[Federal Register: September 22, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 184)]
[Notices]
[Page 55462]
[DOCID:fr22se06-76]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket Nos. ER06-1099-000; ER06-1099-001]

Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator, Inc.;
Supplemental Notice of Technical Conference

September 15, 2006.
    On August 25, 2006 the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission issued
a notice to convene a technical conference on September 26, 2006, from
9 a.m. to 4 p.m. (EST) in Hearing Room 4 at the offices of the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC
20426. The technical conference will address issues related to the
Midwest ISO's proposed shortage and emergency procedures.
    This supplemental notice is to announce that the conference will be
transcribed. A transcript of the conference will be immediately
available from Ace Reporting Company<PHONE_NUMBER> or<PHONE_NUMBER>
for a fee. It will be available to the public on the Commission's
eLibrary system seven calendar days after the Commission receives the
transcript.
    For further information please contact Laurel Hyde at (202) 502-
8146 or e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or Melissa Nimit at<PHONE_NUMBER>
or e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
Magalie R. Salas.
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E6-15647 Filed 9-21-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 204 (Thursday, October 22, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 64042-64046]
[FR Doc No: 2015-26811]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-76181; File No. SR-ISE-2015-33]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; International Securities Exchange,
LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule
Change To Amend the Schedule of Fees

October 16, 2015.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the ``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given
that on October 1, 2015, the International Securities Exchange, LLC
(the ``Exchange'' or ``ISE'') filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission the proposed rule change, as described in Items I, II, and
III below, which items have been prepared by the self-regulatory
organization. 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

    ISE proposes to amend the Schedule of Fees as described in more
detail below. The text of the proposed rule change is available on the
Exchange's Internet Web site at http://www.ise.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 self-regulatory organization 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 its Schedule of Fees to increase the
fees charged to subscribers of the ISE Order Feed and to standardize
the managed data fees charged for the ISE Order Feed, ISE Top Quote
Feed, and ISE Spread Feed \3\ with a modest increase to the fees
charged.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ With the exception that the ISE Spread Feed will continue to
be subject to a higher controlled device fee than the ISE Order Feed
and ISE Top Quote Feed. Additionally, nothing in this rule filing
affects subscription fee discounts offered to members who subscribe
to two data feeds (10%) or three data feeds (20%).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Order Feed
    The Order Feed provides real-time updates to subscribers every time
a new limit order that is not immediately executable at the BBO is
placed on the ISE order book. The Order Feed also announces the
commencement of

auctions including Flash, Facilitation, Solicitation, Block Order and
Price Improvement Mechanisms, as well as Directed Orders, but does not
include Immediate or Cancel (``IOC'') or Fill or Kill (``FOK'') orders,
quotes, or any non-displayed interest. The information included on the
Order Feed includes auction type, order side (i.e., buy/sell), order
price, order size, and a market participant (e.g., priority customer)
indicator, as well as details for each instrument series, including the
symbols (series and underlying security), put or call indicator, the
expiration date, and the strike price of the series. The Order Feed
provides each individual limit order, not including quote traffic,
resulting in lower bandwidth usage and less data for subscribers to
process.
    Currently, the Exchange charges distributors $2,000 per month for
subscriptions to the Order Feed and will not charge distributors a
monthly fee per controlled device as long the feed is for internal use
only.\4\ For subscribers that redistribute the Order Feed externally,
or redistribute the Order Feed internally and externally, the Exchange
charges each distributor an additional fee of $10 per month per
controlled device with a combined maximum fee capped at $2,500 per
month.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ A distributor is any firm that receives one of the market
data feeds directly from ISE or indirectly through a redistributor
and then distributes it either internally or externally. A
redistributor includes market data vendors and connectivity
providers such as extranets and private network providers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We now propose to increase the fee charged to distributors to
$3,000 per month. The Exchange will not charge distributors a monthly
fee per controlled device as long the feed is for internal use only.
For subscribers that redistribute the Order Feed externally, or
redistribute the Order Feed internally and externally, the Exchange
proposes to charge each distributor an additional fee of $20 per month
per controlled device with a combined maximum fee capped at $5,000 per
month. For example, a firm that subscribes to the Order Feed and then
redistributes it via a controlled device to 50 clients pays $4,000 per
month ($3,000 for the feed and $1,000 for the controlled devices ($20 x
50)). If that same firm redistributes the data via a controlled device
to 150 clients, the fee for that firm is capped at $5,000 per month,
resulting in a savings of $1,000.
Managed Data Fees
    On June 6, 2013 ISE implemented a temporary Managed Data Access
Service program that established a new pricing and distribution model
for the sale of a number of real-time market data products.\5\ The
Exchange recently extended this program until August 31, 2016, so that
the Exchange could continue to provide this alternative delivery option
for ISE data feeds.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See Exchange Act Release No. 69806 (June 20, 2013), 78 FR
38424 (June 26, 2013), SR-ISE-2013-39.
    \6\ See Exchange Act Release No. 34-75874 (September 10, 2015),
80 FR 55669 (September 16, 2015), SR-ISE-2015-25.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Managed Data Access Service is a pricing and administrative option
whereby the ISE assesses fees to Managed Data Access Distributors,\7\
who redistribute market data to Managed Data Access Recipients.\8\
Managed Data Access Distributors are required to monitor the delivery
of the data retransmitted to their clients, and must agree to reformat,
redisplay and/or alter the data feeds prior to retransmission without
affecting the integrity of the data feeds and without rendering any of
the feeds inaccurate, unfair, uninformative, fictitious, misleading, or
discriminatory.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ A Managed Data Access Distributor redistributes ISE data
feeds and permits access to the information in those data feeds
through a controlled device. A Managed Data Access Distributor can
also redistribute a data feed solution to specific IP addresses,
including an Application Programming Interface (``API'') or similar
automated delivery solutions, with only limited entitlement controls
(e.g., usernames and/or passwords) to a recipient of the
information.
    \8\ A Managed Data Access Recipient is a subscriber to the
Managed Data Access Distributor who receives a reformatted data feed
in a controlled device or at a specific IP address. Market Data
Access Recipients may be Professional or Non-Professional users.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Currently, the Exchange charges a fee to each Managed Data Access
Distributor of $1,500 for each of the Top Quote Feed and the Spread
Feed, and $1,000 per month for the Order Feed. The Exchange also
charges a fee for each IP address at Managed Data Access Recipients
that receive market data redistributed by a Managed Data Access
Distributor, which is $500 per month for each of the Top Quote Feed and
the Spread Feed, and $350 per month for the Order Feed.\9\ In addition,
the Exchange charges a controlled device fee for each controlled device
permitted to access market data redistributed by a Managed Data Access
Distributor to a Market Data Access Recipient that is a Professional
user,\10\ which is $20 per month for the Top Quote Feed, $25 per month
for the Spread Feed, and $10 per month for the Order Feed.\11\ For each
of the above ISE data feeds, Market Data Access Distributors are
subject to a minimum fee, which is $3,000 per month for each of the Top
Quote Feed and the Spread Feed, and $2,000 per month for the Order
Feed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ This fee is charged per IP address, which covers both
primary and back-up IP addresses at a Managed Data Access Recipient.
    \10\ A ``Professional user'' is an authorized end-user of the
ISE data feeds that has not qualified as a Non-Professional user.
    \11\ A controlled device is any device that a distributor of an
ISE data feed permits to access the information in that data feed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange now proposes to charge each Managed Data Access
Distributor a monthly fee of $2,000 for the Order Feed, Top Quote Feed,
and Spread Feed. The Exchange also proposes to charge each IP address
at Managed Data Access Recipients that received market data
redistributed by a Managed Data Access Distributor a monthly fee of
$500 for the Order Feed.\12\ In addition, for each controlled device
permitted to access market data redistributed by a Managed Data Access
Distributor to a Market Data Access Recipient that is a Professional
user the Exchange proposes a fee of $20 per month for the Order
Feed.\13\ Finally, for the Order Feed, Top Quote Feed, and Spread Feed,
Market Data Access Distributors are subject to a minimum fee, which the
Exchange now proposes to change to $4,000 per month.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ The fee for the Top Quote Feed and the Spread Feed are not
being changed.
    \13\ The fee for the Top Quote Feed and the Spread Feed are not
being changed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section
6(b) of the Act,\14\ in general, and furthers the objectives of Section
6(b)(4) of the Act,\15\ in particular, in that it provides for an
equitable allocation of reasonable fees and other charges among
Exchange Members and other persons using its facilities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \15\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is also
consistent with Section 6(b)(8) of the Act,\16\ in that it does not
impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The proposed fees are the same
for all similarly-situated market participants, and therefore do not
unreasonably discriminate among market participants. Moreover, the
Exchange notes that the proposed fees are similar to the fees charged
by other exchanges. For example, similar to the ISE Order Feed, NASDAQ
OMX PHLX (``PHLX'') charges a monthly fee of $3,000 for internal
distributors and $3,500 for external distributors plus a monthly fee of
$1 for non-professional subscribers and $40 for professional

