice (DOT/ALL-14 FDMS), which can be reviewed at http://www.dot.gov/privacy.
    Docket: Background documents or comments received may be read at
http://www.regulations.gov at any time. Follow the online instructions
for accessing the docket or go to the Docket Operations in Room W12-140
of the West Building Ground Floor at 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE.,
Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays.

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

    Issued in Washington, DC, on June 1, 2015.
Brenda D. Courtney,
Acting Director, Office of Rulemaking.

Petition for Exemption

    Docket No.: FAA-2015-0809.
    Petitioner: International Council of Air Shows (ICAS); Experimental
Aircraft Association (EAA) Warbirds of America.
    Section(s) of 14 CFR Affected: Sec.  91.319(c).
    Description of Relief Sought: The International Council of Air
Shows (ICAS) and the Experimental Aircraft Association (EAA) Warbirds
of America seeks limited relief, on behalf of its members, from the
requirements of Sec.  91.319(c) to permit over flights of stadiums and
sporting events by its members in certain aircraft certified in the
experimental, exhibition categories or aircraft with similar Special
Flight Authorizations (SFAs).

[FR Doc. 2015-13893 Filed 6-5-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 101 (Friday, May 24, 2013)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 31415-31417]
[FR Doc No: 2013-12395]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[Docket No. USCG-2013-0140]
RIN 1625-AA00

Safety Zone; USA Triathlon; Milwaukee Harbor, Milwaukee, WI

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Temporary Final rule.

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

SUMMARY:  The Coast Guard is establishing a safety zone within
Milwaukee Harbor, Milwaukee, Wisconsin. This safety zone is intended to
restrict vessels from a portion of Milwaukee Harbor due to the 2013 and
2014 Olympic and Sprint Distance National Championships. This safety
zone is necessary to protect the surrounding public and vessels from
the hazards associated with the 2013 and 2014 Olympic and Sprint
Distance National Championships.

DATES: This final rule is effective from August 1, 2013, until August
30, 2014.

ADDRESSES: Documents mentioned in this preamble are part of docket
USCG-2013-0140. To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being
available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov, type the
docket number in the ``SEARCH'' box and click ``SEARCH.'' Click on Open
Docket Folder on the line associated with this rulemaking. You may also
visit the Docket Management Facility in Room W12-140 on the ground
floor of the Department of Transportation West Building, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this rule,
contact MST1 Joseph McCollum, Prevention Department, Coast Guard Sector
Lake Michigan, Milwaukee, WI at<PHONE_NUMBER> or by email at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>If you have questions on viewing or
submitting material to the docket, call Barbara Hairston, Program
Manager, Docket Operations, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Acronyms

DHS Department of Homeland Security
FR Federal Register
NPRM Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
TFR Temporary Final Rule

A. Regulatory History and Information

    On March 29, 2013, The Coast Guard published a notice of proposed
rulemaking entitled Safety Triathlon; Milwaukee Harbor; Milwaukee, WI
in the Federal Register (2013-07281). We did not receive any comments
in response to the proposed rule. No public meeting was requested and
none was held.

B. Basis and Purpose

    The Olympic and Sprint Distance National Championships are
scheduled to take place in Milwaukee, Wisconsin in August of 2013 and
2014. These events are expected to attract 4000 participants each year.
Participants will compete in a swim--as part of a triathlon
competition--across both the Lakeshore inlet and the Discovery World
Marina within Milwaukee Harbor. The swim portion of the National
Championship is anticipated to occur on August 10 and 11, 2013, and on
August 9 and 10, 2014. The Captain of the Port, Lake Michigan, has
determined that the likelihood of transiting watercraft during the swim
competition involving a large number of competitors presents a
significant risk of serious injuries or fatalities.

C. Discussion of Comments, Changes and the Final Rule

    The Captain of the Port, Lake Michigan, has determined that a
safety zone is necessary to mitigate the aforementioned safety risks.
Thus, this rule establishes a safety zone that encompasses all waters
of Milwaukee Harbor, including Lakeshore inlet and Discovery World
Marina, west of a line across the entrance to the Discovery World
Marina connecting 43[deg]02'15.1'' N, 087[deg]53'37.4'' W and
43[deg]01'44.2'' N, 087[deg]53'44.6'' W (NAD 83).
    This rule will establish a safety zone within Milwaukee Harbor for
the 2013 and 2014 calendar years. This rule will be effective from
August 1, 2013, until August 30, 2014. Additionally, the Coast Guard
anticipates that this safety zone will be enforced from 6:30 a.m. until
11 a.m. on August 10 and 11, 2013. This 2013 enforcement schedule may
change, and in the event of a change, the Captain of the Port, Lake
Michigan, will establish an updated enforcement schedule with a Notice
of Enforcement. Likewise, the Captain of the Port, Lake Michigan, will
establish the 2014 enforcement schedule via a Notice of Enforcement.
    The Captain of the Port Lake Michigan will use all appropriate
means to notify the public when the safety zone established by this
rule will be enforced. Consistent with 33 CFR 165.7(a), such means may
include, among other things, publication in the Federal Register,
Broadcast Notice to Mariners, Local Notice to Mariners, or, upon
request, by facsimile (fax).
    Entry into, transiting, or anchoring within these safety zones
during the period of enforcement is prohibited unless authorized by the
Captain of the Port, Lake Michigan, or his or her designated on-scene
representative. The Captain of the Port, Lake Michigan, or his or her
designated on-scene representative may be contacted via VHF Channel 16.

D. Regulatory Analyses

    We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and
executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses
based on these statutes or executive orders.

1. Regulatory Planning and Review

    This rule is not a significant regulatory action under section 3(f)
of

Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, and does not
require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section
6(a)(3) of that Order. The Office of Management and Budget has not
reviewed it under that Order. It is not ``significant'' under the
regulatory policies and procedures of the Department of Homeland
Security (DHS). We conclude that this rule is not a significant
regulatory action because we anticipate that it will have minimal
impact on the economy, will not interfere with other agencies, will not
adversely alter the budget of any grant or loan recipients, and will
not raise any novel legal or policy issues. The safety zone created by
this rule will be relatively small and enforced for relatively short
time. Also, this safety zone is designed to minimize its impact on
navigable waters. Furthermore, the safety zone has been designed to
allow vessels to transit portions of the waterways not affected by the
safety zones. Thus, restrictions on vessel movements within that
particular area are expected to be minimal. Under certain conditions,
moreover, vessels may still transit through the safety zone when
permitted by the Captain of the Port, Lake Michigan. On the whole, the
Coast Guard expects insignificant adverse impact to mariners from the
activation of this safety zone.

