[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 69 (Monday, April 11, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 21371-21372]
[FR Doc No: 2016-08198]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

[Docket No. USCG-2016-0253]

Merchant Marine Personnel Advisory Committee

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of Federal Advisory Committee Working Group Meeting.

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

SUMMARY: A working group of the Merchant Marine Personnel Advisory
Committee will meet to work on Task Statement 30, which asks the
committee to evaluate utilizing military education, training, and
assessment to satisfy national and STCW \1\ credential requirements.
The working group will specifically consider a pilot military-to-
mariner training and program/course approval workshop for Officer in
Charge Engineering Watch. These meetings will be open to the public.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ International Convention on Standards of Training,
Certification and Watchkeeping for Seafarers, 1978, as amended.

DATES: The Merchant Marine Personnel Advisory Committee working group
is scheduled to meet daily on April 27, 2016 to April 29, 2016 from 8
a.m. until 5:30 p.m. Please note that these meetings may adjourn early
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
if the working group has completed its business.

ADDRESSES: The meetings will be held at the U.S. Army Transportation
School, Maritime Simulation Center, 839 Levy Street, Fort Eustis, VA
23604. Entrance to the Base must be made via the Fort Eustis Main Gate
and a government issued identification will be required. Please arrive
at least 30 minutes early for processing. For further information about
the meeting facilities, please contact Ms. Lesa Barbour at (757) 878-
6240. Please be advised that all attendees are required to notify the
Merchant Marine Personnel Advisory Committee Alternate Designated
Federal Officer of your attendance no later than April 21, 2016 using
the contact information provided in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section of this notice.
    For information on facilities or services for individuals with
disabilities or to request special assistance at the meeting, contact
the Alternate Designated Federal Officer as soon as possible.
    To facilitate public participation, we are inviting public comment
on the issues to be considered by the working group as listed in the
``Agenda'' section below. Written comments for distribution to working
group members must be submitted no later than April 21, 2016, if you
want the working group members to be able to review your comments
before the meeting, and must be identified by docket number USCG-2016-
0253. Written comments may be submitted using the Federal eRulemaking
Portal at http://www.regulations.gov. If your material cannot be
submitted using http://www.regulations.gov, contact the Alternate
Designated Federal Officer for alternate instructions.
    Instructions: All submissions received must include the words
``Department of Homeland Security'' and the docket number for this
action. Comments received will be posted without alteration at http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided. You
may review a Privacy Act notice regarding the Federal Docket Management
System in the March 24, 2005, issue of the Federal Register (70 FR
15086).
    Docket: For access to the docket to read documents or comments
related to this notice, go to http://www.regulations.gov, type USCG-
2016-0253 in the Search box, press Enter, and then click on the item
you wish to view.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Davis Breyer, Alternate Designated
Federal Officer of the Merchant Marine Personnel Advisory Committee,
2703 Martin Luther King Jr. Ave. SE., Stop 7509, Washington, DC 20593-
7509, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, fax<PHONE_NUMBER>, or
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice of this meeting is given under the
Federal Advisory Committee Act, Title 5 United States Code Appendix.
    The Merchant Marine Personnel Advisory Committee was established
under authority of section 310 of the Howard Coble Coast Guard and
Maritime Transportation Act of 2014, Title 46, United States Code,
section 8108, and chartered under the provisions of the Federal
Advisory Committee Act, (Title 5, United States Code, Appendix). The
Committee acts solely in an advisory capacity to the Secretary of the
Department of Homeland Security through the Commandant of the Coast
Guard on matters relating to personnel in the United States merchant
marine, including training, qualifications, certification,
documentation, and fitness standards and other matters as assigned by
the Commandant; shall review and comment on proposed Coast Guard
regulations and policies relating to personnel in the United States
merchant marine, including training, qualifications, certification,
documentation, and fitness standards; may be given special assignments
by the Secretary and may conduct studies, inquiries, workshops, and
fact finding in consultation with individuals and groups in the private
sector and with State or local governments; shall advise, consult with,
and make recommendations reflecting its independent judgment to the
Secretary.

Agenda

Day 1

    The agenda for the April 27, 2016 meeting is as follows:
    (1) The working group will meet briefly to discuss Task Statement
30, Utilizing military education, training and assessment for the
International Convention on Standards of Training, Certification and
Watchkeeping for Seafarers and U.S. Coast Guard Certifications; the
purpose and goals of this intercessional; and the organization of this
intercessional/workshop;
    (2) Reports of working sub-groups. At the end of the day, the
working sub-groups will report to the full working group on what was
accomplished in their meetings. The full working group will not take
action on these reports on this date. Any action taken as a result of
this working group meeting will be taken on day 3 of the meeting.
    (3) Public comment period.
    (4) Adjournment of meeting.

Day 2

    The agenda for the April 28, 2016 meeting is as follows:
    (1) The working group will meet briefly to discuss Task Statement
30, Utilizing military education, training and assessment for the
International Convention on Standards of Training, Certification and
Watchkeeping for Seafarers and U.S. Coast Guard

Certifications; the purpose and goals of this intercessional for this
date; and any adaptations to the organization of this intercessional;
    (2) Reports of working sub-groups. At the end of the
    day, the working sub-groups will report to the full working group
on what was accomplished in their meetings. The full working group will
not take action on these reports on this date. Any action taken as a
result of this working group meeting will be taken on day 3 of the
meeting.
    (3) Public comment period.
    (4) Adjournment of meeting.

Day 3

    The agenda for the April 29, 2016 meeting is as follows:
    (1) The working group will meet briefly to discuss Task Statement
30, Utilizing military education, training and assessment for the
International Convention on Standards of Training, Certification and
Watchkeeping for Seafarers and U.S. Coast Guard Certifications; the
purpose and goals of this intercessional for this date; and any
adaptations to the organization of this intercessional;
    (2) Reports of working sub-groups. The working sub-groups will
report to the full working group on what was accomplished in their
meetings. The full working group will not take action on these reports
at this time. Any action taken as a result of this working group
meeting will be taken after the public comment period.
    (3) Public comment period.
    (4) Preparation of the meeting report to the Committee.
    (5) Adjournment of meeting.
    A public comment period will be held during each day during the
working group meeting concerning matters being discussed. Speakers are
requested to limit their comments to 3 minutes. Please note that the
public comment periods may end before the prescribed ending times
following the last call for comments.
    Please contact Mr. Davis Breyer, listed in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section, to register as a speaker. Please note that
the meeting may adjourn early if the work is completed.

    Dated: April 5, 2016.
J.G. Lantz,
Director of Commercial Regulations and Standards, United States Coast
Guard.
[FR Doc. 2016-08198 Filed 4-8-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 123 (Thursday, June 26, 2014)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 36199]
[FR Doc No: 2014-14904]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2014-0013; Airspace Docket No. 13-ASW-33]

Amendment of Class E Airspace; Taylor, TX

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This action amends Class E airspace at Taylor, TX. Controlled
airspace is necessary to accommodate new Area Navigation (RNAV)
Standard Instrument Approach Procedures at Taylor Municipal Airport.
The FAA is taking this action to enhance the safety and management of
Instrument Flight Rule (IFR) operations at the airport. Airport
coordinates also are adjusted.

DATES: Effective Date: 0901 UTC, September 18, 2014. The Director of
the Federal Register approves this incorporation by reference action
under 1 CFR Part 51, subject to the annual revision of FAA Order 7400.9
and publication of conforming amendments.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Raul Garza, Jr., Central Service
Center, Operations Support Group, Federal Aviation Administration,
Southwest Region, 2601 Meacham Blvd., Fort Worth, TX 76137; telephone
817-321-7654.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

History

    On April 7, 2014, the FAA published in the Federal Register a
notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to modify Class E airspace at
Taylor Municipal Airport, Taylor, TX (79 FR 19030) Docket No. FAA-2014-
0013. Interested parties were invited to participate in this rulemaking
effort by submitting written comments on the proposal to the FAA. No
comments were received. Class E airspace designations are published in
paragraph 6005 of FAA Order 7400.9X dated August 7, 2013, and effective
September 15, 2013, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1.
The Class E airspace designations listed in this document will be
published subsequently in the Order.