subscribers.\17\ Additionally, similar to ISE's Managed Data Order
Feed, PHLX charges $2,000 per month per distributor and $500 per month
per subscriber.\18\ Further, the market data fees will be easier to
understand because the proposed rule standardizes them.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(8).
    \17\ See IX. Proprietary Data Feed Fees, PHLX Orders, available
at http://www.nasdaqtrader.com/Micro.aspx?id=phlxpricing.
    \18\ See IX. Proprietary Data Feed Fees, Fee Schedule for
Managed Data Solutions for Non-Display Usage, available at http://www.nasdaqtrader.com/Micro.aspx?id=phlxpricing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In adopting Regulation NMS, the Commission granted self-regulatory
organizations and broker-dealers increased authority and flexibility to
offer new and unique market data to the public. It was believed that
this authority would expand the amount of data available to consumers,
and also spur innovation and competition for the provision of market
data.
    The Commission concluded that Regulation NMS--by deregulating the
market in proprietary data--would itself further the Act's goals of
facilitating efficiency and competition:

    [E]fficiency is promoted when broker-dealers who do not need the
data beyond the prices, sizes, market center identifications of the
NBBO and consolidated last sale information are not required to
receive (and pay for) such data. The Commission also believes that
efficiency is promoted when broker-dealers may choose to receive
(and pay for) additional market data based on their own internal
analysis of the need for such data.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 51808 (June 9,
2005), 70 FR 37496 (June 29, 2005).

    By removing ``unnecessary regulatory restrictions'' on the ability
of exchanges to sell their own data, Regulation NMS advanced the goals
of the Act and the principles reflected in its legislative history. If
the free market should determine whether proprietary data is sold to
broker-dealers at all, it follows that the price at which such data is
sold should be set by the market as well.
    On July 21, 2010, President Barak [sic] Obama signed into law H.R.
4173, the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of
2010 (``Dodd-Frank Act''), which amended Section 19 of the Act. Among
other things, Section 916 of the Dodd-Frank Act amended paragraph (A)
of Section 19(b)(3) of the Act by inserting the phrase ``on any person,
whether or not the person is a member of the self-regulatory
organization'' after ``due, fee or other charge imposed by the self-
regulatory organization.'' As a result, all SRO rule proposals
establishing or changing dues, fees, or other charges are immediately
effective upon filing regardless of whether such dues, fees, or other
charges are imposed on members of the SRO, non-members, or both.
Section 916 further amended paragraph (C) of Section 19(b)(3) of the
Act to read, in pertinent part, ``At any time within the 60-day period
beginning on the date of filing of such a proposed rule change in
accordance with the provisions of paragraph (1) [of Section 19(b)], the
Commission summarily may temporarily suspend the change in the rules of
the self-regulatory organization made thereby, 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 this title. If the Commission takes such action, the
Commission shall institute proceedings under paragraph (2)(B) [of
Section 19(b)] to determine whether the proposed rule should be
approved or disapproved.''
    The decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the District
of Columbia Circuit in NetCoalition v. SEC, 615 F.3d 525 (D.C. Cir.
2010), although reviewing a Commission decision made prior to the
effective date of the Dodd-Frank Act, upheld the Commission's reliance
upon competitive markets to set reasonable and equitably allocated fees
for market data. ``In fact, the legislative history indicates that the
Congress intended that the market system `evolve through the interplay
of competitive forces as unnecessary regulatory restrictions are
removed' and that the SEC wield its regulatory power `in those
situations where competition may not be sufficient,' such as in the
creation of a `consolidated transactional reporting system.' '' \20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ NetCoalition, at 535 (quoting H.R. Rep. No. 94-229, at 92
(1975), as reprinted in 1975 U.S.C.C.A.N. 321, 323).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The court's conclusions about Congressional intent are therefore
reinforced by the Dodd-Frank Act amendments, which create a presumption
that exchange fees, including market data fees, may take effect
immediately, without prior Commission approval, and that the Commission
should take action to suspend a fee change and institute a proceeding
to determine whether the fee change should be approved or disapproved
only where the Commission has concerns that the change may not be
consistent with the Act.
    The Exchange believes that the proposed fees for the ISE market
data offering is consistent with the requirements of the Act because
competition provides an effective constraint on the market data fees
that the Exchange has the ability and the incentive to charge. ISE has
a compelling need to attract order flow from market participants in
order to maintain its share of trading volume. This compelling need to
attract order flow imposes significant pressure on the Exchange to act
reasonably in setting the fees for its market data offerings,
particularly given that the market participants that will pay such fees
often will be the same market participants from whom the Exchange must
attract order flow. These market participants include broker-dealers
that control the handling of a large volume of customer and proprietary
order flow. Given the portability of order flow from one exchange to
another, any exchange that sought to charge unreasonably high market
data fees would risk alienating many of the same customers on whose
orders it depends for competitive survival. ISE currently competes with
11 [sic] other options exchanges for order flow.
    The Exchange is constrained in pricing its market data offerings by
the availability to market participants of alternatives to purchasing
these products. The Exchange must consider the extent to which market
participants would choose one or more alternatives instead of
purchasing the Exchange's data.
    For the reasons cited above, the Exchange believes that the
proposed fees for the ISE data feeds are equitable, fair, reasonable
and not unreasonably discriminatory. The Exchange further believes that
the continued availability of each of the ISE data feeds enhances
transparency, fosters competition among orders and markets, and enables
buyers and sellers to obtain better prices. In addition, the Exchange
believes that no substantial countervailing basis exists to support a
finding that the proposed terms and fees for these products fail to
meet the requirements of the Act.

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

    In accordance with Section 6(b)(8) of the Act,\21\ the Exchange
does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden
on intermarket or intramarket competition that is not necessary or
appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. Notwithstanding
its determination that the Commission may rely upon competition to
establish fair and equitably allocated fees for market data,