2. Impact on Small Entities

    Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we have
considered whether this rule would have a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities. The term ``small entities''
comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are
independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields,
and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000.
    The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule
would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of
small entities. This rule will affect the following entities, some of
which might be small entities: The owners or operators of vessels
intending to transit or anchor within the waters of the Discovery World
Marina or Lakeshore inlet during two days in August of 2013 and 2014.

3. Assistance for Small Entities

    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small
entities in understanding this rule so that they can better evaluate
its effects on them and participate in the rulemaking process. If this
rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental
jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or
options for compliance, please contact the person listed in FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section, above.
    Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal
employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal
regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory
Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory
Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and
rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to
comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR
(1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small
entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or
action of the Coast Guard.

4. Collection of Information

    This rule calls for no new collection of information under the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).

5. Federalism

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

6. Protest Activities

    The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters.
Protesters are asked to contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section to coordinate protest activities so that
your message can be received without jeopardizing the safety or
security of people, places or vessels.

7. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538)
requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary
regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may
result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in
the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for
inflation) or more in any one year. Though this rule would not result
in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule
elsewhere in this preamble.

8. Taking of Private Property

    This rule would not affect a taking of private property or
otherwise have taking implications under Executive Order 12630,
Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected
Property Rights.

9. Civil Justice Reform

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

10. Protection of Children

    We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13045, Protection
of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks. This rule
is not an economically significant rule and would not create an
environmental risk to health or risk to safety that might
disproportionately affect children.

 11. Indian Tribal Governments

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

 12. Energy Effects

    This action is not a ``significant energy action'' under Executive
Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect
Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use.

13. Technical Standards

    This rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we did not
consider the use of voluntary consensus standards.

14. Environment

    We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security
Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which
guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental
Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA)(42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have determined
that this action is one of a category of actions which do not
individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human
environment. This rule involves the establishment of safety zones and
thus, is categorically excluded under paragraph (34)(g) of the
Instruction. An environmental analysis checklist

supporting this determination is available in the docket where
indicated under ADDRESSES.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165

    Harbors, Marine Safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, Waterways.

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends
33 CFR Part 165 as follows:

PART 165-- REGULATED NAVIGATION AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS

0
1. The authority citation for part 165 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  33 U.S.C. 1231; 46 U.S.C. Chapters 701, 3306, 3703;
50 U.S.C. 191, 195; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-6, and 160.5; Pub.
L. 107-295, 116 Stat. 2064; Department of Homeland Security
Delegation No. 0170.1.

0
2. Add Sec.  165.T09-0140 to read as follows:

Sec.  165.T09-0140  Safety Zone; USA Triathlon, Milwaukee Harbor,
Milwaukee, Wisconsin.

    (a) Location. All waters of Milwaukee Harbor, including Lakeshore
inlet and Discovery World Marina, west of a line across the entrance to
the Discovery World Marina connecting 43[deg]02'15.1'' N,
087[deg]53'37.4'' W and 43[deg]01'44.2'' N, 087[deg]53'44.6'' W (NAD
83).
    (b) Effective Period. This section is effective from August 1,
2013, until August 30, 2014. This safety zone will be enforced for
periods in August 2013 and 2014. The Captain of the Port, Lake
Michigan, will establish an enforcement schedule via a Notice of
Enforcement when the exact dates are known. The Captain of the Port,
Lake Michigan, will also establish the 2014 enforcement schedule via a
Notice of Enforcement.
    (c) Regulations.
    (1) In accordance with the general regulations in Sec.  165.23 of
this part, entry into, transiting, or anchoring within this safety zone
is prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of the Port, Lake
Michigan or his designated on-scene representative.
    (2) This safety zone is closed to all vessel traffic, except as may
be permitted by the Captain of the Port, Lake Michigan or his
designated representative.
    (3) The ``on-scene representative'' of the Captain of the Port,
Lake Michigan is any Coast Guard commissioned, warrant or petty officer
who has been his designated by the Captain of the Port, Lake Michigan
to act on his behalf.
    (4) Vessel operators desiring to enter or operate within the safety
zone shall contact the Captain of the Port, Lake Michigan or his on-
scene representative to obtain permission to do so.
    (5) The Captain of the Port, Lake Michigan or his on-scene
representative may be contacted via VHF Channel 16. Vessel operators
given permission to enter or operate in the safety zone must comply
with all directions given to them by the Captain of the Port, Lake
Michigan, or his on-scene representative.

    Dated: May 3, 2013.
M.W. Sibley,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port, Lake Michigan.
[FR Doc. 2013-12395 Filed 5-23-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 139 (Thursday, July 19, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 42525-42529]
[FR Doc No: 2012-17551]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-67437; File Nos. SR-NYSE-2011-56; SR-NYSEAmex-2011-86]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; New York Stock Exchange LLC; NYSE
Amex LLC; Order Disapproving Proposed Rule Changes To Codify Certain
Traditional Trading Floor Functions That May Be Performed by Designated
Market Makers and To Permit Designated Market Makers and Floor Brokers
Access to Disaggregated Order Information