The Rule

    This action amends Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR)
Part 71 by amending Class E airspace by creating a segment extending
from the 6.4-mile radius of Taylor Municipal Airport, Taylor, TX, to
10.7 miles north of the airport, for new RNAV standard instrument
approach procedures developed at the airport. Controlled airspace is
needed for the safety and management of IFR operations at the airport.
The geographic coordinates of the airport are adjusted to be in concert
with the FAAs aeronautical database.
    The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an
established body of technical regulations for which frequent and
routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current.
Therefore, this regulation: (1) Is not a ``significant regulatory
action'' under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a ``significant rule''
under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26,
1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation
as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter
that only affects air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is
certified that this rule, when promulgated, does not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the
criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
    The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is
found in Title 49 of the U.S. Code. Subtitle 1, Section 106, describes
the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation
Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority.
This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in
Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the
FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of
airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient
use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority
as it amends controlled airspace at Taylor Municipal Airport, Taylor,
TX.

Environmental Review

    The FAA has determined that this action qualifies for categorical
exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act in accordance
with FAA Order 1050.1E, ``Environmental Impacts: Policies and
Procedures,'' paragraph 311a. This airspace action is not expected to
cause any potentially significant environmental impacts, and no
extraordinary circumstances exist that warrant preparation of an
environmental assessment.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

Adoption of the Amendment

    In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation
Administration amends 14 CFR part 71 as follows:

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

0
1. The authority citation for 14 CFR part 71 continues to read as
follows:

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

Sec.  71.1  [Amended]

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

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

* * * * *

ASW TX E5 Taylor, TX [Amended]

Taylor Municipal Airport, TX
    (Lat. 30[deg]34'22'' N., long. 97[deg]26'36'' W.)

    That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface
within a 6.4-mile radius of Taylor Municipal Airport, and within 1.6
miles each side of the 039[deg] bearing from the airport extending
from the 6.4-mile radius to 11.2 miles northeast of the airport, and
within 3.9 miles each side of 021[deg] bearing from the airport
extending from the 6.4-mile radius to 7.3 miles northeast of the
airport, and within 2 miles each side of the 359[deg] bearing from
the airport extending from the 6.4-mile radius to 10.7 miles north
of the airport.

    Issued in Fort Worth, Texas, on June 17, 2014.
Kent M. Wheeler,
Manager, Operations Support Group, ATO Central Service Center.
[FR Doc. 2014-14904 Filed 6-25-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-14-P


Comment Info: =================

General Comment:On behalf of the American Wholesale Marketers Association (AWMA) I am writing to request that the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) provide a 75-day extension of the public comment period for the FDA's Proposed Rule Deeming Tobacco Products to be Subject to the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act.  Specifically, AWMA is asking the agency to extend the public comment period to submit comments to September 22, 2014 as opposed to the current deadline of July 9.  The enormity of these comprehensive deeming regulations and their complexity demand adequate time to review and analyze and this cannot be properly accomplished by the current deadline of July 9, 2014.  AWMA is presently evaluating the deeming regulations and we recognize that in order to properly educate and allow for our members to properly review and comment on these comprehensive deeming regulations a 75-day extension is critical.  The distribution industry plays a very key role in the tobacco supply chain and it is imperative that we fully understand these extensive regulations and are able to provide thoughtful, effective and meaningful comments in order to ensure the most reasonable and fair regulations are ultimately adopted.  We thank you for your kind consideration of this request.


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 117 (Tuesday, June 18, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Pages 28314-28315]
[FR Doc No: 2019-12860]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-4436-DR; Docket ID FEMA-2019-0001]

Navajo Nation; Major Disaster and Related Determinations

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This is a notice of the Presidential declaration of a major
disaster for the Navajo Nation (FEMA-4436-DR), dated May 21, 2019, and
related determinations.

DATES: The declaration was issued May 21, 2019.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dean Webster, Office of Response and
Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW,
Washington, DC 20472,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is hereby given that, in a letter
dated May 21, 2019, the President issued a major disaster declaration
under the authority of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and
Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121 et seq. (the ``Stafford
Act''), as follows:

    I have determined that the emergency conditions on the Navajo
Nation resulting from a snowstorm and flooding during the period of
February 21 to February 24, 2019, is of sufficient severity and
magnitude to warrant a major disaster declaration under the Robert
T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C.
5121 et seq. (the ``Stafford Act''). Therefore, I declare that such
a major disaster exists for the Navajo Nation.
    In order to provide Federal assistance, you are hereby
authorized to allocate from funds available for these purposes such
amounts as you find necessary for Federal disaster assistance and
administrative expenses.
    You are authorized to provide assistance for debris removal and
emergency protective measures (Categories A and B) under the Public
Assistance program and Hazard Mitigation. You are further authorized
to provide snow assistance under the Public Assistance program for a
limited period of time during or proximate to the incident period.
Consistent with the requirement that Federal assistance be
supplemental, any Federal funds provided under the Stafford Act for
Hazard Mitigation will be limited to 75 percent of the total
eligible costs. Federal funds provided under the Stafford Act for
Public Assistance also will be limited to 75 percent of the total
eligible costs, with the exception of projects that meet the
eligibility criteria for a higher Federal cost-sharing percentage
under the Public Assistance Alternative Procedures Pilot Program for

Debris Removal implemented pursuant to Section 428 of the Stafford
Act.
    Further, you are authorized to make changes to this declaration
for the approved assistance to the extent allowable under the
Stafford Act.

    The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) hereby gives notice
that pursuant to the authority vested in the Administrator, under
Executive Order 12148, as amended, Benigno Bern Ruiz, of FEMA is
appointed to act as the Federal Coordinating Officer for this major
disaster.
    The following areas have been designated as adversely affected by
this major disaster:

    The Navajo Nation for debris removal and emergency protective
measures (Categories A and B), including snow assistance under the
Public Assistance program.
    The Navajo Nation is eligible to apply for assistance under the
Hazard Mitigation Grant Program.

The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers (CFDA)
are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030, Community
Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis Counseling;
97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster Unemployment
Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance Grant; 97.048,
Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and Households In
Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049, Presidentially
Declared Disaster Assistance--Disaster Housing Operations for
Individuals and Households; 97.050, Presidentially Declared Disaster
Assistance to Individuals and Households--Other Needs; 97.036,
Disaster Grants--Public Assistance (Presidentially Declared
Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant.

Pete Gaynor,
Acting Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2019-12860 Filed 6-17-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 9111-23-P


[Federal Register: August 1, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 149)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 44913-44915]
[DOCID:fr01au08-4]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[Docket No. USCG-2008-0732]
RIN 1625-AA00

Safety Zone; Seafair Fireworks, Lake Washington, WA

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Temporary final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary safety zone on the
waters of Lake Washington, WA during Seattle's Seafair Fireworks show.
This safety zone is necessary to ensure the safety of recreational and
commercial boaters in the area during the fireworks show on August 2nd,
2008. Entry into, transit through, mooring, or anchoring within this
zone is prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of the Port, Puget
Sound or his designated representatives.

DATES: This rule is effective from 8 p.m. until 11:59 p.m. (PDT) on
August 2nd, 2008.