the NetCoaltion [sic] court found that the Commission had not, in that
case, compiled a record that adequately supported its conclusion that
the market for the data at issue in the case was competitive. The
Exchange believes that a record may readily be established to
demonstrate the competitive nature of the market in question.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(8).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For the reasons discussed above, the Exchange believes that the
Dodd-Frank Act amendments to Section 19 materially alter the scope of
the Commission's review of future market data filings, by creating a
presumption that all fees may take effect immediately, without prior
analysis by the Commission of the competitive environment. Even in the
absence of this important statutory change, however, the Exchange
believes that a record may readily be established to demonstrate the
competitive nature of the market in question.
    There is intense competition between trading platforms that provide
transaction execution and routing services and proprietary data
products. Transaction execution and proprietary data products are
complementary in that market data is both an input and a byproduct of
the execution service. In fact, market data and trade execution are a
paradigmatic example of joint products with joint costs. The decision
whether and on which platform to post an order will depend on the
attributes of the platform where the order can be posted, including the
execution fees, data quality and price and distribution of its data
products. Without the prospect of a taking order seeing and reacting to
a posted order on a particular platform, the posting of the order would
accomplish little. Without trade executions, exchange data products
cannot exist. Data products are valuable to many end users only insofar
as they provide information that end users expect will assist them or
their customers in making trading decisions.
    The costs of producing market data include not only the costs of
the data distribution infrastructure, but also the costs of designing,
maintaining, and operating the exchange's transaction execution
platform and the cost of regulating the exchange to ensure its fair
operation and maintain investor confidence. The total return that a
trading platform earns reflects the revenues it receives from both
products and the joint costs it incurs. Moreover, an exchange's
customers view the costs of transaction executions and of data as a
unified cost of doing business with the exchange. A broker-dealer will
direct orders to a particular exchange only if the expected revenues
from executing trades on the exchange exceed net transaction execution
costs and the cost of data that the broker-dealer chooses to buy to
support its trading decisions (or those of its customers). The choice
of data products is, in turn, a product of the value of the products in
making profitable trading decisions. If the cost of the product exceeds
its expected value, the broker-dealer will choose not to buy it.
    Moreover, as a broker-dealer chooses to direct fewer orders to a
particular exchange, the value of the product to that broker-dealer
decrease, for two reasons. First, the product will contain less
information, because executions of the broker-dealer's orders will not
be reflected in it. Second, and perhaps more important, the product
will be less valuable to that broker-dealer because it does not provide
information about the venue to which it is directing its orders. Data
from the competing venue to which the broker-dealer is directing orders
will become correspondingly more valuable. Thus, a super-competitive
increase in the fees charged for either transactions or data has the
potential to impair revenues from both products. ``No one disputes that
competition for order flow is `fierce'.'' \22\ However, the existence
of fierce competition for order flow implies a high degree of price
sensitivity on the part of broker-dealers with order flow, since they
may readily reduce costs by directing orders toward the lowest-cost
trading venues. A broker-dealer that shifted its order flow from one
platform to another in response to order execution price differentials
would both reduce the value of that platform's market data and reduce
its own need to consume data from the disfavored platform. Similarly,
if a platform increases its market data fees, the change will affect
the overall cost of doing business with the platform, and affected
broker-dealers will assess whether they can lower their trading costs
by directing orders elsewhere and thereby lessening the need for the
more expensive data.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ NetCoalition, at 24.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Analyzing the cost of market data distribution in isolation from
the cost of all of the inputs supporting the creation of market data
will inevitably underestimate the cost of the data. Thus, because it is
impossible to create data without a fast, technologically robust, and
well-regulated execution system, system costs and regulatory costs
affect the price of market data. It would be equally misleading,
however, to attribute all of the exchange's costs to the market data
portion of an exchange's joint product. Rather, all of the exchange's
costs are incurred for the unified purposes of attracting order flow,
executing and/or routing orders, and generating and selling data about
market activity. The total return that an exchange earns reflects the
revenues it receives from the joint products and the total costs of the
joint products.
    Competition among trading platforms can be expected to constrain
the aggregate return each platform earns from the sale of its joint
products, but different platforms may choose from a range of possible,
and equally reasonable, pricing strategies as the means of recovering
total costs. For example, some platform may choose to pay rebates to
attract orders, charge relatively low prices for market information (or
provide information free of charge) and charge relatively high prices
for accessing posted liquidity. Other platforms may choose a strategy
of paying lower rebates (or no rebates) to attract orders, setting
relatively high prices for market information, and setting relatively
low prices for accessing posted liquidity. In this environment, there
is no economic basis for regulating maximum prices for one of the joint
products in an industry in which suppliers face competitive constraints
with regard to the joint offering.
    The market for market data products is competitive and inherently
contestable because there is fierce competition for the inputs
necessary to the creation of proprietary data and strict pricing
discipline for the proprietary products themselves. Numerous exchanges
compete with each other for listings, trades, and market data itself,
providing virtually limitless opportunities for entrepreneurs who wish
to produce and distribute their own market data. This proprietary data
is produced by each individual exchange, as well as other entities, in
a vigorously competitive market.
    Broker-dealers currently have numerous alternative venues for their
order flow, including numerous self-regulatory organization (``SRO'')
markets, as well as internalizing broker-dealers (``BDs'') and various
forms of alternative trading systems (``ATSs''), including dark pools
and electronic communication networks (``ECNs''). Each SRO market
competes to produce transaction reports via trade executions, and two
FINRA-regulated Trade Reporting Facilities (``TRFs'') compete to
attract internalized transaction reports. Competitive markets for order
flow, executions, and transaction reports provide pricing discipline
for the inputs of proprietary data products.

The large number of SROs, TRFs, BDs, and ATSs that currently produce
proprietary data or are currently capable of producing it provides
further pricing discipline for proprietary data products. Each SRO,
TRF, ATS, and BD is currently permitted to produce proprietary data
products, and many currently do.
    Any ATS or BD can combine with any other ATS, BD, or multiple ATSs
or BDs to produce joint proprietary data products. Additionally, order
routers and market data vendors can facilitate single or multiple
broker-dealers' production of proprietary data products. The potential
sources of proprietary products are virtually limitless.
    The fact that proprietary data from ATSs, BDs, and vendors can by-
pass SROs is significant in two respects. First, non-SROs can compete
directly with SROs for the production and sale of proprietary data
products, as BATS and Arca did before registering as exchanges by
publishing proprietary book data on the Internet. Second, because a
single order or transaction report can appear in an SRO proprietary
product, a non-SRO proprietary product, or both, the data available in
proprietary products is exponentially greater than the actual number of
orders and transaction reports that exist in the marketplace. Market
data vendors provide another form of price discipline for proprietary
data products because they control the primary means of access to end
users. Vendors impose price restraints based upon their business
models. For example, vendors such as Bloomberg and Reuters that assess
a surcharge on data they sell may refuse to offer proprietary products
that end users will not purchase in sufficient numbers. Internet
portals, such as Google, impose a discipline by providing only data
that will enable them to attract ``eyeballs'' that contribute to their
advertising revenue. Retail broker-dealers, such as Schwab and
Fidelity, offer their customers proprietary data only if it promotes
trading and generates sufficient commission revenue. Although the
business models may differ, these vendors' pricing discipline is the
same: They can simply refuse to purchase any proprietary data product
that fails to provide sufficient value. The Exchange and other
producers of proprietary data products must understand and respond to
these varying business models and pricing disciplines in order to
market proprietary data products successfully.

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

    The Exchange has not solicited, and does not intend to solicit,
comments on this proposed rule change. The Exchange has not received
any unsolicited written comments from members or other interested
parties.

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

    The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act,\23\ and subparagraph (f)(2) of Rule 19b-4
thereunder,\24\ because it establishes a due, fee, or other charge
imposed by ISE.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii).
    \24\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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-ISE-2015-33 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-ISE-2015-33. 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-ISE-2015-33, and should be
submitted on or before November 12, 2015.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Brent J. Fields,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2015-26811 Filed 10-21-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: December 30, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 249)]
[Notices]
[Page 69090-69092]
[DOCID:fr30de09-47]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2009-0901; FRL-8804-6]

Notice of Receipt of Requests to Voluntarily Cancel Certain
Pesticide Registrations

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with section 6(f)(1) of the Federal Insecticide,
Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), as amended, EPA is issuing a
notice of receipt of requests by registrants to voluntarily cancel
certain pesticide registrations.

