[Federal Register: September 27, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 186)]
[Notices]
[Page 59319-59320]
[DOCID:fr27se10-149]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

[U.S. DOT Docket Number NHTSA-2010-0124]

Reports, Forms, and Recordkeeping Requirements

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

ACTION: Request for public comment on proposed collection of
information, amendment.

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

SUMMARY: Before a Federal agency can collect certain information from
the public, it must receive approval from the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB). Under procedures established by the Paperwork Reduction
Act of 1995, before seeking OMB approval, Federal agencies must solicit
public comment on proposed collections of information, including
extensions and reinstatements of previously approved collections. On
September 3, 2010, NHTSA published a request for comment on one
collection of information for which it intends to seek OMB approval (75
FR 54217). This notice elaborates on some specific areas NHTSA is
requesting comment on that were not mentioned in the original notice.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before November 2, 2010.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by the docket number in
the heading of this document, by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://
www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments on
the electronic docket site by clicking on ``Help'' or ``FAQ.''
     Hand Delivery: 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., West Building
Ground Floor, Room W12-140, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. Eastern Time,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Regardless of how you submit comments, you should mention the docket
number of this document.

    You may call the Docket Management Facility at<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Instructions: For detailed instructions on submitting comments and
additional information on the rulemaking process, see the Public
Participation heading of the Supplementary Information section of this
document. Note that all comments received will be posted without change
to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information
provided.
    Privacy Act: Anyone is able to search the electronic form of all
comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual
submitting the comment (or signing the comment, 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.dot.gov/
privacy.html.
    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or
comments received, go to http://www.regulations.gov, or the street
address listed above. Follow the online instructions for accessing the
dockets.

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>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On September 3, 2010, NHTSA published a
request for comment on one collection of information for which it
intends to seek OMB approval (75 FR 54217). That notice explained that
to further NHTSA's development of a national tire fuel efficiency
consumer information program required under the Energy Independence and
Security Act of 2007,\1\ NHTSA is proposing a multi-phased consumer
research project and is currently requesting comment on the first phase
of that research, which will consist of qualitative focus group market
research. This notice elaborates on some specific areas NHTSA is
requesting comment on that were not mentioned in the original notice.
These areas are focus group location, testing for the impact of basing
a tire fuel efficiency rating on rolling resistance coefficient (RRC)
vs. rolling resistance force (RRF), and testing for the recognition of
existing labeling.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Public Law 110-140, 121 Stat. 1492 (Dec. 18, 2007).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NHTSA notes that comments have already been sought on and a public
meeting has already been held on a draft research plan for the consumer
research that is the subject of this collection of information.\2\ The
relevance and poignancy of stakeholders' comments may be enhanced by
reviewing that draft research plan and comments received in response to
the draft research plan and public meeting.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ See Docket No. NHTSA-2010-0018.

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

    With regard to focus group location, the notice indicated that
NHTSA intended to conduct two (2) focus groups in three (3) cities.
NHTSA plans to conduct the focus groups in one city each in the
Northeast, South or Midwest, and the West to achieve geographic
diversity. NHTSA is particularly interested in comments regarding
whether or not the western location should be in California.
    In 2003, the California legislature adopted Assembly Bill No. 844
(AB 844), which required the California Energy Commission to develop a
comprehensive fuel efficient tire program. In 2009, a draft regulation
was made public which specified testing and reporting requirements for
manufacturers, described the database of fuel efficiency of replacement
tires sold in California, and defined a ``fuel efficient tire.'' As a
result of these regulations, if California is included, NHTSA wonders
whether the results might differ from other locations because those
consumers might be more exposed to the issues of fuel efficiency and
tires than other consumers, which would offer potential insight into
comprehension of tire information while possibly conveying consumer
understanding that is unique to consumers that have been exposed to
advanced information as compared to the general population. NHTSA seeks
comments on whether focus groups results from California may not be
generally applicable to a national population of replacement tire
consumers. On the other hand, if the results were similar to other
locations, that might indicate the difficulty in raising awareness of
this type of information.
    With regard to RRC vs. RRF,\3\ in the March 30, 2010 final rule
NHTSA stated that it was deferring the decision on which measurement
metric was the appropriate metric to base the fuel efficiency rating
upon (75 FR 15894, 15919). Previous comments received by the agency
were split between those who supported basing a fuel efficiency rating
on RRF because it directly relates to the amount of fuel consumed, and
those who supported basing a fuel efficiency rating on RRC because
ratings based on RRF would tend to cluster small tires around high
ratings and larger tires around low ratings. These commenters argued
that basing a fuel efficiency rating on RRC would spread out ratings
for tires available to a single consumer so that the consumer would be
able to get a top-rated tire, and that denying consumers the ability to
purchase a top-rated tire would discourage consumers. NHTSA believes
that a rating based on RRC could only be used to compare tires of the
same size and load rating. Therefore, from the standpoint of consumer
perception, the agency's main concern is that if a consumer is looking
at fuel efficiency ratings across a range of different-sized tires,
e.g., if the consumer has one family vehicle that requires 18-inch
replacement tires and another family vehicle that requires 15-inch
replacement tires, fuel efficiency ratings based on RRC would not
accurately reflect the contribution of a tire to fuel consumption since
RRCs for larger tires (with greater test loads) can be lower than those
of smaller tires, i.e., they would get a higher fuel efficiency rating
than a small tire in a rating system based on RRC. To assist in a
decision on this issue, NHTSA intends to explore how often consumers
consider different size tires in their purchase decisions, and what the
perceptual implications are if a consumer cannot find a top-rated tire
among the replacement tire choices that are available for their
vehicle. NHTSA requests comment on whether there is other information
NHTSA could explore with regard to this issue.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ RRF is the rolling resistance force measurement measured by
a rolling resistance test procedure. RRC is RRF divided by the test
load of the tire, where most test procedures specify test load as a
percentage of the maximum load rating of the tire being tested. In a
June 2009 notice of proposed rulemaking, NHTSA proposed to base the
fuel efficiency rating on the RRF metric because such a rating
translates more directly to the fuel required to move a tire. See 74
FR 29542 (June 22, 2009).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, NHTSA is requesting information on any labeling or other
information that is currently voluntarily provided by tire
manufacturers or tire retailers, on tires or otherwise. NHTSA intends
to explore what information participants have seen, and how they
recall, interpret, and apply it. This will assist the agency in
evaluating how well the participants comprehend the information, which
types of information are meaningful to their purchasing choices, and
which information impacts their behavior.