ADDRESSES: Documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in
the docket are part of docket USCG-2008-0732 and are available online
at http://www.regulations.gov. This material is also available for
inspection or copying at two locations: The Docket Management Facility
(M-30), U.S. Department of Transportation, West Building Ground Floor,
Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590,
between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays, and the Waterways Management Division, Coast Guard Sector
Seattle, 1519 Alaskan Way South, Seattle, WA 98134, between 8 a.m. and
4 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this
temporary rule, call Ensign Heidi Bevis, c/o Captain of the Port Puget
Sound, 1519 Alaskan Way South, Seattle, Washington 98134, (206) 217-
6002. If you have questions on viewing the docket, call Renee V.
Wright, Program Manager, Docket Operations, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Regulatory Information

    The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary 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 immediate action is necessary to
ensure the safety of commercial and recreational vessels in the
vicinity of the fireworks on the date and times this rule will be in
effect and delay would be contrary to the public interest.
    Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause
exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after
publication in the Federal Register. Delaying the effective date would
be contrary to the public interest, since immediate action is needed to
ensure public safety.

Background and Purpose

    The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary safety zone to provide
for the safety of boaters during Seattle's Seafair Fireworks Show. The
Coast Guard is establishing this zone to protect vessels and persons
from the hazards associated with the fallout of burning embers that
will be generated by the fireworks. The safety zone is also intended to
protect boaters from the hazards associated with excessive vessel
congestion associated with Seafair's activities. The safety zone is
needed to keep vessels out of the affected area during the show.

Discussion of Rule

    This temporary rule will prohibit the entering, transiting,
anchoring, or mooring of all vessels in a safety zone on Lake
Washington. The safety zone includes all waters within a 1000 feet
radius centered on the point 47[deg]34'15'' North latitude,
122[deg]16'10'' West longitude on Lake Washington.
    The Coast Guard, through this action, intends to promote the safety
of personnel and vessels in the area. Entry into this zone by all
vessels will be prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of the
Port. This safety zone will be enforced by the U.S. Coast Guard. The
Captain of the Port may be assisted in the enforcement of this safety
zone by other federal, state, or local agencies.

Regulatory Analyses

    We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and
executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses
based on 13 of these statutes or executive orders.

Regulatory Planning and Review

    This rule is not a significant regulatory action under section 3(f)
of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, and does not
require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section
6(a)(3) of that Order. The Office of Management and Budget has not
reviewed it under that Order. This expectation is based on the fact
that the regulated area established by the regulation would encompass a
small area that should not significantly impact commercial or
recreational traffic. For the above reasons, the Coast Guard does not
anticipate any significant economic impact.

Small Entities

    Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we have
considered whether this rule would have a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities. The term ``small entities''
comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are
independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields,
and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000.
    This rule will affect the following entities, some of which may be
small entities: The owners or operators of vessels intending to transit
this portion of Lake Washington during the time this regulation is in
effect. The zone will not have a significant economic impact due to its
short duration and small area. Vessel traffic can safely pass around
the safety zone. Before the effective period, we will issue maritime
advisories to users of Lake Washington. Because the impacts of this
rule are expected to be so minimal, the Coast Guard certifies under
605(b) of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) that
this temporary rule will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities.

Assistance for Small Entities

    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we offer to assist small
entities in understanding the rule so that they can better evaluate its
effects on them and participate in the rulemaking process.
    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.

Collection of Information

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

Federalism

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

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 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.

Taking of Private Property

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

Civil Justice Reform

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

Protection of Children

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

Indian Tribal Governments

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

Energy Effects

    We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13211, Actions
Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use. We have determined that it is not a ``significant
energy action'' under that order because it is not a ``significant
regulatory action'' under Executive Order 12866 and is not likely to
have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use
of energy. The Administrator of the Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs has not designated it as a significant energy
action. Therefore, it does not require a Statement of Energy Effects
under Executive Order 13211.

Technical Standards

    The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) (15
U.S.C. 272 note) directs agencies to use voluntary consensus standards
in their regulatory activities unless the agency provides Congress,
through the Office of Management and Budget, with an explanation of why
using these

standards would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise
impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards
(e.g., specifications of materials, performance, design, or operation;
test methods; sampling procedures; and related management systems
practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus
standards bodies.
    This rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we did not
consider the use of voluntary consensus standards.

Environment

    We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security
Management Directive 5100.1 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 concluded
under the Instruction that there are no factors in this case that would
limit the use of a categorical exclusion under section 2.B.2 of the
Instruction. Therefore, this rule is categorically excluded, under
figure 2-1, paragraph (34)(g), of the Instruction, from further
environmental documentation. An environmental analysis checklist and a
categorical exclusion determination are available in the docket where
indicated under ADDRESSES.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165

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

0
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends part
165 of Title 33, Code of Federal Regulations, 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. 1226, 1231; 46 U.S.C. Chapter 701; 50
U.S.C. 191, 195; 33 CFR 1.05-1(g), 6.04-1, 6.04-6, and 160.5; Pub.
L. 107-295, 116 Stat. 2064; Department of Homeland Security
Delegation No. 0170.1.

0
2. From 8 p.m. until 11:59 p.m. (PDT) on August 2nd, 2008, a temporary
section Sec.  165.T13-054 is added to read as follows:

Sec.  165.T13-054  Safety Zone: Lake Washington, WA.

    (a) Location. The following area is a safety zone: The waters
within an area 1000 feet radius centered on the point
47[deg]34[min]15[sec] N, 122[deg]16[min]10[sec] W on Lake Washington,
Washington.
    (b) Regulations. In accordance with the general regulations in 33
CFR part 165, subpart C, no vessel may enter, transit, moor, or anchor
within this safety zone, except for vessels authorized by the Captain
of the Port or his designated representatives.
    (c) Enforcement Period. From 8 p.m. until 11:59 p.m. on August 2nd,
2008 unless sooner cancelled by the Captain of the Port.

    Dated: July 22, 2008.
Stephen P. Metruck,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Puget Sound.
[FR Doc. E8-17618 Filed 7-31-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-15-P


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 163 (Thursday, August 24, 2023)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 57887-57891]
[FR Doc No: 2023-18181]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 180

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2020-0004; FRL-11246-01-OCSPP]

Pyraclonil; Pesticide Tolerances

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This regulation establishes tolerances for residues of
pyraclonil in or on rice, grain. Nichino America, Inc. requested these
tolerances under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA).

DATES: This regulation is effective August 24, 2023. Objections and
requests for hearings must be received on or before October 23, 2023
and must be filed in accordance with the instructions provided in 40
CFR part 178 (see also Unit I.C. of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION).

ADDRESSES: The docket for this action, identified by docket
identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2020-0004, is available at
https://www.regulations.gov or at the Office of Pesticide Programs
Regulatory Public Docket (OPP Docket) in the Environmental Protection
Agency Docket Center (EPA/DC), West William Jefferson Clinton Bldg.,
Rm. 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460-0001. The
Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through
Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public
Reading Room and OPP Docket is<PHONE_NUMBER>. Please review the
visitor instructions and additional information about the docket
available at https://www.epa.gov/dockets.

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

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. Does this action apply to me?

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

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

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

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

    Under FFDCA section 408(g), 21 U.S.C. 346a, any person may file an
objection to any aspect of this regulation and may also request a
hearing on those objections. You must file your objection or request a
hearing on this regulation in accordance with the instructions provided
in 40 CFR part 178. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, you must identify
docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2020-0004 in the subject line on the first
page of your submission. All objections and requests for a hearing must
be in writing and must be received by the Hearing Clerk on or before
October 23, 2023. Addresses for mail and hand delivery of objections
and hearing requests are provided in 40 CFR 178.25(b), although the
Office of Administrative Law Judges encourages parties to file
electronically. See https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2020-05/documents/2020-04-10_-_order_urging_electronic_service_and_filing.pdf.
    In addition to filing an objection or hearing request with the
Hearing Clerk as described in 40 CFR part 178, please submit a copy of
the filing (excluding any Confidential Business Information (CBI)) for
inclusion in the public docket. Information not marked confidential
pursuant to 40 CFR part 2 may be disclosed publicly by EPA without
prior notice. Submit the non-CBI copy of your objection or hearing
request, identified by docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2020-0004, by one of
the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Do not submit
electronically

any information you consider to be CBI or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute.
     Mail: OPP Docket, Environmental Protection Agency Docket
Center (EPA/DC), (28221T), 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC
20460-0001.
     Hand Delivery: To make special arrangements for hand
delivery or delivery of boxed information, please follow the
instructions at https://www.epa.gov/dockets/where-send-comments-epa-dockets.
    Additional instructions on commenting or visiting the docket, along
with more information about dockets generally, is available at https://www.epa.gov/dockets.