DATES: Unless a request is withdrawn by June 28, 2010, orders will be
issued canceling these registrations. The Agency will consider
withdrawal requests postmarked no later than June 28, 2010. Comments
must be received on or before June 28, 2010 for these registrations.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments and your withdrawal request, identified
by docket identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2009-0901, by one of
the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments.
     Mail: Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP) Regulatory Public
Docket (7502P), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania
Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001. Written Withdrawal Request,
Attention : Barbara Briscoe, Pesticide Re-evaluation Division (7508P).
     Delivery: OPP Regulatory Public Docket (7502P),
Environmental Protection Agency, Rm. S-4400, One Potomac Yard (South
Bldg.), 2777 S. Crystal Dr., Arlington, VA. Deliveries are only
accepted during the Docket Facility's normal hours of operation (8:30
a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays).
Special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed
information. The Docket Facility telephone number is<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-
2009-0901. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included
in the docket without change and may be made available on-line at
http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information
provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you
consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through regulations.gov or e-
mail. The regulations.gov website is an ``anonymous access'' system,
which means EPA will not know your identity or contact information
unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an e-
mail comment directly to EPA without going through regulations.gov,
your e-mail address will be automatically captured and included as part
of the comment that is placed in the docket and made available on the
Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you
include your name and other contact information in the body of your
comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your
comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for
clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic
files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of
encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses.
    Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the docket index
available at http://www.regulations.gov. Although listed in the index,
some information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other
material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet
and will be publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly
available docket materials are available either in the electronic
docket at http://www.regulations.gov, or, if only available in hard
copy, at the OPP Regulatory Public Docket in Rm. S-4400, One Potomac
Yard (South Bldg.), 2777 S. Crystal Dr., Arlington, VA. The hours of
operation of this Docket Facility are from 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday
through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The Docket Facility telephone
number is<PHONE_NUMBER>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Barbara Briscoe, Pesticide Re-
evaluation Division (7508P), Office of Pesticide Programs,
Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW.,
Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail
address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. Does This Action Apply to Me?

    This action is directed to the public in general. Although this
action may be of particular interest to persons who produce or use
pesticides, the Agency has not attempted to describe all the specific
entities that may be affected by this action. If you have any questions
regarding the information in this notice, consult the person listed
under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

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

    1.  Submitting CBI. Do not submit this information to EPA through
regulations.gov or e-mail. Clearly mark the part or all of the
information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information in a disk or
CD-ROM that you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD-ROM as
CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD-ROM the
specific information that is claimed as CBI. In addition to one
complete version of the comment that

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

II. What Action Is the Agency Taking?

    This notice announces receipt by the Agency of applications from
registrants to cancel 19 pesticide products registered under section 3
or 24(c) of FIFRA. These registrations are listed in sequence by
registration number (or company number and 24(c) number) in Table 1 of
this unit:

      Table 1.--Registrations with Pending Requests for Cancellation
------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Registration No.             Product Name        Chemical Name
------------------------------------------------------------------------
002382-00054                      Otomite-Pesticidal  Piperonyl
                                                       Butoxide,
                                                       Pyrethrins
------------------------------------------------------------------------
002382-00092                      Pet-Guard Gel       Piperonyl
                                   Forte               Butoxide,
                                                       Butoxypolypropyle
                                                       ne glycol
------------------------------------------------------------------------
002382-00126                      Duocide L.A.        Permethrin, MGK
                                                       264, Pyrethrins
------------------------------------------------------------------------
002382-00158                      Knockout Flea &     Permethrin,
                                   Tick Carpet Spray   Piperonyl
                                   1          butoxide,
                                                       Pyripoxyfen
------------------------------------------------------------------------
002915-00065                      Industrial Insect   Pyrethrins, MGK
                                   Spray 111           264, Piperonyl
                                                       butoxide
------------------------------------------------------------------------
030573-00002                      Pyrellin E.C.       Pyrethrins,
                                                       Rotenone, Cube
                                                       Resins other than
                                                       rotenone
------------------------------------------------------------------------
042697-00034                      Safer Brand Entire  Pyrethrins,
                                   Insect Killer       Potassium laurate
                                   Concentrate
------------------------------------------------------------------------
067517-00004                      Insecticide Mist    Pyrethrins,
                                                       Piperonyl
                                                       butoxide,
------------------------------------------------------------------------
067517-00012                      Dairy Spray         Pyrethrins,
                                                       Piperonyl
                                                       butoxide
------------------------------------------------------------------------
067517-00041                      Rose & Flower       Pyrethrins,
                                   Spray               Piperonyl
                                                       butoxide
------------------------------------------------------------------------
067517-00042                      Tomato & Vegetable  Pyrethrins,
                                   Spray               Piperonyl
                                                       butoxide
------------------------------------------------------------------------
067517-00043                      Fly-A-Rest Aq       Pyrethrins,
                                                       Piperonyl
                                                       butoxide
------------------------------------------------------------------------
067517-00045                      Hard Hitter         Permethrin
                                   Aerosol
------------------------------------------------------------------------
067517-00049                      Dog & Cat Spray Or  Pyrethrins,
                                   Dip                 Piperonyl
                                                       butoxide
------------------------------------------------------------------------
067517-00051                      Flea And Tick       Pyrethrins,
                                   Spray               Permethrin
------------------------------------------------------------------------
067517-00056                      Flea And Insect     Pyrethrins,
                                   Carpet Dust         Piperonyl
                                                       butoxide
------------------------------------------------------------------------
067517-00057                      Cat And Dog         Pyrethrins,
                                   Pyrethrin Powder    Piperonyl
                                                       butoxide
------------------------------------------------------------------------
067517-00061                      Permethrin 10%      Permethrin
                                   W.B. Multi-
                                   Purpose
                                   Concentrate
------------------------------------------------------------------------
067517-00080                      Permethrin 10% Oil  Permethrin
                                   Base Concentrate
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Unless a request is withdrawn by the registrant within 180 days of
publication of this notice, orders will be issued canceling all of
these registrations. Users of these pesticides or anyone else desiring
the retention of a registration should contact the applicable
registrant directly during this 180-day period.
    Table 2 of this unit includes the names and addresses of record for
all registrants of the products in Table 1 of this unit, in sequence by
EPA company number:

         Table 2.--Registrants Requesting Voluntary Cancellation
------------------------------------------------------------------------
              EPA Company No.                 Company Name and Address
------------------------------------------------------------------------
002382                                      Virbac AH, Inc.
                                            1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 3800
                                            Dallas, TX 75202
------------------------------------------------------------------------
002915                                      The Fuller Brush Company
                                            One Fuller Way
                                            Great Bend, KS 67530
------------------------------------------------------------------------
030573                                      Wright Webb Corp.
                                            P.O. Box 1572
                                            Fort Myers, FL 33902
------------------------------------------------------------------------
042697                                      Safer, Inc.
                                            69 North Locust St.
                                            P.O. Box 327
                                            Lititz, PA 17543
------------------------------------------------------------------------
067517                                      PM Resources, Inc.
                                            P.O. Box 162059
                                            Fort Worth, TX 76161
------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. What Is the Agency's Authority for Taking This Action?

    Section 6(f)(1) of FIFRA provides that a registrant of a pesticide
product may at any time request that any of its pesticide registrations
be canceled. FIFRA further provides that before acting on the request,
EPA must publish a notice of receipt of any such request in the Federal
Register. Thereafter, the Administrator may approve such a request.

IV. Procedures for Withdrawal of Request

    Registrants who choose to withdraw a request for cancellation must
submit such withdrawal in writing to the person listed under FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT, postmarked on or before June 28, 2010.
This written withdrawal of the request for cancellation will apply only
to the applicable FIFRA section 6(f)(1) request listed in this notice.
If the products have been subject to a previous cancellation action,
the effective date of cancellation and all other provisions of any
earlier cancellation action are controlling. The withdrawal request
must also include a commitment to pay any reregistration fees due, and
to fulfill any applicable unsatisfied data requirements.

V. Provisions for Disposition of Existing Stocks

    Existing stocks are those stocks of registered pesticide products
which are currently in the United States and which were packaged,
labeled, and released for shipment prior to the effective date of the
cancellation action. EPA's existing stocks policy (56 FR 29362)
provides that: ``If a registrant requests to voluntarily cancel a
registration where the Agency has identified no particular risk
concerns, the registrant has complied with all applicable conditions of
reregistration, conditional registration, and data call ins, and the
registration is not subject to a Registration Standard, Label
Improvement Program, or reregistration decision, the Agency will
generally permit a registrant to sell or distribute existing stocks for
1 year after the cancellation request was received. Persons other than
registrants will generally be allowed to sell, distribute, or use
existing stocks until such stocks are exhausted.''
    Upon cancellation of the pesticides identified in Table 1, EPA
anticipates allowing sale, distribution and use as described above.
Exception to this general policy will be made in specific cases when
more stringent restrictions on sale, distribution, or use of the
products or their ingredients have already been imposed, as in a
special review action, or where the Agency has identified significant
potential risk concerns associated with a particular chemical.