July 13, 2012.
    On October 31, 2011, the New York Stock Exchange LLC (``NYSE'') and
NYSE Amex LLC (``NYSE Amex'') (collectively, the ``SROs'') each 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\ proposed rule changes (``SRO Proposals'')
to amend certain of their respective rules relating to Designated
Market Makers (``DMMs'') \3\ and Floor brokers. The SRO Proposals were
published for comment in the Federal Register on November 17, 2011.\4\
The Commission received no comment letters on the proposals. On
December 22, 2011, the Commission extended the time period in which to
either approve the SRO Proposals, disapprove the SRO Proposals, or to
institute proceedings to determine whether to disapprove the SRO
Proposals, to February 15, 2012.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ See NYSE Rule 98(b)(2). ``DMM unit'' means any member
organization, aggregation unit within a member organization, or
division or department within an integrated proprietary aggregation
unit of a member organization that (i) Has been approved by NYSE
Regulation pursuant to section (c) of NYSE Rule 98, (ii) is eligible
for allocations under NYSE Rule 103B as a DMM unit in a security
listed on the Exchange, and (iii) has met all registration and
qualification requirements for DMM units assigned to such unit. The
term ``DMM'' means any individual qualified to act as a DMM on the
floor of the Exchange under NYSE Rule 103. See also NYSE Amex
Equities Rule 2(i). Rule 2(i) defines the term ``DMM'' to mean an
individual member, officer, partner, employee or associated person
of a DMM unit who is approved by the Exchange to act in the capacity
of a DMM. NYSE Amex Equities Rule 2(j) defines the term ``DMM unit''
as a member organization or unit within a member organization that
has been approved to act as a DMM unit under NYSE Amex Equities Rule
98.
    \4\ See Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 65735 (November 10,
2011), 76 FR 71405 (SR-NYSEAmex-2011-86) (``NYSE Amex Notice'') and
65736 (November 10, 2011), 76 FR 71399 (SR-NYSE-2011-56) (``NYSE
Notice'').
    \5\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 66036, 76 FR 82011
(December 29, 2011).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On February 15, 2012, the Commission instituted proceedings to
determine whether to disapprove the proposed rule changes.\6\ The
Commission thereafter received five comment letters on the
proposals.\7\ NYSE Euronext, on behalf of the SROs, submitted a
response letter on March 28, 2012.\8\ On May 14, 2012, the Commission
issued a notice of designation of longer period for Commission action
on proceedings to determine whether to disapprove the proposed rule
changes.\9\ This order disapproves the proposed rule changes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 66397, 77 FR 10586
(February 22, 2012) (``Order Instituting Proceedings'').
    \7\ See Letters to Elizabeth M. Murphy, Secretary, Commission,
from Kenneth Polcari, dated March 12, 2012 (``Polcari Letter'');
Patrick Armstrong and Daniel Tandy, Co-Presidents, Alliance of Floor
Brokers (``AFB''), dated March 13, 2012 (``AFB Letter''); Jonathan
Corpina, President, and Jennifer Lee, Vice President, Organization
of Independent Floor Brokers (``OIFB''), dated March 13, 2012
(``OIFB Letter''); James J. Angel, Ph.D., CFA, dated March 15, 2012
(``Angel Letter''); and John Petschauer, CEO, EZX, Inc., dated March
14, 2012 (``EZX Letter'').
    \8\ See Letter to Elizabeth M. Murphy, Secretary, Commission,
from Janet McGinness, Executive Vice President and Corporate
Secretary, NYSE Euronext, dated March 28, 2012 (``SRO Response
Letter'').
    \9\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 66981, 77 FR 29730
(May 18, 2012).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

I. Description of the Proposals

    The SRO Proposals seek to amend the SROs' rules in several ways.
First, the

SROs propose to codify certain trading floor functions that may be
performed by DMMs. Second, the SROs propose to allow DMMs to access
Exchange systems that would provide DMMs with additional order
information about the securities in which they are registered. Third,
the SROs propose to make certain conforming amendments to their rules
to reflect the additional order information that would be available to
DMMs through Exchange systems, and to specify what information about
Floor broker agency interest file (``e-Quotes'') is available to the
DMM. Finally, the SROs propose to modify the terms under which DMMs
would be permitted to provide market information to Floor brokers and
others.

A. Trading Floor Functions

    The SROs propose to codify certain trading floor functions formerly
performed by specialists that are now performed by DMMs, and were
described in each SRO's respective Floor Official Manual.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See, e.g., NYSE 2004 Floor Official Manual, Market
Surveillance June 2004 Edition, Chapter Two, Section I.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed rules would specify four categories of trading floor
functions that DMMs could perform: (1) Maintaining order among Floor
brokers manually trading at the DMM's assigned panel;\11\ (2) bringing
Floor brokers together to facilitate trading;\12\ (3) assisting Floor
brokers with respect to their orders by providing information regarding
the status of a Floor broker's orders, helping to resolve errors or
questioned trades, adjusting errors, and cancelling or inputting Floor
broker agency interest on behalf of a Floor broker;\13\ and (4)
researching the status of orders or questioned trades.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See id. at Section I.A. at 7 (``specialist helps ensure
that such markets are fair, orderly, operationally efficient and
competitive with all other markets in those securities'').
    \12\ See id. at Section I.B.3. at 10-11 (``[i]n opening and
reopening trading in a listed security, a specialist should * * *
[s]erve as the market coordinator for the securities in which the
specialist is registered by exercising leadership and managing
trading crowd activity and promptly identifying unusual market
conditions that may affect orderly trading in those securities,
seeking the advice and assistance of Floor Officials when
appropriate'' and ``[a]ct as a catalyst in the markets for the
securities in which the specialist is registered, making all
reasonable efforts to bring buyers and sellers together to
facilitate the public pricing of orders, without acting as principal
unless reasonably necessary'').
    \13\ See id. at Section I.B.4. at 11 (``In view of the
specialist's central position in the Exchange's continuous two-way
agency auction market, a specialist should proceed as follows * * *
[e]qually and impartially provide accurate and timely market
information to all inquiring members in a professional and courteous
manner.'').
    \14\ See id. at Section I.B.5. at 12 (A specialist should
``[p]romptly provide information when necessary to research the
status of an order or a questioned trade and cooperate with other
members in resolving and adjusting errors.'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. DMM Access to Additional Order Information