II. Summary of Petitioned-For Tolerance

    In the Federal Register of March 3, 2020 (85 FR 12454) (FRL-10005-
58), EPA issued a document pursuant to FFDCA section 408(d)(3), 21
U.S.C. 346a(d)(3), announcing the filing of a pesticide petition (PP
9F8809) by Nichino America, Inc., 4550 Linden Hill Road, Suite 501,
Wilmington, DE 19808. The petition requested that 40 CFR part 180 be
amended by establishing tolerances for residues of the herbicide
pyraclonil, 1-(3-chloro-4,5,6,7-tetrahydropyrazolo[1,5-a]pyridin-2-yl)-
5-[methyl(prop-2-ynyl)amino]pyrazole-4-carbonitrile, in or on rice,
grain at 0.01 parts per million (ppm). That document referenced a
summary of the petition prepared by Nichino America, Inc., the
registrant, which is available in the docket https://www.regulations.gov. Three comments supporting the registration were
improperly filed in the docket for the notice of filing (NOF); there
were no comments on the tolerance action.
    Based upon review of the data supporting the petition, EPA has
recommended changes to the tolerance expression. The reason for these
changes is explained in Unit IV.C.

III. Aggregate Risk Assessment and Determination of Safety

    Section 408(b)(2)(A)(i) of FFDCA allows EPA to establish a
tolerance (the legal limit for a pesticide chemical residue in or on a
food) only if EPA determines that the tolerance is ``safe.'' Section
408(b)(2)(A)(ii) of FFDCA defines ``safe'' to mean that ``there is a
reasonable certainty that no harm will result from aggregate exposure
to the pesticide chemical residue, including all anticipated dietary
exposures and all other exposures for which there is reliable
information.'' This includes exposure through drinking water and in
residential settings but does not include occupational exposure.
Section 408(b)(2)(C) of FFDCA requires EPA to give special
consideration to exposure of infants and children to the pesticide
chemical residue in establishing a tolerance and to ``ensure that there
is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to infants and
children from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue. . .
.''
    Consistent with FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(D), and the factors
specified therein, EPA has reviewed the available scientific data and
other relevant information in support of this action. EPA has
sufficient data to assess the hazards of and to make a determination on
aggregate exposure for pyraclonil including exposure resulting from the
tolerances established by this action. EPA's assessment of exposures
and risks associated with pyraclonil follows.

A. Toxicological Profile

    EPA has evaluated the available toxicity data and considered its
validity, completeness, and reliability as well as the relationship of
the results of the studies to human risk. EPA has also considered
available information concerning the variability of the sensitivities
of major identifiable subgroups of consumers, including infants and
children.
    The target organs of pyraclonil are the liver and the thyroid.
Liver effects were found to be primarily adaptive (increased weight,
hepatocellular hypertrophy, induction of cytochrome P450); however,
female mice showed adverse liver effects (clinical chemistry changes,
increased liver weight, and fat deposits after 90 days of oral
exposure; these initial changes progressed to cellular alteration,
liver masses, and hepatocellular adenomas after 78 weeks of oral
exposure). Thyroid effects occurred in rats at similar doses across the
database via oral exposures (lowest observed adverse effect levels
(LOAELs) range from 74 to 207 mg/kg/day). Thyroid follicular cell
hypertrophy was observed in both sexes of rats in several studies,
after 14 or more days of oral exposure. Colloid degeneration was
observed in both sexes, and thyroid follicular cell adenomas were
observed in males in a chronic study. Increased blood levels of thyroid
stimulating hormone (TSH) and decreased levels of thyroxine (T4) were
detected after 1, 2, 52, and 104 weeks of oral exposure (hormones only
measured in one 14-day oral study and one chronic study), in either or
both sexes. No thyroid effects were detected in mice or dogs.
    No reproductive effects were detected. No increased pre- or
postnatal susceptibility was detected. Pup weights were decreased in
the rat reproductive study at the same dietary concentration at which
thyroid effects were observed in adults. Decreased fetal weights were
seen in a rat developmental study at the same dose as maternal clinical
signs and decreased body weight. In an acute neurotoxicity study,
decreased motor activity and several functional observation battery
(FOB) findings (tremors, hunchback posture and slight lacrimation;
decreased alertness, exploration, approach response and landing foot
splay; and decreased body temperature) were noted only at 2 hours post-
dosing with a single dose of 400 mg/kg in females, and at higher doses
in males. There was no effect of treatment on neurological parameters
measured in a 90-day repeat dose studies in the rat.
    Pyraclonil is classified as ``Likely to be Carcinogenic to
Humans'', based on treatment-related hepatocellular tumors in female
mice (adenomas and combined adenomas/carcinomas), and thyroid
follicular cell tumors in male rat (adenomas and combined adenomas/
carcinomas). The unit risk, Q1* (mg/kg/day)-1 of pyraclonil
based upon female mouse liver tumor rates is 1.08 x 10-2 in
human equivalents.
    Specific information on the studies received and the nature of the
adverse effects caused by pyraclonil as well as the no-observed-
adverse-effect-level (NOAEL) and the lowest-observed-adverse-effect-
level (LOAEL) from the toxicity studies can be found at https://www.regulations.gov in document Pyraclonil. Human Health Risk
Assessment for the New Active Ingredient for use on Rice at 11-14 in
docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2020-0004.

B. Toxicological Points of Departure/Levels of Concern

    Once a pesticide's toxicological profile is determined, EPA
identifies toxicological points of departure (POD) and levels of
concern to use in evaluating the risk posed by human exposure to the
pesticide. For hazards that have a threshold below which there is no
appreciable risk, the toxicological POD is used as the basis for
derivation of reference values for risk assessment. PODs are developed
based on a careful analysis of the doses in each toxicological study to
determine the dose at which no adverse effects are observed (the NOAEL)
and the lowest dose at which adverse effects of concern are identified
(the LOAEL). Uncertainty/safety factors are used in conjunction with
the POD to calculate a safe exposure level--generally referred to as a
population-adjusted dose (PAD) or a reference dose (RfD)--and a safe
margin

of exposure (MOE). For non-threshold risks, the Agency assumes that any
amount of exposure will lead to some degree of risk. Thus, the Agency
estimates risk in terms of the probability of an occurrence of the
adverse effect expected in a lifetime. For more information on the
general principles EPA uses in risk characterization and a complete
description of the risk assessment process, see https://www.epa.gov/pesticide-science-and-assessing-pesticide-risks/assessing-human-health-risk-pesticides.
    A summary of the toxicological endpoints for pyraclonil used for
human risk assessment can be found on pages 18-20 in the Pyraclonil
Human Health Risk Assessment.