    Issued on: September 21, 2010.
Rebecca Pennington,
Associate Administrator, Planning, Administrative and Financial
Management.
[FR Doc. 2010-24115 Filed 9-24-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P


[Federal Register: December 8, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 234)]
[Notices]
[Page 64701-64702]
[DOCID:fr08de09-41]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2009-N-0664]

Oncologic Drugs Advisory Committee; Amendment of Notice

AGENCY:  Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION:  Notice.

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

    The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing an amendment
to the notice of a meeting of the Oncologic Drugs Advisory Committee.
This meeting was announced in the Federal Register of November 17, 2009
(74 FR 59195). The amendment is being made to reflect a change in the
Date and Time, Agenda, and Procedure portions of the document. We also
are cancelling a session regarding supplemental new drug application
(sNDA) 022-059/S-007, TYKERB (lapatinib) tablets, by SmithKline Beecham
Ltd. d/b/a GlaxoSmithKline. This portion of the meeting has been
cancelled because the issues for which FDA was seeking the scientific
input of the Committee have been resolved.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:  Nicole Vesely, Center for Drug
Evaluation and Research (HFD-21), Food and Drug Administration, 5600
Fishers Lane, (for express delivery, 5630 Fishers Lane, rm. 1093),
Rockville, MD 20857,<PHONE_NUMBER>, FAX:<PHONE_NUMBER>, e-mail:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or FDA Advisory Committee Information Line,
1-800-741-8138<PHONE_NUMBER> in the Washington DC area), code
3014512542. Please call the Information Line for up-to-date information
on this meeting.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the Federal Register of November 17, 2009
(74 FR 59195), FDA announced that a meeting of the Oncologic Drugs
Advisory Committee would be held on December 16, 2009. On page 59195,
in the first column, the Date and Time portion of the document is
changed to read as follows:

    Date and Time: The meeting will be held on December 16, 2009, from
9 a.m. to 3 p.m.
    On page 59195, in the second column, the Agenda portion of the
document is changed to read as follows:
    Agenda: On December 16, 2009, the committee will discuss
supplemental new drug application (sNDA) 021-743/S-016, TARCEVA
(erlotinib) tablets, by OSI Pharmaceuticals, Inc. The proposed
indication (use) for this product is first-line maintenance,
monotherapy (first-choice, single drug) treatment in patients with a
form of lung cancer called non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) that is
either locally advanced (has spread regionally within the lung and/or
within chest lymph nodes) or metastatic (has spread beyond the lung),
and who have not progressed (including those patients with stable
disease) on first-line treatment with platinum-based chemotherapy (a
regimen including a platinum drug (cisplatin or carboplatin) plus
another chemotherapy drug).
    On page 59195, in the third column, the third sentence in the
Procedure portion of the document is changed to read as follows:
    Procedure: Oral presentations from the public will be scheduled
between approximately 1 p.m. to 2 p.m.
    This notice is issued under the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5
U.S.C. app. 2) and 21 CFR part 14, relating to the advisory committees.

    Dated: December 3, 2009.
David Horowitz,
Assistant Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. E9-29208 Filed 12-7-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4160-01-S


[Federal Register: January 24, 2011 (Volume 76, Number 15)]
[Notices]
[Page 4148-4149]
[DOCID:fr24ja11-97]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Notice of Opportunity for Public Comment on Surplus Property
Release at Brunswick-Golden Isles Airport, Brunswick, GA

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: Under the provisions of Title 49, U.S.C. Section 47153(c),
notice is being given that the FAA is considering a request from the
Glynn county Airport Commission to waive the requirement that a 16.84-
acre parcel of surplus property, located on Glynn County Airport owned
and operated land adjacent to, but separated by a public roadway,
Brunswick-Golden Isles Airport, be used for aeronautical purposes.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before February 23, 2011.

ADDRESSES: Comments on this notice may be mailed or delivered in
triplicate to the FAA at the following address: Atlanta Airports
District Office, Attn: Aimee A. McCormick, Program Manager, 1701
Columbia Ave., Campus Bldg., Ste. 2-260, Atlanta, GA 30337-2747.
    In addition, one copy of any comments submitted to the FAA must be
mailed or delivered to Steve Brian,

Airport Director of Brunswick-Golden Isles Airport at the following
address: 295 Aviation Parkway, Ste. 205, Brunswick, GA 31525.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Aimee McCormick, Program Manager,
Atlanta Airports District Office, 1701 Columbia Ave., Campus Bldg, Ste.
2-260, Atlanta, GA 30337-2747,<PHONE_NUMBER>. The application may be
reviewed in person at this same location.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The FAA is reviewing a request by the Glynn
County Airport Commission to release 16.84 acres of surplus property at
the Brunswick-Golden Isles Airport. The property will be purchased with
intent to expand an existing adjacent, compatible non-aeronautical
facility with buffer land along the public roadway that currently
separates it from the airport. The location of the land relative to
existing or anticipated aircraft noise contours greater than 65ldn are
not an issue. The net proceeds from the sale of this property will be
used for airport purposes. The proposed use ofthis property is
compatible with airport operations.
    Any person may inspect the request in person at the FAA office
listed above under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. In addition, any
person may, upon request, inspect the request, notice and other
documents germane to the request in person at the Brunswick-Golden
Isles Airport.