List of Subjects

    Environmental protection, Pesticides and pests.

    Dated: December 16, 2009.
 Richard P. Keigwin, Jr.,
Director, Pesticide Re-evaluation Division, Office of Pesticide
Programs.
[FR Doc. E9-31002 Filed 12-29-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-S


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 42 (Wednesday, March 4, 2015)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 11547-11548]
[FR Doc No: 2015-04481]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 100

[Docket No. USCG-2015-0056]

Special Local Regulation; Southern California Annual Marine
Events for the San Diego Captain of the Port Zone

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of enforcement of regulation.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard will enforce the special local regulations on
the waters of Oceanside Harbor, California during the California
Ironman Triathlon from 6:30 a.m. to 9:30 a.m. on March 28, 2015. These
special local regulations are necessary to provide for the safety of
the participants, crew, spectators, sponsor vessels of the triathlon,
and general users of the waterway. During the enforcement period,
persons and vessels are prohibited from entering into, transiting
through, or anchoring within this regulated area unless authorized by
the Captain of the Port, or his designated representative.

DATES: The regulations for the marine event listed in 33 CFR 100.1101,
Table 1, Item 2, will be enforced from 6:30 a.m. to 9:30 p.m. on March
28, 2015.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this
document, call or email Petty Officer Nick Bateman, Waterways
Management, U.S. Coast Guard Sector San Diego, CA; telephone (619) 278-
7656, email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Coast Guard will enforce the special
local

regulations in 33 CFR 100.1101 in support of the annual marine event,
the California Ironman Triathlon (Item 2 on Table 1 of 33 CFR
100.1101), held on March 28, 2015. The Coast Guard will enforce the
special local regulations on the Harbor and Federal Channel in
Oceanside on March 28, 2015 from 6:30 a.m. to 9:30 a.m. The triathlon
course will commence at the Oceanside Harbor boat ramp then proceed
outbound through the federal channel to the Oceanside Harbor Entrance,
and then proceed back through the channel to the boat ramp.
    Under the provisions of 33 CFR 100.1101, persons and vessels are
prohibited from entering into, transiting through, or anchoring within
this regulated area unless authorized by the Captain of the Port, or
his designated representative. The Coast Guard may be assisted by other
Federal, State, or local law enforcement agencies in enforcing this
regulation.
    This document is issued under authority of 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 33
CFR 100.1101. In addition to this document in the Federal Register, the
Coast Guard will provide the maritime community with advance
notification of this enforcement period via the Local Notice to
Mariners, Broadcast Notice to Mariners, and local advertising by the
event sponsor.
    If the Captain of the Port Sector San Diego or his designated
representative determines that the regulated area need not be enforced
for the full duration stated on this document, he or she may use a
Broadcast Notice to Mariners or other communications coordinated with
the event sponsor to grant general permission to enter the regulated
area.

    Dated: February 5, 2015.
J.S. Spaner,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port San Diego.
[FR Doc. 2015-04481 Filed 3-3-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 208 (Monday, October 30, 2017)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 50089-50093]
[FR Doc No: 2017-23531]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

49 CFR Part 571

[Docket No. NHTSA-2015-0056]
RIN 2127-AL78

Motor Vehicle Safety Standards; Electronic Stability Control
Systems for Heavy Vehicles

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA),
Department of Transportation.

ACTION: Final rule; response to petition for reconsideration.

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

SUMMARY: This final rule addresses a petition for reconsideration of
the final rule for FMVSS No. 136, Electronic stability control systems
for heavy vehicles. The petitioner, Truck and Engine Manufacturers
Association (EMA), requested that NHTSA amend the test conditions for
the agency's performance test by allowing a larger lane width for long
wheelbase truck tractors. After a careful technical review of the
petition and the issues raised by the petitioner, the agency has
decided to grant the petition because there is sufficient evidence to
indicate that a larger lane width is needed for testing of long
wheelbase truck tractors.

DATES: The effective date of this final rule is November 29, 2017.
    Petitions for reconsideration: Petitions for reconsideration of
this final rule must be received not later than December 14, 2017.

ADDRESSES: Petitions for reconsideration of this final rule must refer
to the docket and notice number set forth above and be submitted to the
Administrator, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For technical issues, you may contact

Patrick Hallan, Office of Crash Avoidance Standards, by telephone at
(202) 366-9146, and by fax at<PHONE_NUMBER>. For legal issues, you may
contact David Jasinski, Office of the Chief Counsel, by telephone at
(202) 366-2992, and by fax at<PHONE_NUMBER>. You may send mail to both
of these officials at the National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. FMVSS No. 136 and J-Turn Test Maneuver

    On June 23, 2015, NHTSA published a final rule establishing Federal
Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 136, Electronic stability
control systems for heavy vehicles, requiring electronic stability
control (ESC) systems on truck tractors and certain buses with a gross
vehicle weight rating greater than 11,793 kilograms (26,000 pounds).\1\
ESC systems in truck tractors and large buses are designed to reduce
untripped rollovers and mitigate severe understeer or oversteer
conditions that lead to loss of control using automatic computer-
controlled braking and reducing engine torque output.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 80 FR 36049.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To test the performance of ESC systems, NHTSA included a 150-foot
radius J-turn test maneuver. The test course for the test maneuver is
shown in Figure 1. This maneuver involves accelerating to a constant
speed on a straight stretch of high-friction track before entering into
a 150-foot radius curve. After entering the curve, the driver attempts
to maintain the lane. At a speed that is up to 1.3 times the lowest
entrance speed at which the ESC system activates, but no less than 48.3
km/h (30 mph), an ESC system must activate the vehicle's service brakes
to slow the vehicle to 46.7 km/h (29 mph) within 3 seconds after
entering the curve and 45.1 km/h (28 mph) within 4 seconds after
entering the curve. The test vehicle must also remain within the lane.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR30OC17.002

    For truck tractors, the lane width is 3.7 meters (12 feet) for both
the straight section and the curved section of the course. However,
after testing large buses, the agency determined that large buses
require additional lane width on the curved section of the course
because buses have longer wheelbases, which make it substantially more
difficult to maintain a narrower lane within the curve. During testing
of buses on a 3.7 meter (12 foot) width lane, the bus could not
maintain the lane because of the geometry of the vehicle, not because
of lack of stability. NHTSA determined that 4.3 meters (14 feet) was an
appropriate lane width for testing large buses.
    As described in the final rule, the nature of the J-turn test
provides two criteria for ensuring vehicle responsiveness: Maintaining
the lane within the fixed radius curve and a minimum test speed. These
criteria for vehicle responsiveness are needed because there is a
possibility of a manufacturer designing a vehicle that

responds poorly to the operator's speed and steering inputs, which
would mask the actual performance of the ESC system.
    The first responsiveness criterion is the requirement that the
vehicle maintain the lane during at least six of eight runs in the roll
stability performance test series or at least two of four runs in the
engine torque reduction test. This requirement ensures that, during J-
turn test runs at increasing speeds, the ESC system activates before
the vehicle becomes unstable. We allowed multiple test runs, instead of
a single test run, to account for driver variability and possible
driver error in conducting the maneuver. Absent driver error, we do not
expect any vehicle equipped with a properly functioning ESC system to
exceed the lane width during any of the tests using the J-turn
maneuver.
    The other responsiveness criterion in the final rule is the minimum
vehicle entry speed, which is 48 km/h (30 mph) for the roll performance
test. The reason for this requirement is to discourage a manufacturer
from designing a system that unnecessarily intervenes at very low
speeds, thus artificially decreasing the speed at which the vehicle
will enter the curve during the roll performance test.