C. Exposure Assessment

    1. Dietary exposure from food and feed uses. In evaluating dietary
exposure to pyraclonil, EPA considered exposure under the petitioned-
for tolerances. EPA assessed dietary exposures from pyraclonil in food
as follows:
    i. Acute exposure. Quantitative acute dietary exposure and risk
assessments are performed for a food-use pesticide, if a toxicological
study has indicated the possibility of an effect of concern occurring
as a result of a 1-day or single exposure. Such effects were identified
for pyraclonil. In estimating acute dietary exposure, EPA used food
consumption information from the United States Department of
Agriculture (USDA) 2005-2010 National Health and Nutrition Examination
Survey, What We Eat in America (NHANES/WWEIA). As to residue levels in
food, EPA conducted an unrefined acute dietary exposure assessment for
the proposed new use on rice and assumed 100 percent crop treated
(PCT), tolerance-level residues and default processing factors.
    ii. Chronic exposure. In conducting the chronic dietary exposure
assessment EPA used the food consumption data from the USDA 2005-2010
NHANES/WWEIA. As to residue levels in food, EPA conducted an unrefined
chronic dietary exposure assessment for the proposed new use on rice
and assumed 100 PCT, tolerance-level residues and default processing
factors.
    iii. Cancer. EPA determines whether quantitative cancer exposure
and risk assessments are appropriate for a food-use pesticide based on
the weight of the evidence from cancer studies and other relevant data.
If quantitative cancer risk assessment is appropriate, cancer risk may
be quantified using a linear or nonlinear approach. If sufficient
information on the carcinogenic mode of action is available, a
threshold or nonlinear approach is used and a cancer RfD is calculated
based on an earlier noncancer key event. If carcinogenic mode of action
data are not available, or if the mode of action data determines a
mutagenic mode of action, a default linear cancer slope factor approach
is utilized. Based on the data summarized in Unit III.A., EPA has
concluded that pyraclonil should be classified as ``Likely to be
Carcinogenic to Humans'' and a linear approach has been used to
quantify cancer risk. The inputs for the cancer dietary exposure
assessment and the chronic dietary exposure assessment were equivalent
with the exception of the estimated drinking water concentrations
(EDWC) used. Applying the Q1* of 1.08 x 10-2 (mg/kg/
day)-1 to the exposure value (0.000136 mg/kg/day) results in
a cancer risk estimate of 1 x 10-6 for adults 20 to 49 years
old.
    iv. Anticipated residue and percent crop treated (PCT) information.
EPA did not use anticipated residue and/or PCT information in the
dietary assessment for pyraclonil. Tolerance level residues and/or
100PCT were assumed for all food commodities.
    2. Dietary exposure from drinking water. The Agency used screening
level water exposure models in the dietary exposure analysis and risk
assessment for pyraclonil in drinking water. These simulation models
take into account data on the physical, chemical, and fate/transport
characteristics of pyraclonil. Further information regarding EPA
drinking water models used in pesticide exposure assessment can be
found at https://www.epa.gov/pesticide-science-and-assessing-pesticide-risks/models-pesticide-risk-assessment.
    Based on the Pesticides in Flooded Application Model (PFAM version
2.0), the maximum EDWCs of 50.8 [micro]g/L for the 1-in-10-year daily
mean, 6.68 [micro]g/L for the 1-in-10-year annual mean, and 6.40
[micro]g/L for the 30-year annual mean concentration in surface water
were used in the acute, chronic, and cancer analyses, respectively.
    3. From non-dietary exposure. The term ``residential exposure'' is
used in this document to refer to non-occupational, non-dietary
exposure (e.g., for lawn and garden pest control, indoor pest control,
termiticides, and flea and tick control on pets). Pyraclonil is not
registered for any specific use patterns that would result in
residential exposure.
    4. Cumulative effects from substances with a common mechanism of
toxicity. Section 408(b)(2)(D)(v) of FFDCA requires that, when
considering whether to establish, modify, or revoke a tolerance, the
Agency consider ``available information'' concerning the cumulative
effects of a particular pesticide's residues and ``other substances
that have a common mechanism of toxicity.''
    EPA has not found pyraclonil to share a common mechanism of
toxicity with any other substances, and pyraclonil does not appear to
produce a toxic metabolite produced by other substances. For the
purposes of this tolerance action, therefore, EPA has assumed that
pyraclonil does not have a common mechanism of toxicity with other
substances. For information regarding EPA's efforts to determine which
chemicals have a common mechanism of toxicity and to evaluate the
cumulative effects of such chemicals, see EPA's website at https://www.epa.gov/pesticide-science-and-assessing-pesticide-risks/cumulative-assessment-risk-pesticides.

D. Safety Factor for Infants and Children

    1. In general. Section 408(b)(2)(C) of FFDCA provides that EPA
shall apply an additional tenfold (10X) margin of safety for infants
and children in the case of threshold effects to account for prenatal
and postnatal toxicity and the completeness of the database on toxicity
and exposure unless EPA determines based on reliable data that a
different margin of safety will be safe for infants and children. This
additional margin of safety is commonly referred to as the Food Quality
Protection Act (FQPA) Safety Factor (SF). In applying this provision,
EPA either retains the default value of 10X, or uses a different
additional safety factor when reliable data available to EPA support
the choice of a different factor.
    2. Prenatal and postnatal sensitivity. No increased pre- or
postnatal susceptibility was detected in developmental studies in rats
or rabbits, or in a reproductive study in rats.
    3. Conclusion. EPA has determined that reliable data show the
safety of infants and children would be adequately protected if the
FQPA SF were reduced to 1X. That decision is based on the following
findings:
    i. The toxicity database for pyraclonil is complete.
    ii. Potential evidence of neurotoxicity was observed in the
pyraclonil acute neurotoxicity study; however, concern is low since a
clear NOAEL was established and the selected endpoints are protective
of the observed effects.
    iii. There is no evidence that pyraclonil results in increased
susceptibility in utero rats or rabbits in the prenatal developmental
studies or in

young rats in the 2-generation reproduction study.
    iv. There are no residual uncertainties identified in the exposure
databases. The dietary food exposure assessments were performed based
on 100 PCT, tolerance-level residues and default processing factors.
EPA made conservative (protective) assumptions in the ground and
surface water modeling used to assess exposure to pyraclonil in
drinking water. These assessments will not underestimate the exposure
and risks posed by pyraclonil.

E. Aggregate Risks and Determination of Safety

    EPA determines whether acute and chronic dietary pesticide
exposures are safe by comparing aggregate exposure estimates to the
acute PAD (aPAD) and chronic PAD (cPAD). For linear cancer risks, EPA
calculates the lifetime probability of acquiring cancer given the
estimated aggregate exposure. Short-, intermediate-, and chronic-term
risks are evaluated by comparing the estimated aggregate food, water,
and residential exposure to the appropriate PODs to ensure that an
adequate MOE exists.
    1. Acute risk. Using the exposure assumptions discussed in this
unit for acute exposure, the acute dietary exposure from food and water
to pyraclonil will occupy <1% of the aPAD for all infants <1 year old,
the population group receiving the greatest exposure.
    2. Chronic risk. Using the exposure assumptions described in this
unit for chronic exposure, EPA has concluded that chronic exposure to
pyraclonil from food and water will utilize <1% of the cPAD for all
infants <1 year old, the population group receiving the greatest
exposure. There are no residential uses for pyraclonil.
    3. Short-term and Intermediate-term risk. Short-term and
Intermediate-term aggregate exposure takes into account short-term and
intermediate-term residential exposure plus chronic exposure to food
and water (considered to be a background exposure level).
    A short-term and intermediate-term adverse effect was identified;
however, pyraclonil is not registered for any use patterns that would
result in short-term or intermediate-term residential exposure. Short-
term or intermediate-term risk is assessed based on short-term or
intermediate-term residential exposure plus chronic dietary exposure.
Because there is no short-term or intermediate-term residential
exposure, and chronic dietary exposure has already been assessed under
the appropriately protective cPAD (which is at least as protective as
the POD used to assess short-term and intermediate-term risk), no
further assessment of short-term or intermediate-term risk is
necessary, and EPA relies on the chronic dietary risk assessment for
evaluating short-term and intermediate-term risk for pyraclonil.
    4. Aggregate cancer risk for U.S. population. The estimated
exposure of adults 20 to 49 years old (the most highly exposed adult
subpopulation) to pyraclonil is 0.000136 mg/kg/day. Applying the Q1* of
1.08 x 10-2 (mg/kg/day)-1 to the exposure value
results in a cancer risk estimate of 1 x 10-6 for adults 20
to 49 years old. EPA generally considers cancer risks (expressed as the
probability of an increased cancer case) in the range of 1 in 1 million
(or x 10-6) or less to be negligible. The precision which
can be assumed for cancer risk estimates is best described by rounding
to the nearest integral order of magnitude on the logarithmic scale;
for example, risks falling between 3 x 10-7 and 3 x
10-6 are expressed as risks in the range of 10-6.
This is particularly the case where some conservatism is maintained in
the exposure assessment. The pyraclonil exposure assessment is
unrefined and retains significant conservatism in that tolerance-level
residues and 100 percent crop treated is assumed for the rice use. In
addition, EPA made conservative (protective) assumptions in the ground
and surface water modeling used to assess exposure to pyraclonil in
drinking water. These assessments will not underestimate the exposure
posed by pyraclonil. Accordingly, EPA has concluded the aggregate
cancer risk for all existing pyraclonil uses and the new uses in this
action fall within the range of 1 x 10-6 and are thus
negligible.
    5. Determination of safety. Based on these risk assessments, EPA
concludes that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result
to the general population, or to infants and children from aggregate
exposure to pyraclonil residues.