    Issued in Atlanta, Georgia, on December 29, 2010.
Scott L. Seritt,
Manager, Atlanta Airports District Office, Southern Region.
[FR Doc. 2011-1161 Filed 1-21-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-M


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 129 (Monday, July 6, 2020)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 40126-40128]
[FR Doc No: 2020-12143]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 180

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2019-0367; FRL-10009-44]

1-Aminocyclopropane-1-carboxylic Acid (ACC); Temporary Exemption
From the Requirement of a Tolerance

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This regulation establishes a temporary exemption from the
requirement of a tolerance for residues of 1-aminocyclopropane-1-
carboxylic acid (ACC) in or on apples and stone fruits when used in
accordance with the terms of the Experimental Use Permit (EUP) under
EPA Number 73049-EUP-12. Valent BioSciences, LLC., submitted a petition
to EPA under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA),
requesting a temporary exemption from the requirement of a tolerance
for the use of ACC for a period of three years. This regulation
eliminates the need to establish a maximum permissible level for
residues of ACC resulting from use in accordance with the EUP No.
73049-EUP-12 under FFDCA. The temporary exemption from the requirement
of a tolerance expires on July 6, 2023.

DATES: This regulation is effective July 6, 2020. Objections and
requests for hearings must be received on or before September 4, 2020
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-2019-0367, is available at http://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 is<PHONE_NUMBER>, and the telephone number for the OPP
Docket is<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Please note that due to the public health emergency the EPA Docket
Center (EPA/DC) and Reading Room was closed to public visitors on March
31, 2020. Our EPA/DC staff will continue to provide customer service
via email, phone, and webform. For further information on EPA/DC
services, docket contact information and the current status of the EPA/
DC and Reading Room, please visit https://www.epa.gov/dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Robert McNally, Biopesticides and
Pollution Prevention Division (7511P), Office of Pesticide Programs,
Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington,
DC 20460-0001; main telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email address:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. Does this action apply to me?

    You may be potentially affected by this action if you are an
agricultural producer, food manufacturer, or pesticide manufacturer.
The following list of North American Industrial Classification System
(NAICS) codes is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a
guide to help readers determine whether this document applies to them.
Potentially affected entities may include:
     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 40 CFR
part 180 through the Government Printing Office's e-CFR site at http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?&c=ecfr&tpl=/ecfrbrowse/Title40/40tab_02.tpl.

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

    Under FFDCA section 408(g), 21 U.S.C. 346a(g), 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-2019-0367 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
September 4, 2020. Addresses for mail and hand delivery of objections
and hearing requests are provided in 40 CFR 178.25(b).
    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-2019-0367, by one of
the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Do not submit
electronically any information you consider to be CBI or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
     Mail: OPP Docket, Environmental Protection Agency Docket
Center (EPA/DC), (28221T), 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC
20460-0001.
     Hand Delivery: To make special arrangements for hand
delivery or delivery of boxed information, please follow the
instructions at http://www.epa.gov/dockets/contacts.html. Additional
instructions on commenting or visiting the docket, along with more
information about dockets generally, is available at http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

II. Background

    In the Federal Register of August 2, 2019 (84 FR 37818) (FRL-9996-
78), EPA issued a document pursuant to FFDCA section 408(d)(3), 21
U.S.C. 346a(d)(3), announcing the filing of a pesticide tolerance
petition (PP 9F8760) by Valent BioSciences, LLC., 870 Technology Way,
Libertyville, IL 60048. The petitioner requested that 40 CFR part 180
be amended by establishing a temporary exemption from the requirement
of a tolerance for three years for residues of the plant growth
regulator 1-aminocyclopropane-1-carboxylic acid (ACC), in or on apples
and stone fruits. That document referenced a summary of the petition
prepared by the petitioner, Valent BioSciences, LLC., which is
available in the docket via http://www.regulations.gov. Two comments
were received. One approved of the action; one opposed using pesticides
on apples. Although EPA recognizes that some do not want any pesticides
in or on food, section 408 of the FFDCA authorizes EPA to set
tolerances or establish exemptions for residues of pesticide chemicals
when it determines that the tolerance or exemption meets the safety
standard imposed by that statute. EPA has made that

determination for the ACC exemption established by this final rule. The
commenter provided no information supporting a conclusion that the
tolerance exemption is not safe.