II. EMA Petition

    On August 7, 2015, the Truck and Engine Manufacturers Association
(EMA) submitted a petition to NHTSA, pursuant to 49 CFR 553.35,
requesting that the agency reconsider its June 2015 final rule
establishing FMVSS No. 136. EMA is a trade association representing
manufacturers of commercial motor vehicles, including medium- and
heavy-duty truck tractors. EMA's petition indicated that the 3.7 meter
(12 foot) lane width used in the FMVSS No. 136 test procedure presents
difficulty in successfully completing the J-turn test for a small
subset of truck tractors to achieve certification. According to EMA,
long wheelbase truck tractors, such as specialty tractors and severe
service tractors, cannot navigate the curve of the test course for the
J-turn test maneuver because the radius paths of the trucks are
dimensionally too large. This physical limitation does not allow the
rear wheels to stay inside the 12-foot-wide lane. The petitioner states
that this issue only affects certain long wheelbase truck tractors,
which make up about one percent of the annual sales of the new truck
tractor market.
    EMA asserted that the curved section of the 12-foot-wide lane is
too narrow, and therefore, it is impracticable for the testing of a
long wheelbase truck tractor with a wheelbase equal to or greater than
7112 millimeters (280 inches). EMA stated that it was challenging for
the drivers of tractors with wheelbases larger than 280 inches to
complete the maneuver in the 12-foot-wide lane, because there was not
an adequate margin of physical space to account for test variability.
EMA listed factors that contribute to the variability of its test
results which included: (i) The length of the tractor's wheelbase, (ii)
the experience level of the test driver, (iii) whether the maneuver is
conducted in the clockwise or counter-clockwise direction, and (iv)
other vehicle attributes such as steering system, suspensions, axles,
and tires. EMA has shown that there are dimensional limitations for
certain long wheelbase truck tractors to conduct the J-turn test
maneuver within 12-foot-wide lane and a larger lane width is needed to
adequately test the ESC systems.
    In support of the petition for reconsideration, on June 30, 2016,
EMA submitted data from testing and computer simulations indicating
that a lane width of 4.3 meters (14 feet) was necessary for these long
wheelbase truck tractors. EMA tested three truck tractors with three
test drivers of varying degrees of experience in conducting the J-turn
maneuver in both directions (clockwise and counterclockwise). EMA also
performed computer simulations on three example tractors to do a static
analysis showing the clearance of the truck tractor within the lane.
Based on engineering recommendations from all of the major heavy-duty
tractor manufacturers using the results of the computer simulations and
the vehicle testing, EMA requests that truck tractors with a wheelbase
equal to or greater than 7112 mm (280 inches) be conducted on a J-turn
test course with a lane width of 4.3 meters (14 feet).

III. Agency Decision

    Pursuant to the process established under 49 CFR 553.37, after
carefully considering all aspects of the petition and its subsequent
data submission, the agency has decided to grant the petition without
further proceedings. EMA's vehicle testing and computer simulation data
support its position that truck tractors with a wheelbase equal to or
greater than 7112 millimeters (280 inches) should be conducted on a
test course with a wider lane, and we believe the suggested width of
4.3 meters (14 feet) is appropriate. The agency had made similar
provisions for large buses by allowing a 14-foot-wide lane after first
considering a 12-foot-wide lane.\2\ During bus testing, NHTSA observed
a decrease in clearance between a vehicle and the lane boundaries as
wheelbase length increases. EMA's submission further reinforces this
work and applies it to truck tractors. NHTSA agrees that there are
dimensional limitations for long wheelbase vehicles that potentially
make it impractical to conduct the J-turn test maneuver within 12-foot-
wide lane, and a larger lane width is needed to adequately test the ESC
systems.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ See Stability Control System Test Track Research with a 2014
Prevost X3-45 Passenger Motorcoach, Docket No. NHTSA-2012-0065-0063.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In order to ensure that the J-turn test maneuver tests the ESC
system and not a test driver's ability to maintain a narrow lane, NHTSA
will adopt EMA's suggested 4.3 meter (14 foot) lane width for testing
longer wheelbase truck tractors. Despite the increased lane width
requirement for these long wheelbase truck tractors, NHTSA is confident
that the ESC systems in these long wheelbase truck tractors will be
adequately tested for minimum performance using the J-turn test
maneuver because the driver must maintain the lane within the same
fixed radius curve and travel at the same minimum test speed as all
other truck tractors.
    This change requires two clarifications. First, as with buses, the
wider lane is used only in the curved section of the test course. The
lane width of the straight section will remain 3.7 meters (12 feet).
The dimensional considerations that require a wider lane width for long
wheelbase vehicles do not apply to straight sections of the test
course.
    Second, NHTSA is clarifying the definition of wheelbase by
including the definition in the regulatory text. For two-axle vehicles,
the wheelbase is generally clear--the distance between the center of
the front axle and the center of the rear axle. Moreover, for typical
6x4 truck tractors, which have tandem rear axles, we believe the
definition of wheelbase is also clear--the distance between the center
of the front axle and the center of the rear tandem axles. However, to
clarify wheelbase for all vehicles, including those with liftable axles
or tag axles, NHTSA is specifying that the wheelbase is the
longitudinal distance between the center of the front axle and the
center of the rear axle. For vehicles with tandem axles, the center of
the axle is considered to be the midpoint between the centers of the
most forward and most rearward of the tandem axles, measured with any
liftable axles down.

This definition is designed to directly reflect the geometrical
concerns raised in the petition. Because all testing is done with any
liftable axles in the lowered position, the wheelbase will be measured
with liftable axles down so the wheelbase measurement accurately
reflects the turning radius of the truck tractor. The term ``tandem
axle'' is defined as it is in FMVSS Nos. 105 and 121 as a group or set
of two or more axles placed in close arrangement, one behind the other,
with the centerlines of adjacent axles not more than 72 inches apart.

IV. Rulemaking Analyses and Notices

A. Executive Order 12866, Executive Order 13563, and DOT Regulatory
Policies and Procedures

    The agency has considered the impact of this rulemaking action
under Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 and the DOT's regulatory
policies and procedures. This action was not reviewed by the Office of
Management and Budget under Executive Order 12866. The agency has
considered the impact of this action under the Department of
Transportation's regulatory policies and procedures (44 FR 11034;
February 26, 1979), and has determined that it is not ``significant''
under them.
    This action addresses a petition for reconsideration of the June
2015 final rule requiring ESC on truck tractors and certain large
buses. However, the petition only addresses one test condition
applicable to approximately one percent of truck tractors. This final
rule amends the standard to allow long wheelbase truck tractors to be
tested in a wider lane to account for the geometry of a turning vehicle
and to ensure that the J-turn remains a test of the vehicle's stability
and not the test driver. This final rule imposes no costs and adjusts
FMVSS No. 136 to give more flexibility to manufacturers testing long
wheelbase trucks. This action will not have any safety impacts.