IV. Other Considerations

A. Analytical Enforcement Methodology

    Adequate enforcement methodology such as high-performance liquid
chromatography method with tandem mass spectrometry detection (LC/MS/
MS), Method GLP-MTH-108, is available to enforce the tolerance
expression.
    The method may be requested from: Chief, Analytical Chemistry
Branch, Environmental Science Center, 701 Mapes Rd., Ft. Meade, MD
20755-5350; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email address:
[email protected].

B. International Residue Limits

    In making its tolerance decisions, EPA seeks to harmonize U.S.
tolerances with international standards whenever possible, consistent
with U.S. food safety standards and agricultural practices. EPA
considers the international maximum residue limits (MRLs) established
by the Codex Alimentarius Commission (Codex), as required by FFDCA
section 408(b)(4). The Codex Alimentarius is a joint United Nations
Food and Agriculture Organization/World Health Organization food
standards program, and it is recognized as an international food safety
standards-setting organization in trade agreements to which the United
States is a party. EPA may establish a tolerance that is different from
a Codex MRL; however, FFDCA section 408(b)(4) requires that EPA explain
the reasons for departing from the Codex level.
    The Codex has not established a MRL for pyraclonil.

C. Revisions to Petitioned-For Tolerances

    The Agency is establishing a tolerance for residues of pyraclonil
expressed as: (1-(3-chloro-4,5,6,7-tetrahydropyrazolo[1,5-a]pyridin-2-
yl)-5-(methyl-2-propyn-1-ylamino)-1H-pyrazole-4-carbonitrile), which is
the CAS name, rather than the petitioned for expression of pyraclonil:
1-(3-chloro-4,5,6,7-tetrahydropyrazolo[1,5-a]pyridin-2-yl)-5-
[methyl(prop-2-ynyl)amino]pyrazole-4-carbonitrile, which is the IUPAC
name.

V. Conclusion

    Therefore, tolerances are established for residues of pyraclonil,
1-(3-chloro-4,5,6,7-tetrahydropyrazolo[1,5-a]pyridin-2-yl)-5-(methyl-2-
propyn-1-ylamino)-1H-pyrazole-4-carbonitrile, in or on rice, grain at
0.01 ppm.

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    This action establishes tolerances under FFDCA section 408(d) in
response to a petition submitted to the Agency. The Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted these types of actions from
review under Executive Order 12866, entitled ``Regulatory Planning and
Review'' (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993). Because this action has been
exempted from review under Executive Order 12866, this action is not
subject to Executive Order 13211, entitled ``Actions Concerning
Regulations That Significantly Affect

Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001), or
Executive Order 13045, entitled ``Protection of Children from
Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks'' (62 FR 19885, April 23,
1997). This action does not contain any information collections subject
to OMB approval under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501
et seq.), nor does it require any special considerations under
Executive Order 12898, entitled ``Federal Actions to Address
Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income
Populations'' (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    Since tolerances and exemptions that are established on the basis
of a petition under FFDCA section 408(d), such as the tolerance in this
final rule, do not require the issuance of a proposed rule, the
requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601 et
seq.), do not apply.
    This action directly regulates growers, food processors, food
handlers, and food retailers, not States or tribes, nor does this
action alter the relationships or distribution of power and
responsibilities established by Congress in the preemption provisions
of FFDCA section 408(n)(4). As such, the Agency has determined that
this action will not have a substantial direct effect on States or
Tribal Governments, on the relationship between the National Government
and the States or Tribal Governments, or on the distribution of power
and responsibilities among the various levels of government or between
the Federal Government and Indian tribes. Thus, the Agency has
determined that Executive Order 13132, entitled ``Federalism'' (64 FR
43255, August 10, 1999), and Executive Order 13175, entitled
``Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments'' (65 FR
67249, November 9, 2000), do not apply to this action. In addition,
this action does not impose any enforceable duty or contain any
unfunded mandate as described under Title II of the Unfunded Mandates
Reform Act (UMRA) (2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.).
    This action does not involve any technical standards that would
require Agency consideration of voluntary consensus standards pursuant
to section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act (NTTAA) (15 U.S.C. 272 note).

VII. Congressional Review Act

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

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 180

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

    Dated: August 16, 2023.
Edward Messina,
Director, Office of Pesticide Programs.

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

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

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

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

0
2. Add Sec.  180.725 to subpart C to read as follows:

Sec.  180.725  Pyraclonil; tolerances for residues.

    (a)-(b) [Reserved]
    (c) Tolerances with regional registrations. Tolerances are
established for residues of the herbicide pyraclonil, including its
metabolites and degradates, in or on the commodities to the table to
this paragraph (c). Compliance with the tolerance levels specified in
the table to this paragraph (c) is to be determined by measuring only
pyraclonil (1-(3-chloro-4,5,6,7-tetrahydropyrazolo[1,5-a]pyridin-2-yl)-
5-(methyl-2-propyn-1-ylamino)-1H-pyrazole-4-carbonitrile).

                        Table 1 to Paragraph (c)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Parts per
                         Commodity                             million
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rice, grain...............................................         0.01
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (d) [Reserved]

[FR Doc. 2023-18181 Filed 8-23-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 221 (Wednesday, November 16, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 71123-71124]
[FR Doc No: 2011-29607]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

[Docket No. NHTSA-2011-0126]

Reports, Forms and Recordkeeping Requirements; Agency Information
Collection Activity Under OMB Review

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

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), this notice announces that the Information
Collection Request (ICR) abstracted below has been forwarded to the
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and comment. The ICR
describes the nature of the information collections and their expected
burden. The Federal Register Notice with a 60-day comment period was
published on August 22, 2011 [FR Doc. 2010-22008].