III. Final Rule

A. EPA's Safety Determination

    Section 408(r) of the FFDCA allows EPA to establish a temporary
exemption from the requirement of a tolerance for uses covered by an
experimental use permit. Under Section 408(c)(2)(A)(i), EPA may
establish an exemption from the requirement for a tolerance (the legal
limit for a pesticide chemical residue in or on a food) only if EPA
determines that the exemption is ``safe.'' Section 408(c)(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. Pursuant to FFDCA section
408(c)(2)(B), in establishing or maintaining in effect an exemption
from the requirement of a tolerance, EPA must take into account the
factors set forth in FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(C) and (D), which require
EPA to give special consideration to exposure of infants and children
to the pesticide chemical residue in establishing a tolerance or
tolerance exemption, 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 . . . .''
Additionally, FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(D) requires that EPA consider
``available information concerning the cumulative effects of a
particular pesticide's residues and other substances that have a common
mechanism of toxicity.''
    EPA evaluated the available toxicity and exposure data on 1-
aminocyclopropane-1-carboxylic acid (ACC) and considered its validity,
completeness, and reliability, as well as the relationship of this
information to human risk. EPA also considered available information
concerning the variability of the sensitivities of major identifiable
subgroups of consumers, including infants and children.
    ACC is a naturally occuring non-protein amino acid found in all
plants. It acts as a plant growth regulator (PGR), pre-cursing
ethylene, a plant hormone regulating a wide variety of vegetative and
developmental processes. The only conversion of ACC for residues should
be into ethylene, which would not be measurable as ethylene is a
quickly dissipating gas. Ethylene has been reviewed by EPA and is
exempt from tolerance (40 CFR 180.1016).
    As a biochemical pesticide, ACC is intended for use on apples and
stone fruits for fruit thinning and enhanced return bloom and is
foliarly applied with an orchard air blast sprayer. ACC's mode of
action is as a signaling molecule in plants to regulate fruit ripening,
thinning, and enhanced return bloom. No direct application to food is
expected as applications are made pre-fruiting, but it is possible that
some trace amounts of the active ingredient may be taken up into the
plant.
    Overall, ACC is considered to be of low toxicity. Toxicological
data demonstrate that ACC is of low toxicity relative to all routes of
exposure. Additionally, humans have a history of safe natural exposure
to ACC as it is present in all fruits and vegetables and is a regular
part of the human diet. With specific regard to human oral toxicity,
the Agency notes that the human digestive system has evolved to
accommodate ACC in its digestive processes. Moreover, it is noted that
dietary exposures to the residues of ACC are not anticipated to exceed
the naturally occurring background levels as exogenously applied ACC is
highly biodegradable. It has a half-life of less than 8.5 days on the
plant and is even more biodegradable in aqueous soil conditions.
    With regard to the acute toxicological profile of the active
ingredient ACC, the active ingredient is of low acute oral, dermal and
inhalation toxicity; it is only mildly irritating to the eye and the
skin; and it is not a dermal sensitizer.
    With regard to the subchronic toxicity, developmental toxicity,
reproductive toxicity and mutagenicity data requirements for the active
ingredient ACC, all data requirements were satisfied by guideline
studies. There were no adverse subchronic effects for any route of
exposure. The active ingredient was determined to be non-mutagenic.
Finally, no adverse effects were identified relative to either
developmental toxicity or reproductive toxicity. Based on this
toxicological profile, EPA did not identify any toxicological endpoints
of concern for assessing risk.
    As part of its qualitative risk assessment for ACC, the Agency also
considered the potential for exposure to residues of ACC, including
dietary and non-occupational exposures. EPA concludes that dietary
exposures are likely to be negligible, due to the short half-life and
biodegradable nature of the pesticide. Residential exposures are not
expected under the conditions of the association EUP.
    Based on ACC's low toxicity, anticipated minimal dietary exposure,
and history of safe consumption in foods, no risks of concern have been
identified from aggregate exposure to ACC. Similarly, no risks of
concern were identified for cumulative exposures to ACC since no common
mechanism of toxicity was identified for either ACC or its metabolites.
Therefore, based on the lack of toxicity and expected negligible
exposures, EPA has determined that there is a reasonable certainty that
no harm will result to the U.S. population, including infants and
children, from aggregate exposure to ACC.
    A full explanation of the data upon which EPA relied and its risk
assessment based on those data can be found within the April 16, 2020,
document entitled, ``Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA)
Considerations for 1-aminocyclopropane-1-carboxylic acid (ACC).'' This
document, as well as other relevant information, is available in the
docket for this action as described under ADDRESSES.
    Based on its safety determination, EPA is establishing a temporary
exemption from the requirement of a tolerance for residues of the plant
growth regulator 1-aminocyclopropane-1-carboxylic acid (ACC) in or on
apples and stone fruits when used in accordance with the terms of the
Experimental Use Permit (EUP) under EPA Number 73049-EUP-12. This
temporary exemption from the requirement of a tolerance will expire on
July 6, 2023.

B. Analytical Enforcement Methodology

    The analytical method for the residues of ACC can be evaluated by
Ultra High-Performance Liquid Chromatography-Tandem Mass Spectrometry
and is available to EPA for the detection and measurement of these
pesticide residues.

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    This action establishes a temporary exemption from the requirement
of a tolerance under FFDCA section 408(d) in response to a petition
submitted to EPA. 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) nor is it considered a regulatory
action under Executive Order 13771, entitled ``Reducing Regulations and
Controlling Regulatory Costs'' (82 FR 9339, February 3, 2017). 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 temporary
tolerance exemption in this action, 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. As a result, this
action does not alter the relationships or distribution of power and
responsibilities established by Congress in the preemption provisions
of FFDCA section 408(n)(4). As such, EPA 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, EPA 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 EPA's 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).

V. 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: May 28, 2020.
Robert McNally,
Director, Biopesticides and Pollution Prevention Division, Office of
Pesticide Programs.

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

PART 180--[AMENDED]

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.  180.711 to subpart C to read as follows:

Sec.  180.711  1-Aminocyclopropane-1-carboxylic acid (ACC); temporary
exemption from the requirement of a tolerance for residues.

    A temporary exemption from the requirement of a tolerance is
established for residues of the plant growth regulator, 1-
Aminocyclopropane-1-carboxylic acid (ACC) in or on apples and stone
fruits when used in accordance with the terms of the Experimental Use
Permit (EUP) under EPA Number 73049-EUP-12. This temporary exemption
expires on July 6, 2023.

[FR Doc. 2020-12143 Filed 7-2-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


                          Key D4 ECA Unresolved Issues
                               December 12, 2013

Issue
   1. Timing for QAPP / Study Plan Comments from EPA
   2. Force Majeure
   3. Use of one lab for analytical analyses.
   4. Site Specific Sampling Plans
   5. Selection Criteria for Industrial POTWs
   6. Selection of Non -Industrial POTWs
   7. # of Analyses

Test Standard  -  Influent/Effluent
(Appendix 4)

Similar issues for other Test Standards in Appendices 5  -  8
   8. Method Detection Limit
   9. Collecting influent samples one residence time apart.
   10. Location of surface water, sediment, and biota sampling

Test Standards
Appendices 5, 7, 8

   11. Location of Biosolids Sampling

Test Standard
(Appendix 6)
   12. Analytical Method References
(Appendix 7)

   13. Selection of Fish Species


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 190 (Tuesday, October 1, 2013)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 60222-60225]
[FR Doc No: 2013-23861]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[Docket No. USCG-2013-0868]
RIN 1625-AA00

Safety Zone; Motion Picture Stunt Work and Filming; Chicago, IL

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Temporary final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is establishing five temporary safety zones on
waterways near Chicago, IL. These safety zones are intended to restrict
vessels from portions of Chicago waterways due to the filming of a
motion picture. These temporary safety zones are necessary to protect
the surrounding public and vessels from the hazards associated with the
stunt work, pyrotechnics, low-flying helicopter, and other hazards
involved in the filming of a motion picture.