    Each SRO proposes to make Exchange systems available to a DMM at
the post that display the following types of information about
securities in which the DMM is registered: (A) Aggregated information
about buying and selling interest;\15\ (B) disaggregated information
about the price and size of any individual order or e-Quotes and the
entering and clearing firm information for such orders, except that
Exchange systems would not make available to DMMs information about any
order or e-Quote, or portion thereof, that a market participant has
elected not to display to a DMM; and (C) post-trade information.\16\
The proposals would make available to DMMs disaggregated information
about the following interest in securities in which the DMM is
registered: (a) the price and size of all displayable interest
submitted by off-Floor participants (off-Floor participants may submit
non-displayable interest that is hidden from the DMM);\17\ and (b) all
e-Quotes, including reserve e-Quotes, that the Floor broker has not
elected to exclude from availability to the DMM.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ Exchange systems currently make available to DMMs aggregate
information about the following interest in securities in which the
DMM is registered: (a) All displayable interest submitted by off-
floor participants; (b) all Minimum Display Reserve orders,
including the reserve portion; (c) all displayable floor broker
agency interest files (``e-Quotes''); (d) all Minimum Display
Reserve e-Quotes, including the reserve portion; and (e) the reserve
quantity of Non-Display Reserve e-Quotes, unless the floor broker
elects to exclude that reserve quantity from availability to the
DMM.
    \16\ For the latter two categories, the DMM also would have
access to entering and clearing firm information for each order and,
as applicable, the badge number of the floor broker representing the
order. According to the SROs, the systems would not contain any
information about the ultimate customer (i.e., the name of the
member or member organization's customer) in a transaction.
    \17\ See NYSE and NYSE Amex Rule 13, defining non-displayed
order types.
    \18\ The SROs previously permitted DMMs to have access to
Exchange systems that contained the disaggregated order information
described above. The SROs stopped making such information available
to DMMs on January 19, 2011. See NYSE and NYSE Amex Information Memo
11-03.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. Conforming Amendments and Floor Broker e-Quote Information

    The SROs also propose to make conforming amendments to their rules
to reflect the additional order information that would be available to
DMMs through Exchange systems, and to specify what information about e-
Quotes is available to the DMM. Specifically, the SROs propose to
revise NYSE Rule 70 and NYSE Amex Rule 70 governing e-Quotes to reflect
that disaggregated order information would be available to the DMM
except as elected otherwise. The SROs would allow a Floor broker to
enter e-Quotes with reserve interest (``Reserve e-Quote'') with or
without a displayable portion.
    A Reserve e-Quote with a displayable portion would participate in
manual and automatic executions. Order information at each price point,
including the reserve portion, would be included in the aggregate
interest available to the DMM. Order information at each price point
would be available to the DMM on a disaggregated basis as well. If the
Floor broker chooses to exclude the Reserve e-Quote with a displayable
portion from the DMM, then the DMM would have access to the entire
portion on an aggregated basis but would not have access to any of that
interest on a disaggregated basis.
    A Reserve e-Quote with an undisplayable portion would also
participate in manual and automatic executions. Like the Reserve e-
Quote with a displayable portion, order information at each price point
would be included in the aggregate interest available to the DMM.
Again, like the Reserve e-Quote with a displayable portion, order
information at each price point would be available to the DMM on a
disaggregated basis as well. If the Floor broker chooses to exclude the
Reserve e-Quote with an undisplayable portion from the DMM, however,
then the DMM would not have access to such interest on either an
aggregated basis or a disaggregated basis. Such interest would not
participate in manual executions.
    In addition, the SROs propose to delete rules which currently
prohibit DMMs from using the Display Book system to access information
about e-Quotes excluded from the aggregated agency interest and Minimum
Display Reserve Order information, other than for the purpose of
effecting transactions that are reasonably imminent where such Floor
broker agency and Minimum Display Reserve Order interest information is
necessary to effect such transaction.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ See proposed deletions to NYSE Rule 104(a)(6) and NYSE Amex
Rule 104(a)(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

D. Ability of DMMs to Provide Market Information on the Trading Floor

    The SROs also propose to modify the manner under which DMMs would
be permitted to provide market information to Floor brokers and
visitors on the trading floor. Specifically, the proposed

rules would permit a DMM to provide the market information to which he
or she has access to a: (1) Floor broker in response to an inquiry in
the normal course of business; or (2) visitor to the trading floor for
the purpose of demonstrating methods of trading. As such, Floor brokers
would be able to access disaggregated order information that market
participants have not otherwise elected to be hidden from the DMM. A
Floor broker would not be able to submit such an inquiry for market
information by electronic means, and the DMM's response containing
market information could not be delivered through electronic means.
    Because the proposed rule expands on and incorporates the current
SRO rules regarding disclosure of order information by DMMs, the SROs
are proposing to delete these rules.\20\ The current rules provide that
a DMM may disclose market information for three purposes. First, a DMM
may disclose market information for the purpose of demonstrating the
methods of trading to visitors to the trading floor. This aspect of the
current rule is replicated in the proposed rules. Second, a DMM may
disclose market information to other market centers in order to
facilitate the operation of the Intermarket Trading System (``ITS'').
According to the SROs, this text is obsolete as the ITS Plan has been
eliminated and therefore the SROs are proposing to delete it. Third, a
DMM may, while acting in a market making capacity, provide information
about buying or selling interest in the market, including (a)
Aggregated buying or selling interest contained in Floor broker agency
interest files other than interest the broker has chosen to exclude
from the aggregated buying and selling interest, (b) aggregated
interest of Minimum Display Reserve Orders and (c) the interest
included in DMM interest files, excluding Capital Commitment Schedule
(``CCS'') interest as described in Rule 1000(c), in response to an
inquiry from a member conducting a market probe in the normal course of
business. The proposed rules would permit DMMs to provide Floor brokers
not only with the same aggregated order information that DMMs currently
are permitted to provide under current rules, but also with the
disaggregated and post-trade order information described above.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ The SROs are also proposing conforming amendments to
correct cross-references to the former rule.
    \21\ Because DMMs on the trading floor do not have access to CCS
interest information, the proposed rule does not specify that DMMs
would not be disseminating such information.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed rules would permit a DMM to provide market information
to a Floor broker in response to a specific request by the Floor broker
to the DMM at the post, rather than specifying that the information
must be provided ``in response to an inquiry from a member conducting a
market probe in the normal course of business,'' as currently provided
in the SRO rules. Under the proposed rule change, Floor brokers would
not have access to Exchange systems that provide disaggregated order
information, and Floor brokers would only be able to access such market
information through a direct manual interaction with a DMM at the post.