B. Executive Order 13771

    Executive Order 13771 titled ``Reducing Regulation and Controlling
Regulatory Costs,'' directs that, unless prohibited by law, whenever an
executive department or agency publicly proposes for notice and comment
or otherwise promulgates a new regulation, it shall identify at least
two existing regulations to be repealed. In addition, any new
incremental costs associated with new regulations shall, to the extent
permitted by law, be offset by the elimination of existing costs. Only
those rules deemed significant under section 3(f) of Executive Order
12866, ``Regulatory Planning and Review,'' are subject to these
requirements. As discussed above, this rule is not a significant rule
under Executive Order 12866 and, accordingly, is not subject to the
offset requirements of Executive Order 13771.
    NHTSA has determined that this rulemaking is a deregulatory action
under Executive Order 13771, as it imposes no costs and, instead,
amends FMVSS No. 136 to give more flexibility to manufacturers of long
wheelbase truck tractors by allowing a wider lane in the test course.
Although NHTSA was not able to quantify any cost savings for this rule,
in adopting an optional wider lane width for the testing of long
wheelbase truck tractors, this final rule adjusts the standard to
accommodate the larger physical size of certain truck tractors and
improves the efficiency of testing. This issue only affects long
wheelbase truck tractors, which make up about one percent of the annual
sales of truck tractors. The optional wider lane width will remove the
difficulties cited by the petitioner associated with navigating the
test course for long wheelbase truck tractors under the current test
conditions in the standard.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    Pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.,
as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act
(SBREFA) of 1996), whenever an agency is required to publish a notice
of rulemaking for any proposed or final rule, it must prepare and make
available for public comment a regulatory flexibility analysis that
describes the effect of the rule on small entities (i.e., small
businesses, small organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions).
The Small Business Administration's regulations at 13 CFR part 121
define a small business, in part, as a business entity ``which operates
primarily within the United States.'' (13 CFR 121.105(a)). No
regulatory flexibility analysis is required if the head of an agency
certifies the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities. SBREFA amended the Regulatory
Flexibility Act to require Federal agencies to provide a statement of
the factual basis for certifying that a rule will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
    NHTSA has considered the effects of this final rule under the
Regulatory Flexibility Act. I certify that this final rule will not
have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities. NHTSA does not believe that any truck tractor manufacturers
affected by this rule qualify as small entities. To the extent any
business entities affected by this final rule do qualify as small
entities, this final rule will not have a significant economic impact.
This final rule addresses one test condition applicable to only one
percent of truck tractors. This action will not result in added
expenses for those manufacturers.

D. Privacy Act

    Anyone is able to search the electronic form of all documents
received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual
submitting the document (or signing the document, if submitted on
behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review
DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement in the Federal Register published
on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477-78) or you may visit http://www.transportation.gov/privacy.

E. Other Rulemaking Analyses and Notices

    In the June 2015 final rule, the agency discussed relevant
requirements related to Executive Order 13132 (Federalism), Executive
Order 12988 (Civil Justice Reform); Executive Order 13045 (Protection
of Children from Environmental Health and Safety Risks); the Paperwork
Reduction Act, the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act,
the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act, and the National Environmental Policy
Act. As today's final rule merely adjusts one test condition in FMVSS
No. 136 for approximately one percent of truck tractors subject to the
standard, it will not have any effect on the agency's analyses in those
areas.

List of Subjects in 49 CFR Parts 571

    Imports, Incorporation by reference, Motor vehicle safety,
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Tires.

    In consideration of the foregoing, NHTSA amends 49 CFR part 571 as
follows:

PART 571--FEDERAL MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARDS

0
1. The authority citation for part 571 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  49 U.S.C. 322, 30111, 30115, 30117, and 30166;
delegation of authority at 49 CFR 1.95.

0
2. In Sec.  571.136, amend S4 by adding in alphabetical order the
definitions of ``tandem axle'' and ``wheelbase'' and by revising
S<IP_ADDRESS> to read as follows:

Sec.  571.136  Standard No. 136; Electronic stability control systems
for heavy vehicles.

* * * * *
    S4 Definitions.
* * * * *
    Tandem axle means a group or set of two or more axles placed in
close arrangement, one behind the other, with the centerlines of
adjacent axles not more than 72 inches apart.
* * * * *
    Wheelbase means the longitudinal distance between the center of the
front axle and the center of the rear axle. For vehicles with tandem
axles, the center of the axle is the midpoint between the centers of
the most forward and most rearward tandem axles, measured when all
liftable axles are in the lowered position.
* * * * *
    S<IP_ADDRESS> For truck tractors, the lane width of the test course is
3.7 meters (12 feet). At the manufacturer's option, for truck tractors
with a wheelbase equal to or greater than 7112 mm (280 inches) the lane
width of the test course is 3.7 meters (12 feet) for the straight
section and is 4.3 meters (14 feet) for the curved section. For buses,
the lane width of the test course is 3.7 meters (12 feet) for the
straight section and is 4.3 meters (14 feet) for the curved section.
* * * * *

    Issued on October 20, 2017 in Washington, DC, under authority
delegated in 49 CFR 1.95 and 501.5.
Heidi R. King,
Deputy Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2017-23531 Filed 10-27-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-59-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 169 (Tuesday, September 1, 2015)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 52620-52622]
[FR Doc No: 2015-21685]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 100

[Docket Number USCG-2015-0737]
RIN 1625-AA00

Safety Zone; Unexploded Ordnance Removal, Vero Beach, FL

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Temporary final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is establishing a safety zone on the waters of
the Atlantic Ocean for the removal of unexploded ordnance located east
of Vero Beach. There will be a zone approximately 2.6 nautical mile
wide along the beach extending due east for approximately 2.3 nautical
miles, in Vero Beach, Florida. This safety zone will be in effect from
August 10th through September 4, 2015. This safety zone will only be
enforced while operations are being conducted. The safety zone is
necessary to protect the public from hazards associated with removal of
the unexploded ordnance. Persons and vessels are prohibited from
entering, transiting through, anchoring in, or remaining within the
safety zone during operations unless authorized by the Captain of the
Port Miami or a designated representative.

DATES: This rule is effective without actual notice from September 1,
2015 until September 4, 2015. For the purposes of enforcement, actual
notice will be used from August 10, 2015 until September 1, 2015.

ADDRESSES: To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being
available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov, type USCG-
2015-0737 in the ``SEARCH'' box and click ``SEARCH.'' Click on Open
Docket Folder on the line associated with this rule. 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,
call or email Petty Officer Benjamin Colbert, U.S. Coast Guard;
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>If you have
questions on viewing or submitting material to the docket, call Ms.
Cheryl Collins, Program Manager, Docket Operations, telephone 202-366-
9826.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Table of Abbreviations

CFR Code of Federal Regulations
DHS Department of Homeland Security
E.O. Executive order
FR Federal Register
NPRM Notice of proposed rulemaking
Pub. L. Public Law
Sec.  Section
U.S.C. United States Code

II. Background Information and Regulatory History

    The Coast Guard is issuing this final rule without prior notice and
opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section 4(a) of the
Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This provision
authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and
opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those
procedures are ``impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public
interest.'' Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good
cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM)
with respect to this rule because the Coast Guard did not receive
notice of this event until late July and there is an immediate need to
remove hazards presented by unexploded ordinance. Any delay in the
effective date of this rule would be unnecessary and contrary to the
public interest because immediate action is needed to minimize
potential danger to the public from this operation.
    We are issuing this final rule, and under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the
Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for making it effective less
than 30 days after publication in the Federal Register for the same
reasons described above.

III. Legal Authority and Need for Rule

    The legal basis for the rule is the Coast Guard's authority to
establish regulated navigation areas and other limited access areas: 33
U.S.C. 1231; 50 U.S.C. 191; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-6, and 160.5;
Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.
    The purpose of the rule is to provide for the safety of life on
navigable waters during the removal and disposition of unexploded
ordnance.

IV. Discussion of the Final Rule

    From August 10, 2015 to September 4, 2015, the Army Corp of
Engineers will be removing and disposing unexploded ordnance off the
coast of Vero Beach, Florida.
    A safety zone will encompass certain waters of the Atlantic Ocean
in Vero Beach, Florida. The safety zone will be effective beginning
12:01 a.m. on August 10, 2015 through 11:59 p.m. on September 4, 2015
unless cancelled sooner by the Captain of the Port. The safety zone
will be enforced while operations associated with the removal and
disposition of the unexploded ordnance are ongoing. Weather conditions
may inhibit ordinance removal operations; as a result, exact
enforcement times cannot be identified at this time. The USCG and other
Law Enforcement agencies will have vessels on-scene to enforce this
rule. The safety zone will encompass all waters of the Atlantic Ocean
from Windward Way to Seaway Court extending east for 2.3 nautical
miles, in Vero Beach, Florida. All persons and vessels are prohibited
from entering, transiting through, anchoring in, or remaining within
this regulated area.
    Persons and vessels may request authorization to enter the safety
zone by contacting the Captain of the Port Miami by telephone at 305-
535-4472, or a designated representative via VHF radio on channel 16.
If authorization to enter, transit through, anchor in, or remain within
the safety zone is granted by the Captain of the Port Miami or a
designated representative, all persons and vessels receiving such
authorization must comply with the instructions of the Captain of the
Port Miami or a designated representative. The Coast Guard will provide
notice of the safety zone by Broadcast Notice to Mariners, and on-scene
designated representatives.