DATES: This rule is effective from 6 a.m. on October 1 through 12 a.m.
on October 31, 2013.

ADDRESSES: Documents mentioned in this preamble are part of docket
USCG-2013-0868. To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being
available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov, type the
docket number in the ``SEARCH'' box and click ``SEARCH.'' Click on Open
Docket Folder on the line associated with this rulemaking. You may also
visit the Docket Management Facility in Room W12-140 on the ground
floor of the Department of Transportation West Building, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this
temporary rule, contact or email MST1 Joseph McCollum, U.S. Coast Guard
Sector Lake Michigan, at<PHONE_NUMBER> or<EMAIL_ADDRESS>If
you have questions on viewing the docket, call Barbara Hairston,
Program Manager, Docket Operations, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Acronyms

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

A. Regulatory History and Information

    On August 20, 2013, the Coast Guard published a TFR (USCG-2013-
0676) entitled Safety Zone; Motion Picture Production; Chicago, IL in
the Federal Register (78 FR 20241). Because this motion picture
production--with associated hazards--is expected to continue into
October, the Coast Guard is issuing this TFR to keep five safety zones,
in the same locations as previously established, in place during the
month of October 2013.
    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 an NPRM with respect to this rule
because doing so would be impracticable and contrary to the public
interest. The movie production company informed the Coast Guard of
delays in filming and changes of schedule that pushed filming into
October, leaving the Coast Guard without the time to complete an NPRM.
Thus, delaying the effective date of this rule to wait for a comment
period to run would be both impracticable and contrary to the public
interest because it would inhibit the Coast Guard's ability to protect
spectators and vessels from the hazards associated with the filming of
a motion picture, which are discussed further below.
    Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), The Coast Guard finds that good cause
exists for making this temporary rule effective less than 30 days after
publication in the Federal Register for the same reasons discussed in
the preceding paragraph, waiting for a 30 day notice period to run
would be impracticable and contrary to the public interest.

B. Basis and Purpose

    The legal basis for the rule is the Coast Guard's authority to
establish regulated navigation areas and limited access areas: 33
U.S.C. 1231; 46 U.S.C. Chapter 701, 3306, 3703; 50 U.S.C. 191, 195; 33
CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-6, 160.5; Public Law 107-295, 116 Stat. 2064;
Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.
    From October 1 through October 31, 2013 the Coast Guard anticipates
that a motion picture corporation will film scenes for a motion picture
on portions of the Chicago River, Calumet Harbor, and Chicago Sanitary
and Ship Canal. In early to mid October the Coast Guard anticipates
filming and stunt work on the Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal in the
vicinity of the South Damen Avenue Bridge. This shooting sequence is
expected to involve pyrotechnics. Filming is also expected to continue
in the vicinity of the north breakwall within Calumet Harbor, as well
as the Chicago River System.
    The Captain of the Port, Lake Michigan, has determined that this
filming event--with associated stunt work, pyrotechnics, and low-flying
helicopters--will pose a significant risk to public safety and
property. Such hazards include the collision of stunt, film, and
spectator vessels in a congested area. Other hazards include falling
wreckage, as well as injuries associated with debris propelled by
helicopter rotor-wash.
    The Coast Guard anticipates that the safety zones created by this
temporary rule will not be enforced every day between October 1 and
October 31, 2013. Because of the possibility of bad weather on one or
more of the filming days, and considering the unpredictability involved
in filming a motion picture, this rule was written with a wider range
of dates and times to give the Coast Guard flexibility to accommodate
changes in the film schedule between October 1 and October 31, 2013.

C. Discussion of the Final Rule

    With the aforementioned hazards in mind, the Captain of the Port,
Lake Michigan, has determined that five temporary safety zones are
necessary to ensure the safety of persons and vessels during the
filming of a motion picture on the Chicago River, Chicago Sanitary and
Ship Canal, and Calumet Harbor. This rule is effective from 6 a.m. on
October 1 until 12 a.m. on October 31, 2013. This rule will be enforced
from 6 a.m. to 12 a.m. on intermittent dates between October 1 through
October 31, 2013.
    During this date range, these safety zones will be enforced during
the time of filming and associated stunt work, between 6 a.m. and 12
a.m. The Coast Guard will issue a Broadcast Notice to Mariners to
provide the public with advanced notice of those days that these safety
zones will be enforced. The Coast Guard on-scene Captain of the Port
Representative will provide actual notice on-scene.
    Five safety zones will be established as follows:

--All waters of Lake Michigan, Calumet Harbor west of an imaginary line
connecting 41[deg]44'29.4'' N, 087[deg]31'33.9'' W and 41[deg]44'21''
N, 087[deg]31'47.12'' W (NAD 83).
--All waters of the South Branch of the Chicago River from position
41[deg]52'19.03'' N, 087[deg]38'08.7'' W, then approximately 1380 yards
south to position 41[deg]51'36.5'' N, 087[deg]38'04.7'' W (NAD 83).
--All waters of the Chicago River from an imaginary line connecting
positions 41[deg]53'11.6'' N, 087[deg]38'20.5'' W and 41[deg]53'14.0''
N, 087[deg]38'17.2'' W, then east to the North Orleans Street Bridge in
position 41[deg]53'15.84'' N, 087[deg]38'09.16'' W, then south along
the south branch of the river to the vicinity of the West Van Buren
Street Bridge in position 41[deg]52'36.4'' N, 087[deg]38'15.8'' W (NAD
83).
--All waters of the Chicago River from the West Lake Street Bridge in
position 41[deg]53'8.6'' N, 087[deg]38'15.9'' W, then north to an
imaginary line connecting positions 41[deg]53'11.6'' N,
087[deg]38'20.5'' W and 41[deg]53'14.0'' N, 087[deg]38'17.2'' W, then
east along the main branch of the river to a position of 41[deg]53'19''
N, 087[deg]36'33'' W (NAD 83) in the vicinity of the North Lake Shore
Drive Bridge.
--All waters of the Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal within a 1000 foot
radius of a position at 41[deg]50'28.5'' N, 087[deg]40'22.7'' W (NAD
83) in the vicinity of the South Damen Avenue bridge.