II. Disapproval Proceedings, Summary of Comment Letters and the SROs'
Response

    In the Order Instituting Proceedings, the Commission expressed
concern about the consistency of the proposals with Section 6(b)(5) of
the Act, including whether they would permit unfair discrimination,
promote just and equitable principles of trade, and protect investors
and the public interest.\22\ Among other things, the Commission noted
that, while the proposals may improve the ability of DMMs and Floor
brokers to trade on the Exchanges, the proposals also would provide
them access to potentially valuable information about Exchange orders
that is not available to other members or market participants,
including the identity of the entering and clearing firm.\23\ The
Commission stated that, while exchanges may legitimately confer special
benefits on market participants willing to accept substantial
responsibilities to contribute to market quality, such benefits must
not be disproportionate to the services provided.\24\ The Commission
noted that the Exchanges were not proposing to require any additional
obligations from DMMs and Floor brokers in exchange for the additional
order information, and had not clearly explained how the proposals
would materially improve the quality of the SROs' markets.\25\ As a
result, the Commission was concerned that the proposals unfairly
discriminated in favor of DMMs and Floor brokers, might not have been
designed to protect the broad group of investors that trade on the
SROs, and otherwise might be inequitable.\26\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
    \23\ See Order Instituting Proceedings, supra note 6, at 10589.
    \24\ See Order Instituting Proceedings, supra note 6, at 10588.
    \25\ Id. at 10589.
    \26\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission received five comment letters in support of the
proposed rule changes,\27\ along with a response from the SROs.\28\ In
general, the commenters believed that the floors of the Exchanges
continued to provide a valuable service to the markets, particularly
with respect to the facilitation of block trades, and they broadly
indicated that the proposed provision of disaggregated order
information to Floor members would further this important function.\29\
One commenter also stated that the access to this information would
enable DMMs to assist Floor brokers in the event of a technical
failure.\30\ Some noted that this type of information had historically
been made available to Floor members.\31\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ See supra note 7.
    \28\ See supra note 8.
    \29\ AFB Letter, supra note 7, at 3; Angel Letter, supra note 7,
at 2; EZX Letter, supra note 7; OIFB Letter, supra note 7, at 1; and
Polcari Letter, supra note 7, at 2.
    \30\ See OIFB Letter, supra note 7, at 1.
    \31\ See AFB Letter, supra note 7, at 2; Angel Letter, supra
note 7, at 2; and OIFB Letter, supra note 7, at 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Commenters did not believe the proposals were unfairly
discriminatory because, in their view, DMMs would be obligated to
provide disaggregated order information to Floor brokers in a non-
discriminatory fashion, and Floor brokers would be obligated to do the
same for their customers.\32\ Commenters also expressed the view that
the disaggregated order information would be of limited utility because
it could only be accessed manually,\33\ and they noted that Floor
brokers were restricted from trading proprietarily and thus could not
directly benefit from this information.\34\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \32\ See AFB Letter, supra note 7, at 3; Angel Letter, supra
note 7, at 3; OIFB Letter, supra note 7, at 1-2; and Polcari Letter,
supra note 7, at 2.
    \33\ See OIFB Letter, supra note 7, at 2.
    \34\ See AFB Letter, supra note 7, at 4; OIFB Letter, supra note
7, at 2; Polcari Letter; supra note 7, at 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Commenters also emphasized that market participants that do not
wish to allow their disaggregated order information to be provided to
DMMs and Floor brokers can use undisplayed orders or place orders on a
competing exchange.\35\ One commenter urged the Commission to allow
exchange experimentation and believed that, if the proposals resulted
in information leakage or degraded market quality, then order flow
would rapidly shift to other trading venues.\36\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \35\ See AFB Letter, supra note 7, at 2; Angel Letter, supra
note 7, at 3; and OIFB Letter, supra note 7, at 1.
    \36\ See Angel Letter, supra note 7, at 3-4.

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

    In their response, the SROs, among other things, emphasized that
``[t]he purpose of the Proposals is to help DMMs facilitate large
orders on the Trading Floor if an investor wishes to utilize the
resources of a Floor broker,'' \37\ and argued that the proposals would
``potentially make the Floor more hospitable to large orders, reduce
transaction costs and produce savings for long-term investors.'' \38\
In proposing to provide disaggregated order information to Floor
members, the SROs ``seek to provide improved conditions for buyers and
sellers to interact at potentially more favorable prices, or in larger-
sized executions, on the Floors of the Exchanges.'' \39\ The SROs
believe that ``making this information available to Floor brokers
[would make] it easier for * * * size trades to be arranged, and for
leakage and market impact to be avoided.'' \40\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \37\ SRO Response Letter, supra note 7, at 15-16.
    \38\ Id. at 3.
    \39\ Id. at 4-5.
    \40\ Id. at 11.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At the same time, the SROs take the position that ``any
informational advantage conveyed is extremely slight.'' \41\ They note
that DMMs and Floor brokers already have access to aggregated order
information, and that the proposals would allow them ``to see the
disaggregated form of such aggregated interest, which means simply that
the components of the aggregated interest and the entering and clearing
firms that are associated with those components (but not the ultimate
customers) will be visible.'' \42\ The SROs also point out that the
disaggregated information ``is only available to a DMM while on the
trading Floor at the trading post,'' and take the position that the
``DMM must query the specific information about a particular security,
a process which limits the number of securities for which information
can be obtained at any given time,'' so that ``[a]ny actual
informational advantage resulting from viewing disaggregated
information would be eliminated by the staleness of the information.''
\43\ In the view of the SROs, because the proposals do ``not convey any
truly exclusive or significant benefit to DMMs and Floor brokers, new,
additional obligations are not necessary.''\44\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \41\ Id. at 11.
    \42\ Id. at 10-11.
    \43\ Id. at 12.
    \44\ Id. at 13.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, the SROs believe that existing restrictions on trading
by DMMs and Floor brokers address concerns associated with any
potential informational advantage.\45\ According to the SROs, the
disaggregated order information would not be available to a DMM's
trading algorithm, and Exchange rules effectively erect an information
barrier between DMM personnel on the Floor and the DMM's off-Floor
trading operations.\46\ With respect to Floor brokers, the SROs state
that, because ``they are prohibited from trading on a principal basis,
any potential benefit accrues to the investor, not the Floor broker.''
\47\ The SROs also note that, prior to the adoption of their ``Hybrid
Market,'' specialists were permitted to provide disaggregated order
information to Floor brokers.\48\ Finally, the SROs take the position
that ``access to the disaggregated order information is entirely
consensual,'' \49\ because a market participant that does not want its
interest shown can ``(1) choose to have the order not display on a
disaggregated basis or (2) place the order with a NYSE competitor.''
\50\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \45\ Id. at 3.
    \46\ Id. at 11-12.
    \47\ Id. at 12.
    \48\ Id. at 5 and 16.
    \49\ Id. at 11.
    \50\ Id. at 16.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Discussion