V. Regulatory Analyses

    We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and
executive orders (E.O.s) related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our
analyses based on a number of these statutes and E.O.s, and we discuss
First Amendment rights of protestors.

A. Regulatory Planning and Review

    E.O.s 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the costs and
benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is
necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits.
E.O. 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and
benefits, of reducing costs, of

harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility. This rule has not been
designated a ``significant regulatory action,'' under E.O. 12866.
Accordingly, it has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and
Budget.
    The economic impact of this rule is not significant for the
following reasons: (1) This safety zone will be enforced during
operations related to the removal and disposition of the unexploded
ordnance; (2) although persons and vessels will not be able to enter,
transit through, anchor in, or remain within the safety zone without
authorization from the Captain of the Port Miami or a designated
representative, they may operate in the surrounding areas during the
enforcement period; (3) persons and vessels may still enter, transit
through, anchor in, or remain within the safety zone during the
enforcement period if authorized by the Captain of the Port Miami or a
designated representative; (4) the Coast Guard will provide advance
notification of the safety zone to the local maritime community by
Broadcast Notice to Mariners and on-scene representatives.

B. Impact on Small Entities

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as
amended, requires Federal agencies to consider the potential impact of
regulations on small entities during rulemaking. 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
will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of
small entities.
    This rule may affect the following entities, some of which may be
small entities: The owners or operators of vessels intending to enter,
transit through, anchor in, or remain within the safety zone during the
respective enforcement period. For the reasons discussed in the
Regulatory Planning and Review Section above, this rule will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of 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. If the 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 the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section.
    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.

C. Collection of Information

    This rule will not call for a new collection of information under
the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).

D. Federalism and Indian Tribal Governments

    A rule has implications for federalism under E.O. 13132,
Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on the States, on the
relationship between the national government and the States, or on the
distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of
government. We have analyzed this rule under that Order and have
determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism
principles and preemption requirements described in E.O. 13132.
    Also, this rule does not have tribal implications under E.O. 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. If you believe this rule has
implications for federalism or Indian tribes, please contact the person
listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section above.

E. 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 will not result in
such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere
in this preamble.

F. 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 that do not
individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human
environment. This rule involves the creation of a safety zone. This
rule is categorically excluded from further review under paragraph
34(g) of Figure 2-1 of the Commandant Instruction.

G. 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.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165

    Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, and 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; 50 U.S.C. 191; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1,
6.04-6, and 160.5; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No.
0170.1.

0
2. Add a temporary Sec.  165.T07-0737 to read as follows:

Sec.  165.T07-0737  Safety Zone; Unexploded Ordnance Removal, Vero
Beach, FL.

    (a) Regulated area. The following regulated area is established as
a safety zone: All waters starting at point 1 in position
27[deg]37'00'' N. 80[deg]20'40'' W.; thence east to point 2 in position
27[deg]36'05'' N. 80[deg]17'55'' W.; thence south to point 3 in
position 27[deg]34'51'' N. 80[deg]17'55'' W.; thence west to point 4 in
position 27[deg]34'07'' N. 80[deg]19'28'' W.; thence northwest back to
origin.

    (b) Definition. The term ``designated representative'' means Coast
Guard Patrol Commanders, including Coast Guard coxswains, petty
officers, and other officers operating Coast Guard vessels, and
Federal, state, and local officers designated by or assisting the
Captain of the Port Miami in the enforcement of the regulated area.
    (c) Regulations. (1) All persons and vessels are prohibited from
entering, transiting through, anchoring in, or remaining within the
safety zone without authorization from the Captain of the Port Miami or
a designated representative.
    (2) Persons and vessels desiring to enter, transit through, anchor
in, or remain within the safety zone may contact the Captain of the
Port Miami by telephone at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or a designated representative
via VHF radio on channel 16. If authorization to enter, transit
through, anchor in, or remain within a safety zone is granted by the
Captain of the Port Miami or a designated representative, all persons
and vessels receiving such authorization must comply with the
instructions of the Captain of the Port Miami or a designated
representative.
    (3) The Coast Guard will provide notice of the safety zone by
Broadcast Notice to Mariners and on-scene designated representatives.
    (d) Effective date. This rule is effective from 12:01 a.m. on
August 10, 2015 through 11:59 a.m. on September 4, 2015 unless
cancelled sooner by the Captain of the Port. This rule will be enforced
while operations associated with ordinance removal are in progress.

    Dated: August 10, 2015.
A. J. Gould,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Miami.
[FR Doc. 2015-21685 Filed 8-31-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 242 (Thursday, December 17, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 78742-78743]
[FR Doc No: 2015-31691]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No.FDA-2015-N-0001]

The Twentieth Food and Drug Administration International
Separation Science Society Symposium on the Interface of Regulatory and
Analytical Sciences for Biotechnology Health Products--WCBP 2016

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice of meeting.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration's (FDA) Center for Drug
Evaluation and Research, in cosponsorship with the International
Separation Science Society (CASSS), is announcing a meeting entitled
``The Twentieth FDA CASSS Symposium on the Interface of Regulatory and
Analytical Sciences for Biotechnology Health Products--WCBP 2016.'' The
purpose of the meeting is to discuss development of biotechnology-
derived drug products and analytic methodologies for the development of
biotechnology-derived drug products.

DATES: The meeting will be held January 26, 2016, from 8 a.m., until
January 28, 2016, at 5 p.m.

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at The Mayflower Hotel, 1127
Connecticut Ave. NW., Washington, DC

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Linda Mansouria, CASSS, 5900 Hollis
St., Suite R3, Emeryville, CA 94608,<PHONE_NUMBER>, FAX:<PHONE_NUMBER>,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    CASSS is a scientific society providing forums for the
dissemination of information and discussions among industry, academic
and regulatory professionals founded on the development and
applications of separation science. This cosponsored meeting provides
state-of-the-art presentations on the technologies used to produce and
assess product quality of biotechnology-derived drug products.

II. Registration and Accommodations

A. Registration

    There is a registration fee to attend this meeting. The
registration fee is charged to help defray the costs of programming and
facilities. Seats are limited, and registration will be on a first-
come, first-served basis.
    To register, please complete registration online at http://www.casss.org/?WCBP1600. (FDA has verified the Web address, but FDA is
not responsible for subsequent changes to the Web site after this
document publishes in the Federal Register.) The costs of registration
for the different categories of attendees are as follows:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 Category                               Cost
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Industry Representatives..................  $1995 (early bird);
                                            $2395 (onsite).
Academic..................................  $795 (early bird);
                                            $895 (onsite).
Government................................  $795 (early bird);
                                            $895 (onsite).
------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Accommodations

    Attendees are responsible for their own hotel accommodations.
Attendees making reservations at the Mayflower Hotel in Washington DC
are eligible for a reduced rate of $295 USD, not including applicable
taxes. To receive the reduced rate, contact the Mayflower

Hotel (1-877-212-5752) and identify yourself as an attendee of
``CASSS--WCBP 2016.'' If you need special accommodations due to a
disability, please contact Linda Mansouria (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT) at least 7 days in advance.

III. Transcripts

    We expect that transcripts will be available approximately 30 days
after the meeting. A transcript will be available in either hard copy
or on CD-ROM, after submission of a Freedom of Information request.
Send written requests to the Division of Freedom of Information (ELEM-
1029), Food and Drug Administration, 12420 Parklawn Dr., Element Bldg.,
Rockville, MD 20857. Send faxed requests to<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: December 11, 2015.
Leslie Kux,
Associate Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2015-31691 Filed 12-16-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4164-01-P