    Entry into, transiting, or anchoring within the safety zones is
prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of the Port, Lake Michigan,
or his designated on-scene representative. The Captain of the Port or
his designated on-scene representative may be contacted via VHF Channel
16.

D. Regulatory Analyses

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

1. Regulatory Planning and Review

    This rule is not a significant regulatory action under section 3(f)
of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, as
supplemented by Executive Order 13563, Improving Regulation and
Regulatory Review, and does not require an assessment of

potential costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of Executive Order
12866 or under section 1 of Executive Order 13563. The Office of
Management and Budget has not reviewed it under those Orders. It is not
``significant'' under the regulatory policies and procedures of the
Department of Homeland Security (DHS).
    We conclude that this rule is not a significant regulatory action
because we anticipate that it will have minimal impact on the economy,
will not interfere with other agencies, will not adversely alter the
budget of any grant or loan recipients, and will not raise any novel
legal or policy issues. The safety zones created by this rule will be
small and enforced for a limited time on a limited number of days in
October of 2013. Under certain conditions, moreover, vessels may still
transit through the safety zones when permitted by the Captain of the
Port.

2. Impact on Small Entities

    Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we have
considered the impact of this temporary rule on small entities. 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 will affect the following entities, some of which
might be small entities: The owners or operators of vessels intending
to transit or anchor in a portion of the Chicago River, Calumet Harbor,
or Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal during the times in which the safety
zones are enforced in October, 2013.
    These safety zones will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities for the reasons cited in the
Regulatory Planning and Review section. Additionally, before the
enforcement of these zones, we would issue local Broadcast Notice to
Mariners so vessel owners and operators can plan accordingly.

3. Assistance for Small Entities

    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small
entities in understanding this rule. 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 above.
    Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal
employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal
regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory
Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory
Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and
rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to
comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR
(1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small
entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or
action of the Coast Guard.

4. Collection of Information

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

5. Federalism

    A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132,
Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on 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 determined
that this rule does not have implications for federalism.

6. Protest Activities

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

7. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

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

8. Taking of Private Property

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

9. Civil Justice Reform

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

10. Protection of Children

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

11. Indian Tribal Governments

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

12. Energy Effects

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

13. Technical Standards

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

14. Environment

    We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security
Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which
guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental
Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have determined
that this action is one of a category of actions that do not
individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human
environment. This rule involves the establishment of safety zones and,
therefore it is categorically excluded from further review under
paragraph 34(g) of Figure 2-1 of the Commandant Instruction. An
environmental analysis checklist supporting this determination and a
Categorical Exclusion Determination are available in the docket where
indicated under ADDRESSES. We seek any comments or information that may
lead to the

discovery of a significant environmental impact from this rule.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165

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

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

PART 165--REGULATED NAVIGATION AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS

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

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

0
2. Add Sec.  165.T09-0868 to read as follows:

Sec.  165.T09-0868  Safety Zone; Motion Picture Stunt Work and Filming;
Chicago, IL.

    (a) Safety Zones. The following are designated as safety zones:
    (1) All waters of Lake Michigan, Calumet Harbor, west of an
imaginary line connecting 41[deg]44'29.4'' N, 087[deg]31'33.9'' W and
41[deg]44'21'' N, 087[deg]31'47.12'' W (NAD 83).
    (2) All waters of the South Branch of the Chicago River from
position 41[deg]52'19.03'' N, 087[deg]38'08.7'' W, then approximately
1380 yards south to position 41[deg]51'36.5'' N, 087[deg]38'04.7'' W
(NAD 83).
    (3) All waters of the Chicago River from an imaginary line
connecting positions 41[deg]53'11.6'' N, 087[deg]38'20.5'' W and
41[deg]53'14.0'' N, 087[deg]38'17.2'' W, then east to the North Orleans
Street Bridge in position 41[deg]53'15.84'' N, 087[deg]38'09.16'' W,
then south along the south branch of the river to the vicinity of the
West Van Buren Street Bridge in position 41[deg]52'36.4'' N,
087[deg]38'15.8'' W (NAD 83).
    (4) All waters of the Chicago River from the West Lake Street
Bridge in position 41[deg]53'8.6'' N, 087[deg]38'15.9'' W, then north
to an imaginary line connecting positions 41[deg]53'11.6'' N,
087[deg]38'20.5'' W and 41[deg]53'14.0'' N, 087[deg]38'17.2'' W, then
east along the main branch of the river to a position of 41[deg]53'19''
N, 087[deg]36'33'' W (NAD 83) in the vicinity of the North Lake Shore
Drive Bridge.
    (5) All waters of the Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal within a
1,000 foot radius of a position at 41[deg]50'28.5'' N,
087[deg]40'22.7'' W (NAD 83) in the vicinity of the South Damen Avenue
bridge.
    (b) Effective and Enforcement Period. These zones are effective
from 6 a.m. on October 1 until 12 a.m. on October 31, 2013. This rule
will be enforced from 6 a.m. to 12 a.m. on intermittent dates between
October 1 through October 31, 2013.
    (c) Regulations.
    (1) In accordance with the general regulations in Sec.  165.23 of
this part, entry into, transiting, or anchoring within these safety
zones is prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of the Port, Lake
Michigan or his designated on-scene representative.
    (2) These safety zones are closed to all vessel traffic, except as
may be permitted by the Captain of the Port, Lake Michigan or his
designated on-scene representative.
    (3) The ``on-scene representative'' of the Captain of the Port,
Lake Michigan is any Coast Guard commissioned, warrant or petty officer
who has been designated by the Captain of the Port, Lake Michigan to
act on his behalf.
    (4) Vessel operators desiring to enter or operate within the safety
zones shall contact the Captain of the Port, Lake Michigan or his on-
scene representative to obtain permission to do so. The Captain of the
Port, Lake Michigan or his on-scene representative may be contacted via
VHF Channel 16. Vessel operators given permission to enter or operate
in the safety zones must comply with all directions given to them by
the Captain of the Port, Lake Michigan, or his on-scene representative.