    Under Section 19(b)(2)(C) of the Act, the Commission shall approve
a proposed rule change of a self-regulatory organization if the
Commission finds that such proposed rule change is consistent with the
requirements of the Act, and the rules and regulations thereunder that
are applicable to such organization.\51\ The Commission shall
disapprove a proposed rule change if it does not make such a
finding.\52\ The Commission's Rules of Practice, under Rule 700(b)(3),
state that the ``burden to demonstrate that a proposed rule change is
consistent with the Exchange Act and the rules and regulations issued
thereunder * * * is on the self-regulatory organization that proposed
the rule change'' and that a ``mere assertion that the proposed rule
change is consistent with those requirements * * * is not sufficient.''
\53\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \51\ See 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2)(C)(i).
    \52\ See 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2)(C)(ii); see also 17 CFR 201.700
(b)(3) and note 56 infra, and accompanying text.
    \53\ See 17 CFR 201.700. The description of a proposed rule
change, its purpose and operation, its effect, and a legal analysis
of its consistency with applicable requirements must all be
sufficiently detailed and specific to support an affirmative
Commission finding. See id. Any failure of a self-regulatory
organization to provide the information elicited by Form 19b-4 may
result in the Commission not having a sufficient basis to make an
affirmative finding that a proposed rule change is consistent with
the Act and the rules and regulations issued thereunder that are
applicable to the self-regulatory organization. Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    After careful consideration, the Commission does not find that the
proposed rule changes are consistent with the requirements of the Act
and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to a national
securities exchange. In particular, the Commission does not find that
the proposals are consistent with Section 6(b)(5) of the Act,\54\
which, among other things, requires that the rules of a national
securities exchange be designed to promote just and equitable
principles of trade, to protect investors and the public interest, and
not to permit unfair discrimination between customers, issuers,
brokers, or dealers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \54\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Specifically, the SROs propose to provide their Floor members--DMMs
and Floor brokers--special access to information about individual
orders on the Exchanges. The proposals would permit DMMs to access
information about the price and size of individual orders on the
Exchange books, as well as Floor broker e-Quotes, along with the
identity of the broker-dealer that entered the order and the clearing
firm. DMMs also would be provided post-trade information with respect
to Exchange orders that, similarly, includes the identity of the
broker-dealer that entered the order and the clearing firm.
    In the Order Instituting Proceedings, the Commission expressed
concern that, while the proposals may improve the ability of DMMs and
Floor brokers to trade on the SROs, the proposals also would provide
DMMs and Floor brokers access to potentially valuable information about
Exchange orders generated both on and off the Floor that is not made
available to other Exchange members or market participants, unless it
is acquired through a Floor broker. The Commission also noted that the
SROs were not proposing to require any additional obligations from DMMs
and Floor brokers in exchange for the additional order information, and
had not clearly explained how the proposals would materially improve
the quality of the SROs' markets. In response, commenters and the SROs
made general arguments that the proposals would facilitate the ability
of DMMs and Floor brokers to perform important trading floor functions,
such as bringing together market participants seeking to trade large
orders or assisting Floor members in the event they experience a
technical failure. Neither the SROs nor the commenters explained,
however, how the particular information proposed to be provided--
disaggregated information about public orders on the Exchange books as
well as Floor broker