DATES: Comments must be submitted on or before December 16, 2011.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kil-Jae Hong, NHTSA, 1200 New Jersey
Avenue SE., W52-232, NPO-520, Washington, DC 20590. Ms. Hong's
telephone number is<PHONE_NUMBER> and email address is<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction
Act of 1995, NHTSA conducted a qualitative phase of Consumer Research
which included Focus Groups. Based upon the qualitative phase research
results, NHTSA developed the materials for Phase 2 of the Consumer
Research plan. This notice announces that the ICR for Phase 2 consumer
research, abstracted below, has been forwarded to OMB requesting review
and comment. The ICR describes the nature of the information collection
and its expected burden. This is a request for new collection.
    Title: 49 CFR 575--Consumer Information Regulations (sections 103
and 105) Quantitative Research.
    OMB Number: Not Assigned.
    Type of Request: New collection.
    Abstract: The Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (EISA),
enacted in December 2007, included a requirement that the National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) develop a consumer
information and education campaign to improve consumer understanding of
automobile performance with regard to fuel economy, Greenhouse Gases
(GHG) emissions and other pollutant emissions; of automobile use of
alternative fuels; and of thermal management technologies used on
automobiles to save fuel. A critical step in developing the consumer
information program is to conduct proper market research to understand
consumers' knowledge surrounding these issues, evaluate potential
consumer-facing messages in terms of clarity and understand the
communications channels in which these messages should be present. The
research will allow NHTSA to refine messaging to enhance comprehension
and usefulness and will guide the development of an effective
communications plan. NHTSA proposes a multi-phased research project to
gather the data and apply analyses and results from the project to
develop the consumer information program and education campaign.
    Affected Public: Passenger vehicle consumers.
    Estimated Total Annual Burden: 500 hours.

    Number of Respondents: 1,500.
    The estimated annual burden hour for the online survey is 500
hours. Based on the Bureau of Labor and Statistics' median hourly wage
(all occupations) in the May 2010 National Occupational Employment and
Wage Estimates, NHTSA estimates that it would cost an average of $16.27
per hour if all respondents were interviewed on the job. Therefore, the
agency estimates that the cost associated with the burden hours is
$8,135 ($16.27 per hour x 500 interviewing hours).
    Comments are invited on: Whether the proposed collection of
information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of
the Department, including whether the information will have practical
utility; the accuracy of the Departments estimate of the burden of the
proposed information collection; ways to enhance the quality, utility
and clarity of the information to be collected; and ways to minimize
the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including
the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of
information technology. A Comment to OMB is most effective if OMB
receives it within 30 days of publication.

ADDRESSES: Send comments, within 30 days, to the Office of Information
and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, 725-17th
Street NW., Washington, DC 20503, Attention NHTSA Desk Officer.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on November 10, 2011.
Gregory A. Walter,
Senior Associate Administrator, Policy and Operations.
[FR Doc. 2011-29607 Filed 11-15-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 62 (Thursday, March 31, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 18665-18667]
[FR Doc No: 2016-07203]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-77449; File No. SR-Phlx-2016-10]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NASDAQ PHLX LLC; Notice of Filing
of Amendment No. 1 and Order Granting Accelerated Approval of a
Proposed Rule Change, as Modified by Amendment No. 1, Relating to the
Professional Customer Definition

March 25, 2016.

I. Introduction

    On January 21, 2016, NASDAQ PHLX LLC (the ``Exchange'') filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission''), pursuant to
Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (``Act'') \1\
and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ a proposed rule change to amend the
methodology for counting average daily order submissions in listed
options to determine whether a person or entity meets the definition of
a Professional \3\ (``Professional order counting''). The Commission
published the proposed rule change for comment in the Federal Register
on February 10, 2016.\4\ The Exchange filed Amendment No. 1 to the
proposed rule change on March 21, 2016.\5\ The Commission received no
comments on this proposal. This order provides notice of filing of
Amendment No. 1 and approves the proposal, as modified by Amendment No.
1, on an accelerated basis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ The term ``Professional'' means any person or entity that
(i) is not a broker or dealer in securities, and (ii) places more
than 390 orders in listed options per day on average during a
calendar month for its own beneficial account(s). See Phlx Rule
1000(b)(14); see also Securities Exchange Release 59287 (January 23,
2009), 74 FR 5694 (January 30, 2009) (ISE-2006-26) (``ISE Approval
Order'').
    \4\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 77054 (February 4,
2016), 81 FR 7166 (``Notice'').
    \5\ In Amendment No. 1, the Exchange changed how complex orders
will be counted with respect to Professional order counting.
Amendment No. 1 modified the proposal to provide that a complex
order compromised of nine legs or more will count as multiple orders
with each option leg counting as its own separate order while
complex orders with eight legs or less will count as a single order.
The Exchange previously proposed that complex orders compromised of
five legs or more count as multiple orders while complex orders with
four legs or less count as a single order. In addition, any complex
order with nine or more legs that is canceled and replaced would
count as multiple new orders. The Exchange previously proposed that
complex orders with five legs or more that were canceled and
replaced would count as multiple new orders. Finally, Amendment No.1
also added clarifying rule text to make clear that single-strike
algorithms are treated the same as cancel and replace orders and
therefore each cancel and replace order will count as a new order
when tracking the NBBO. Finally, the Exchange clarified that an
order that cancels and replaces a subordinate order on the same side
and series as the parent order will count as one order. To promote
transparency of its proposed amendment, when Phlx filed Amendment
No. 1 with the Commission, it also submitted Amendment No. 1 as a
comment letter to the file, which the Commission posted on its Web
site and placed in the public comment file for SR-Phlx-2016-10
(available at http://www.sec.gov/comments/sr-phlx-2016-10/phlx201610-1.pdf). The Exchange also posted a copy of its Amendment
No. 1 on its Web site when it filed the amendment with the
Commission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Description of the Proposal

    The Exchange proposes to amend the definition of Professional in
Rule 1000(b)(14) to clarify the calculation of certain types of orders
for purposes of Professional order counting.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See Notice, supra note 4, at 7166.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Background
    On Phlx, public customers are granted certain marketplace
advantages over other market participant orders, including non-customer
orders and quotes from specialists and Registered Options Traders
(``ROTs'').\7\ These advantages include priority over other market
participant orders at the same

price as well as no transaction fees for order execution.\8\ When
representing orders on the Exchange, members must specify whether an
order for the account of a non-broker-dealer is for the beneficial
account of a Professional.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See id. at 7169.
    \8\ See id.
    \9\ See id. at 7166. Phlx rules require members to review their
customers' account activity on a quarterly basis to determine
whether certain customers should be represented as Professionals.
See id. at 7167. The Exchange also may conduct its own analysis and
identify persons or entities that should be represented as
Professionals. See id. at 7167, n.5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Proposal
    The Exchange's proposal is intended to provide additional guidance
regarding the counting methodology when calculating average daily
orders for Professional order counting purposes. As a general rule, for
Professional order counting, the Exchange required the counting of
orders regardless of which exchange they are routed to with the
exception of FLEX orders.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See id. at 7167. The term ``FLEX option'' means a FLEX
option contract that is traded subject to Exchange Rule 1079.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