    Dated: September 24, 2013.
M.W. Sibley,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port, Lake Michigan.
[FR Doc. 2013-23861 Filed 9-30-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 31 (Thursday, February 14, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 10664-10666]
[FR Doc No: 2013-03390]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-68880; File No. SR-Phlx-2013-10]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NASDAQ OMX PHLX LLC; Notice of
Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Amend
Certain Fees in Section II of the Pricing Schedule

February 8, 2013.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 \2\ thereunder, notice is hereby given
that on January 25, 2013, NASDAQ OMX PHLX LLC (``Phlx'' or
``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I, II,
and III, below, which Items have been prepared by the Exchange. The
Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the
proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange proposes to amend Section II of the Pricing Schedule
entitled ``Multiply Listed Options Fees'' \3\ to amend fees applicable
to a Firm. The Exchange also proposes to make a technical amendment to
Section VI entitled ``Membership Fees.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Multiply Listed Options includes options overlying equities,
ETFs, ETNs and indexes which are Multiply Listed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    While changes to the Pricing Schedule pursuant to this proposal are
effective upon filing, the Exchange has designated the proposed
amendment to be operative on February 1, 2013.
    The text of the proposed rule change is provided in Exhibit 5. The
text of the proposed rule change is also available on the Exchange's
Web site at http://nasdaqomxphlx.cchwallstreet.com/, at the principal
office of the Exchange, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

    In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements
concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and
discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The
text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in
Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in
sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such
statements.

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

1. Purpose
    The purpose of this filing is to increase certain fees applicable
to Firms in Section II of the Pricing Schedule to more closely align
the electronic Firm Penny Pilot Options \4\ Transaction Charge with
other fees in Sections II of the Pricing Schedule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ The Penny Pilot was established in January 2007; and in
October 2009, it was expanded and extended through June 30, 2013.
See Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 55153 (January 23, 2007),
72 FR 4553 (January 31, 2007) (SR-Phlx-2006-74) (notice of filing
and approval order establishing Penny Pilot); 60873 (October 23,
2009), 74 FR 56675 (November 2, 2009) (SR-Phlx-2009-91) (notice of
filing and immediate effectiveness expanding and extending Penny
Pilot); 60966 (November 9, 2009), 74 FR 59331 (November 17, 2009)
(SR-Phlx-2009-94) (notice of filing and immediate effectiveness
adding seventy-five classes to Penny Pilot); 61454 (February 1,
2010), 75 FR 6233 (February 8, 2010) (SR-Phlx-2010-12) (notice of
filing and immediate effectiveness adding seventy-five classes to
Penny Pilot); 62028 (May 4, 2010), 75 FR 25890 (May 10, 2010) (SR-
Phlx-2010-65) (notice of filing and immediate effectiveness adding
seventy-five classes to Penny Pilot); 62616 (July 30, 2010), 75 FR
47664 (August 6, 2010) (SR-Phlx-2010-103) (notice of filing and
immediate effectiveness adding seventy-five classes to Penny Pilot);
63395 (November 30, 2010), 75 FR 76062 (December 7, 2010) (SR-Phlx-
2010-167) (notice of filing and immediate effectiveness extending
the Penny Pilot); 65976 (December 15, 2011), 76 FR 79247 (December
21, 2011) (SR-Phlx-2011-172) (notice of filing and immediate
effectiveness extending the Penny Pilot); 67326 (June 29, 2012), 77
FR 40126 (July 6, 2012) (SR-Phlx-2012-86) (notice of filing and
immediate effectiveness extending the Penny Pilot); and 68534
(December 21, 2012), 77 FR 77174 (December 31, 2012) (notice of
filing and immediate effectiveness extending the Penny Pilot). See
also Exchange Rule 1034.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Currently, the Exchange assesses Firm Options Transaction Charges
in Penny Pilot Options as follows: $0.40 per contract for an electronic
order and $0.25 per contract for an order originating from the Exchange
floor. The Exchange assesses Firm Options Transaction Charges in non-
Penny Pilot Options \5\ as follows: $0.45 per contract for an
electronic order and $0.25 per contract for an order originating from
the Exchange floor. The Exchange proposes to increase the electronic
Firm Options Transaction Charge in Penny Pilot Options from $0.40 to
$0.44 per contract.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Non-Penny Pilot refers to options classes not in the Penny
Pilot.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Currently, the Exchange reduces electronic Firm Options Transaction
Charges in Penny Pilot and non-Penny Pilot Options to $0.13 per
contract and $0.00 per contract for electronic Complex Orders that add
liquidity for a given month provided that a Firm has volume greater
than 600,000 electronically-delivered contracts in a month
(``Electronic Firm Fee Discount''). The Exchange proposes to reduce
electronic Firm Options Transaction Charges in Penny Pilot and non-
Penny Pilot Options, including electronic Complex Orders that add
liquidity,\6\ to $0.17 per contract \7\ if a Firm meets the volume
requirement of the Electronic Firm Fee Discount. Finally, the Exchange
proposes to amend the Firm volume requirement for the Electronic Firm
Fee Discount by lowering it from 600,000 electronically-delivered
contracts to 500,000 electronically-delivered contracts.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Today, a Firm that qualifies for the Electronic Firm Fee
Discount would not be assessed an Options Transaction Charge for
electronic Complex Orders that add liquidity because they are
entitled to a fee reduction to $0.00 per contract.
    \7\ Today, a Firm that qualifies for the Electronic Firm Fee
Discount would not be assessed a charge for electronic Complex
Orders that add liquidity. Pursuant to this proposal, a Firm would
be assessed $0.17 per contract for electronic Complex Orders that
add liquidity.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange also proposes to amend Section VI, Part A of the
Pricing Schedule entitled ``Permit and Registration Fees'' to make a
technical amendment to correct the text of the Pricing Schedule. The
Exchange amended the Permit Fees on January 2, 2013 to increase the
Permit Fee for Phlx Members transacting business on Phlx from $2,000 to
$2,100 per month.\8\ At that time, the Exchange inadvertently did not
also update the paragraph explaining how a member qualifies for the
lower Permit Fee. The Exchange proposes to update the Pricing Schedule
to reflect the Permit Fee for Phlx Members transacting business on Phlx
is $2,100 in note 15 which accompanies the Permit Fee to update and
clarify the Pricing Schedule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 68473 (December 19,
2012), 77 FR 76128 (December 19, 2012) (SR-Phlx-2012-140).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that its proposal to amend its Pricing
Schedule is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act \9\ in general, and
furthers the objectives of Section 6(b)(4) of the Act,\10\ in
particular, in that it is an equitable allocation of reasonable fees
and other charges among Exchange members.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \10\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that increasing the Firm Options Transaction
Charge from $0.40 to $0.44 per contract is