e-Quotes--would further those legitimate Floor functions. Although not
articulated by the SROs or commenters, the Commission could envision an
argument that allowing DMMs to see information about individual Floor
broker e-Quotes, including the identity of the responsible Floor
broker, and convey that information to other Floor brokers, could
facilitate the bringing together of buyers and sellers of large orders
on the Floor more efficiently than through verbal communications.
However, neither the SROs nor the commenters have offered any specific
explanation, nor has the Commission been able to otherwise discern, how
the provision of disaggregated pre-trade and post-trade information
about public orders on the Exchange books, including the identity of
the entering and clearing firms, would promote a legitimate Floor
function. Nor have the SROs or the commenters provided any specific
justification for allowing Floor brokers to pass on to their customers
the identity of the responsible Floor broker for e-Quotes, or any
disaggregated order information (pre-trade or post trade) with respect
to orders on the Exchange books that originate off the Exchange floors.
    Although the SROs and commenters have taken the position that the
disaggregated order information proposed to be provided would afford
only a slight benefit to Floor members, given that it must be accessed
manually, they have not clearly explained why this is the case,
particularly with respect to less liquid securities where order
information is less likely to become rapidly stale. In addition,
neither the SROs nor the commenters have articulated a rationale for
providing disaggregated order information--particularly that relating
to public orders on the Exchange books--exclusively to DMMs and Floor
brokers and, by extension, exclusively to Floor broker customers, and
not to all Exchange members and customers. While the SROs and
commenters believe that the proposals are not unfairly discriminatory
because DMMs must provide the information to Floor brokers in a non-
discriminatory fashion, and Floor brokers must do the same with respect
to their customers, they do not explain why it is not unfairly
discriminatory to offer this information only through Floor brokers and
not through other Exchange members.
    The SROs and commenters point out that customers can prevent their
disaggregated order information from being accessed by DMMs and Floor
brokers by submitting a non-displayable order or, with respect to Floor
broker e-Quotes, instructing that the information be withheld from the
DMM. They also note that Floor brokers are not permitted to trade on a
proprietary basis, and that DMMs are subject to restrictions that limit
their ability to benefit directly from their receipt of disaggregated
order information by trading proprietarily. Although these are factors
that may mitigate potential harm that may result from the proposals,
they do not in themselves offer an affirmative justification as to why
the specific proposals under consideration would not permit unfair
discrimination, or would promote just and equitable principles of trade
and protect investors and the public interest, or would otherwise be
consistent with the Act. Similarly, while the SROs and commenters note
that specialists historically were permitted to provide disaggregated
order information to Floor brokers prior to the Exchanges' conversion
to a more automated ``Hybrid Market,'' they do not articulate how this
former practice is relevant to whether the proposed provision of
disaggregated order information to Floor members in the context of the
current market models of the SROs is consistent with the Act.
    When the Commission is engaged in rulemaking or the review of a
rule filed by a self-regulatory organization, and is required to
consider or determine whether an action is necessary or appropriate in
the public interest, the Commission shall also consider, in addition to
the protection of investors, whether the action will promote
efficiency, competition, and capital formation.\55\ Based on the
evidence presented, the Commission notes that making the information
that is proposed to be provided under this filing exclusively available
to DMMs and Floor brokers could have a detrimental effect on
competition between on-Floor and off-Floor members of the Exchanges.
Moreover, while providing DMMs and Floor brokers with order information
related to Floor broker interest may promote efficiency, the SROs have
not demonstrated that other aspects of these proposals--specifically,
providing DMMs and Floor brokers with order information about public
orders on the Exchange books--would have a similar effect.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \55\ See 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As noted above, Rule 700(b)(3) of the Commission's Rules of
Practice states that ``[t]he burden to demonstrate that a proposed rule
change is consistent with the Exchange Act and the rules and
regulations issued thereunder * * * is on the self-regulatory
organization that proposed the rule change'' and that a ``mere
assertion that the proposed rule change is consistent with those
requirements * * * is not sufficient.'' \56\ For the reasons set forth
above, the Commission does not believe that the SROs have met their
burden to demonstrate that the proposed rule changes are consistent
with the requirements of the Act and the rules and regulations
thereunder.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \56\ 17 CFR 201.700(b)(3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Conclusion

    For the foregoing reasons, the Commission does not find that the
proposed rule changes are consistent with the Act and the rules and
regulations thereunder applicable to a national securities exchange,
and, in particular, with Section 6(b)(5) of the Act.
    It is therefore ordered, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the
Act,\57\ that the proposed rule changes (SR-NYSE-2011-56 and SR-
NYSEAmex-2011-86) be, and hereby are, disapproved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \57\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\58\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \58\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-17551 Filed 7-18-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 156 (Friday, August 12, 2016)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 53379-53380]
[FR Doc No: 2016-19239]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 180

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2014-0008; FRL-9949-53]

Receipt of Several Pesticide Petitions Filed for Residues of
Pesticide Chemicals in or on Various Commodities

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of filing of petitions and request for comment.

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

SUMMARY: This document announces the Agency's receipt of several
initial filings of pesticide petitions requesting the establishment or
modification of regulations for residues of pesticide chemicals in or
on various commodities.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before September 12, 2016.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by docket identification
(ID) number and the pesticide petition number (PP) of interest as shown
in the body of this document, by one of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Do not submit
electronically any information you consider to be Confidential Business
Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted
by statute.
     Mail: OPP Docket, Environmental Protection Agency Docket
Center (EPA/DC), (28221T), 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC
20460-0001.
     Hand Delivery: To make special arrangements for hand
delivery or delivery of boxed information, please follow the
instructions at http://www.epa.gov/dockets/contacts.html.

Additional instructions on commenting or visiting the docket, along
with more information about dockets generally, is available at http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Susan Lewis, Registration Division
(7505P), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency,
1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; main telephone
number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. Does this action apply to me?

    You may be potentially affected by this action if you are an
agricultural producer, food manufacturer, or pesticide manufacturer.
The following list of North American Industrial Classification System
(NAICS) codes is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a
guide to help readers determine whether this document applies to them.
Potentially affected entities may include:
    [emsp14]Crop production (NAICS code 111).
    [emsp14]Animal production (NAICS code 112).
    [emsp14]Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311).
    [emsp14]Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532).
    If you have any questions regarding the applicability of this
action to a particular entity, consult the person listed under FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT for the division listed at the end of the
pesticide petition summary of interest.

B. What should I consider as I prepare my comments for EPA?

    1. Submitting CBI. Do not submit this information to EPA through
regulations.gov or email. 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 preparing and submitting
your comments, see the commenting tips at http://www.epa.gov/dockets/comments.html.
    3. Environmental justice. EPA seeks to achieve environmental
justice, the fair treatment and meaningful involvement of any group,
including minority and/or low-income populations, in the development,
implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and
policies. To help address potential environmental justice issues, the
Agency seeks information on any groups or segments of the population
who, as a result of their location, cultural practices, or other
factors, may have atypical or disproportionately high and adverse human
health impacts or environmental effects from exposure to the pesticides
discussed in this document, compared to the general population.