FLEX Orders
    Under new paragraph (a) of proposed Rule 1000(b)(14)(i), FLEX
orders are not included in the Professional order counting methodology
as they are non-electronic orders and not typically traded by retail
customers.\11\ Therefore, according to the Exchange, these orders are
not relevant to the distinction that it seeks to make between public
customers and professional traders.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See id.
    \12\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Cancel and Replace/Complex Orders
    Under new Paragraph (b) of proposed Rule 1000(b)(14)(i), the
Exchange will count as a new order any order that cancels and replaces
a prior order.\13\ Additionally, single strike algorithms, which are a
series of cancel and replace orders in an individual strike that tracks
the NBBO, will also count as a new order for each cancel and replace
order.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ See id. A cancel and replace order is one that removes a
preexisting order and replaces it with a new order. See id. The
Exchange notes that a cancel message alone is not an order. See id.
at 7167, n.11. Similarly, the rule would count as multiple new
orders any cancel/replace of a complex order of nine options legs or
more. See Amendment No. 1, supra note 5.
    \14\ See Notice, supra note 4, at 7167. In Amendment No. 1, the
Exchange clarified that ``single strike algorithms'' are included in
this provision. See supra note 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Under new Paragraph (c) of proposed Rule 1000(b)(14)(i), a complex
order of 9 legs \15\ or more will count as a new order per leg whereas
a complex order of 8 legs or less will count as a single order for all
its legs combined.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ See Amendment No. 1, supra note 5 (in which the Exchange
increased the number of option legs from five to nine).
    \16\ For complex orders, stock orders do not count towards the
number of legs. For example, a nine leg complex order with eight
option legs and one stock leg will count as an eight leg complex
order for the purposes of Professional order counting. See Notice,
supra note 4, at 7167, n.10, as amended by Amendment No. 1, supra
note 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Parent/Child Orders
    Under new Paragraph (d) of proposed Rule 1000(b)(14)(i), an order
that converts into multiple subordinate orders in order to achieve an
execution strategy \17\ will be counted as one order per side and per
series.\18\ Additionally, if one of those subordinate ``child'' orders
is subsequently canceled and replaced by multiple orders on multiple
sides/series, then each new replacement order is counted as a separate
new order per each side and series.\19\ However, if a subordinate
``child'' order is canceled and replaced by a new order(s) on the same
side and series, then that new replacement order will not count as a
separate new order.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ See id. at 7167 (noting that all strategies must comply
with Rule 1080, Commentary .07(a)(ii)); see also id. at 7168 (for
examples of cancel and replace, ``parent/child'' Professional order
counting, and a chart detailing the rule).
    \18\ See id. For example, orders that are for a single side/
series but are broken up by the broker will count as one order, even
if part of the order is routed away. See Proposed Rule
1000(b)(14)(i)(d). If a member sends in multiple orders to the
Exchange as separate orders then each will count as a separate
order. See Notice, supra note 4, at 7167.
    \19\ See Notice, supra note 4, at 7167.
    \20\ See Amendment No. 1, supra note 5 (adding a sentence to
paragraph (d)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As the Exchange explained in its Notice, an order that is filled in
parts by the Exchange's matching engine, without any intervention by
the customer, will not count as separate order for each fill because
the customer did not intervene to generate new orders.\21\ Along
similar lines, if an order is repriced to avoid locking or crossing the
market, that action will not cause a ``new'' order for Professional
order counting purposes because the customer did not intervene in that
process.\22\ The Exchange noted that the manner in which an order is
ultimately executed, as one order or multiple orders, does not by
itself determine whether the activity is that of a Professional.\23\
Rather, the distinction is whether the member exercised control and
discretion over the order to an extent that could be characterized as
non-retail customer trading activity.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ See Notice, supra note 4, at 7167.
    \22\ See id.
    \23\ See id.
    \24\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Implementation
    The Exchange proposes to implement this rule on April 1, 2016, and
will issue an Options Trader Alert in advance to inform market
participants of such date.\25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ See id. at 7168.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Discussion and Commission Findings

    After careful review of the proposed rule change, the Commission
finds that the proposed rule change is consistent with the requirements
of the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to a
national securities exchange.\26\ In particular, the Commission finds
that the proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b)(5) of the
Act,\27\ which requires, among other things, that the rules of a
national securities exchange be designed to prevent fraudulent and
manipulative acts and practices, to promote just and equitable
principles of trade, to remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism
of a free and open market and a national market system, and, in
general, to protect investors and the public interest; and not be
designed to permit unfair discrimination between customers, issuers,
brokers, or dealers. In addition, the Commission finds that the
proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b)(8) of the Act,
which requires the rules of the exchange not to impose any burden on
competition not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the Act.\28\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ In approving this proposed rule change, the Commission has
considered the proposed rule's impact on efficiency, competition,
and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).
    \27\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
    \28\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(8).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission previously has articulated its position regarding
the application of Section 6 of the Act in evaluating distinctions
among market participants proposed by exchanges and the discretion
available to an exchange to set an appropriate level of advantages and
responsibilities of persons trading on its market.\29\ In particular,
the Commission previously indicated that it does not believe that
priority for public customer orders is a statutorily-required attribute
of an exchange and therefore the grant of such priority is within an
exchange's prerogative and business judgement, as long as such
provision is

otherwise consistent with the requirements of the Act.\30\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ See ISE Approval Order, supra note 3, at 5699, n.59.
    \30\ See id. at 5700.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission notes that the Exchange is not amending the
threshold of 390 orders in listed options per day but is revising the
method for counting Professional orders in the context of multi-part
orders and cancel/replace activity. The Commission believes that the
proposal is designed to set forth a reasonable and objective approach
to determine Professional customer status. Specifically, the proposal
addresses how to account for complex orders, parent/child orders, and
cancel/replace orders. The Commission believes that distinguishing
between complex orders with 9 or more options legs and those orders
with 8 or fewer options legs is a reasonable and objective approach.
    In addition, the Commission believes that PHLX's proposal
appropriately distinguishes between parent/child orders that are
generated by a broker's efforts to obtain an execution on a larger size
order while minimizing market impact and multi-part orders that are
used by more sophisticated market participants. Similarly, the
Commission believes that the proposed rule change under which cancel/
replace orders will count as separate orders with limited exceptions is
a reasonable and objective approach to distinguish the orders of retail
customers that are ``worked'' by a broker from orders generated by
algorithms used by more sophisticated market participants. Similar to
what it has noted in past Professional customer filings, the Commission
believes that the line that Phlx now seeks to draw between ``priority''
customers and Professional customers reflects Phlx's belief that the
orders of a person who submits, on average, more than one order every
minute of the trading day need not (or should not) be granted the same
benefit or incentive that is granted to customers who do not trade on
such a scale.\31\ The Commission believes that the grant of priority to
certain participants over others, in a manner that is consistent with
the Act is most reasonably viewed as within the discretion of the
Exchange.\32\ Thus, the Commission believes that PHLX's proposal, which
establishes an objective methodology for counting average daily order
submissions for Professional order counting purposes, is consistent
with the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \31\ See id. at 5701.
    \32\ See id. at 5700.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

V. Solicitation of Comments on Amendment No. 1 to the Proposed Rule
Change

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File No. SR-Phlx-2016-10 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File No. SR-Phlx-2016-10. 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 will also 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 No. SR-Phlx-2016-10 and should be
submitted on or before April 21, 2016.

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

    The Commission finds good cause to approve the proposed rule
change, as modified by Amendment No. 1, prior to the thirtieth day
after the date of publication of notice of the amended proposal in the
Federal Register. The revisions made to the proposal in Amendment No. 1
provided clarifying language for how cancel and replace orders will be
counted in addition to changing how complex orders will be counted with
respect to Professional order counting. In particular, Amendment No. 1
modified the proposal to provide that a complex order compromised of 9
legs or more will count as multiple orders with each option leg
counting as its own separate order instead of 5 legs or more as
previously proposed by the Exchange.\33\ Amendment No. 1 effectively
allows retail customers to use more advanced trading strategies (i.e.,
complex orders with up to 8 legs) without having that activity counted
as multiple orders for purposes of Professional order counting. Thus,
the Commission believes that the changes in Amendment No. 1 adopt a
more permissive threshold for complex orders, and ultimately could
decrease the number of persons or entities that will meet the
definition of Professional under the new rule. Accordingly, the
Commission finds good cause, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the
Act,\34\ to approve the proposed rule change, as modified by Amendment
No. 1, on an accelerated basis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \33\ See Amendment No. 1, supra note 5.
    \34\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Conclusion

    IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the
Act,\35\ that the proposed rule change (SR-Phlx-2016-10), as modified
by Amendment No. 1, be, and hereby is, approved on an accelerated
basis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \35\ See id.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\36\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \36\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Robert W. Errett,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2016-07203 Filed 3-30-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P