II. What action is the agency taking?

    EPA is announcing its receipt of several pesticide petitions filed
under section 408 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA),
21 U.S.C. 346a, requesting the establishment or modification of
regulations in 40 CFR part 180 for residues of pesticide chemicals in
or on various food commodities. The Agency is taking public comment on
the requests before responding to the petitioners. EPA is not proposing
any particular action at this time. EPA has determined that the
pesticide petitions described in this document contain the data or
information prescribed in FFDCA section 408(d)(2), 21 U.S.C.
346a(d)(2); however, EPA has not fully evaluated the sufficiency of the
submitted data at this time or whether the data support granting of the
pesticide petitions. After considering the public comments, EPA intends
to evaluate whether and what action may be warranted. Additional data
may be needed before EPA can make a final determination on these
pesticide petitions.
    Pursuant to 40 CFR 180.7(f), a summary of each of the petitions
that are the subject of this document, prepared by the petitioner, is
included in a docket EPA has created for each rulemaking. The docket
for each of the petitions is available at http://www.regulations.gov.
    As specified in FFDCA section 408(d)(3), 21 U.S.C. 346a(d)(3), EPA
is publishing notice of the petition so that the public has an
opportunity to comment on this request for the establishment or
modification of regulations for residues of pesticides in or on food
commodities. Further information on the petition may be obtained
through the petition summary referenced in this unit.
    1. PP 6F8443. (EPA-HQ-OPP-2015-0561). ISK Biosciences Corporation,
7470 Auburn Road, Suite A, Concord, Ohio, 44077, requests to establish
a tolerance for residues of the combined residues of the insecticide
flonicamid [N-(cyanomethyl)-4-trifluoromethyl)-3-pyridinecarboxamide
(CA) or N-cyanomethyl-4-

trifluoromethylnicotinamide (IUPAC)] and its metabolites, TFNA [4-
trifluoromethylnicotinic acid], TFNA-AM [4-trifluoromethylnicotinamide)
and TFNG [N(4-trifluoromethylnicotinoyl)-glycine] in or on the raw
agricultural commodity crop group 10-10, citrus at 1.5 parts per
million (ppm). Adequate enforcement methodology is available to enforce
the tolerance expression for flonicamid and its metabolites in/on
appropriate raw agricultural commodities and processed commodities are
available for the established and proposed tolerances. Contact: Carmen
Rodia,<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>    2. PP 6E8466. (EPA-HQ-OPP-2016-0029). Gowan Company, P.O. Box 5569,
Yuma, AZ 85366-5569, requests to establish an import tolerance for
residues of fenazaquin, [3-[2-[4-(1, 1-dimethylethyl) phenyl] ethoxy]
quinazoline] in/on the raw agricultural commodity for tea at 9 ppm and
pineapple at 0.2 ppm. The analytical method for the analysis of
fenazaquin in/on tea was conducted by GC-MS in selected ion monitoring
mode. The analytical method used for the determination of fenazaquin in
or on pineapple was conducted by UPLC employing mass spectrometric
detection (LC-MS/MS). Contact: Carmen Rodia,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    3. PP 6F8468. (EPA-HQ-OPP-2016-0416). BASF Corporation, 26 Davis
Drive, P.O. Box 13528, Research Triangle Park, NC 27709-3528, requests
to establish a tolerance for residues of the insecticide afidopyropen,
[(3S,4R,4aR,6S, 6aS, 12R,12aS,12bS)-3-(cyclopropanecarbonyloxy)-6,12-
dihydroxy-4,6a,12b-trimethyl-11-oxo-9-(pyridin-3-yl)-
1,2,3,4,4a,5,6,6a,12a,12b-decahydro-11H,12H-benzo[[fnof]]pyrano[4,3-
b]chromen-4-yl]methyl cyclopropanecarboxylate, its metabolites, and
degradates, in or on the raw agricultural commodities almond hulls at
0.15 ppm; apple, wet pomace at 0.05 ppm; citrus oil at 0.3 ppm; cotton,
gin byproducts at 2 ppm; cotton, undelinted seed at 0.1 ppm; fruit,
citrus, group 10-10 at 0.15 ppm; fruit, pome, group 11-10 at 0.03 ppm;
fruit, stone, group 12-12 at 0.03 ppm; nut, tree, group 14-12 at 0.01
ppm; plum, prune at 0.06 ppm; soybean, aspirated fractions at 0.4 ppm;
soybean, forage at label restriction ppm; soybean, hay at label
restriction ppm; soybean, seed at 0.01 ppm; vegetable, brassica, head
and stem group 5-13 at 0.5 ppm; vegetable, cucurbit, group 9 at 0.7
ppm; vegetable, fruiting, group 8-10 at 0.15 ppm; vegetable, leaf
petioles, subgroup 22B at 3 ppm; vegetable, leafy, subgroup 4-13A at 2
ppm; vegetable leafy, subgroup 4-13B at 5 ppm; and vegetable tuberous
and corm, subgroup 1C at 0.01 ppm.
    An independently validated analytical method has been submitted for
analyzing residues of parent afidopyropen (BAS 440 I) plus metabolite
M440I007 with appropriate sensitivity in all crop and processed
commodities. An independently validated analytical method has been
submitted for analyzing residues of parent afidopyropen (BAS 440 I)
plus metabolite M440I001, M440I003, and M440I060 in animal meat, fat
and liver and egg and for BAS 440 I and metabolites M440I001, M440I005,
and M440I060 in milk with appropriate sensitivity in the event
tolerances are established. A multi-residue method using modified AOAC
Official method 2007.01 for the determination of residues of
afidopyropen (BAS 440 I) and metabolite M440I007 in plant matrices was
successfully validated. Contact: Carmen Rodia,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    4. PP 6E8463. (EPA-HQ-OPP-2007-0099). Nichino America, Inc., 4550
New Linden Hill Road, Suite 501, Wilmington, DE 19808-2951, requests to
establish an import tolerance for residues of flubendiamide, N\2\-[1,1-
dimethyl-2-(methylsulfonyl)ethyl-3-iodo-N\1\-[2-methyl-4-[1,2,2,2-
tetrafluoro-1-(trifluoromethyl)ethyl]phenyl]-1,2-benzenedicarboxamide,
in/on the processed commodity dried tea at 60 ppm. Independently
validated, analytical methods for crop matrices have been submitted for
measuring flubendiamide. Typically, plant matrices samples are
extracted, concentrated, and quantified by LC/MS/MS using deuterated
internal standards. Contact: Carmen Rodia,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
    Authority: 21 U.S.C. 346a.

    Dated: August 5, 2016.
Daniel J. Rosenblatt,
Acting Director, Registration Division, Office of Pesticide Programs.
[FR Doc. 2016-19239 Filed 8-11-16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P