reasonable because this fee is within the range of other fees in
Section II of the Pricing Schedule. The Exchange currently assesses an
electronic Firm Options Transaction Charge in non-Penny Pilot Options
of $0.45 per contract and an electronic Broker-Dealer Options
Transaction Charge in Penny Pilot Options of $0.45 per contract. The
Exchange generally assesses lower fees for Penny Pilot Options as
compared to non-Penny Pilot Option because those securities are among
the most actively traded and liquid options. This is the case today for
Specialist, Market Maker and Broker-Dealer Fees.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ The Exchange assesses an electronic Specialist and Market
Maker Options Transaction Charge in Penny Pilot Options of $0.22 per
contract as compared to an electronic Specialist and Market Maker
Options Transaction Charge in non-Penny Pilot Options of $0.23 per
contract. The Exchange assesses an electronic Broker Dealer Options
Transaction Charge in Penny Pilot Options of $0.45 per contract as
compared to an electronic Broker Dealer Options Transaction Charge
in non-Penny Pilot Options of $0.60 per contract.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that increasing the Firm Options Transaction
Charge from $0.40 to $0.44 per contract is equitable and not unfairly
discriminatory for the reasons which follow. Firms will continue to be
assessed a higher fee than a Customer who pays no fee to transact
electronic Penny Pilot Options. Customer order flow brings unique
benefits to the market which benefits all market participants through
increased liquidity. Similarly, Firms will continue to be assessed
higher fees than Specialists \12\ and Market Makers \13\ in electronic
Penny Pilot Options \14\ because Specialists and Market Makers have
obligations to the market and regulatory requirements,\15\ which
normally do not apply to other market participants. They have
obligations to make continuous markets, engage in a course of dealings
reasonably calculated to contribute to the maintenance of a fair and
orderly market, and not make bids or offers or enter into transactions
that are inconsistent with a course of dealings. The proposed
differentiation as between Customers, Specialists and Market Makers and
other market participants recognizes the differing contributions made
to the liquidity and trading environment on the Exchange by these
market participants, as well as the differing mix of orders entered.
Broker-Dealers and Firms today pay higher fees as compared to a
Professional \16\ for electronic Penny Pilot Options transactions and
this would not change. With respect to Professionals, they have access
to more information and technological advantages as compared to
Customers and Professionals do not bear the obligations of Specialists
or Market Makers. Also, Professionals engage in trading activity
similar to that conducted by Specialists or Market Makers. For example,
Professionals continue to join bids and offers on the Exchange and thus
compete for incoming order flow. For these reasons, the Exchange
believes that Professionals may be priced higher than a Customer and
may be priced equal to or higher than a Specialist or Market Maker.
Finally, the Firm will continue to be assessed a lower fee as compared
to a Broker-Dealer. The Exchange believes that increasing the Firm
electronic Penny Pilot Options Transaction Charge to $0.44 per contract
does not misalign the current rate differentials between a Broker-
Dealer and a Firm because the Exchange is narrowing the differential to
$.01 per contract. Further, the Exchange is increasing the discounted
fee for Firms that qualify for the Electronic Firm Fee Discount for all
electronic orders, including electronic Complex Orders that add
liquidity, to $0.17 per contract. This will also serve to further align
the rate differentials as between a Broker-Dealer and a Firm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ A ``Specialist'' is an Exchange member who is registered as
an options specialist pursuant to Rule 1020(a).
    \13\ A ``Market Maker'' includes Registered Options Traders
(Rule 1014(b)(i) and (ii)), which includes Streaming Quote Traders
(see Rule 1014(b)(ii)(A)) and Remote Streaming Quote Traders (see
Rule 1014(b)(ii)(B)). Directed Participants are also market makers.
    \14\ Specialists and Market Maker pay $0.22 per contract to
transact electronic Penny Pilot Options.
    \15\ See Rule 1014 titled ``Obligations and Restrictions
Applicable to Specialists and Registered Options Traders.''
    \16\ 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 Rule
1000(b)(14).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that it is reasonable to decrease the
Electronic Firm Fee Discount for electronic Options Transaction Charges
in Penny Pilot and non-Penny Pilot Options from $0.13 to $0.17 per
contract, decrease the fee deduction for Firm electronic Complex Orders
that add liquidity from no fee to $0.17 per contract and decrease the
Firm volume requirement from 600,000 to 500,000 electronically-
delivered contracts because the Exchange is continuing to offer Firms
discounts if they qualify for the Electronic Firm Fee Discount. By
decreasing the Firm volume requirement from 600,000 to 500,000
electronically-delivered contracts, the Exchange believes that
additional market participants transacting Firm orders would be able to
qualify for the discount. Despite the increase to the Firm electronic
Penny Pilot Options Transaction Charge, the Exchange believes the
amendments to the Electronic Firm Fee Discount should continue to
attract electronic Firm volume to the Exchange.
    The Exchange believes that it is equitable and not unfairly
discriminatory to decrease the Electronic Firm Fee Discount for
electronic Options Transaction Charges in Penny Pilot and non-Penny
Pilot Options from $0.13 to $0.17 per contract, decrease the fee
deduction for Firm electronic Complex Orders that add liquidity from no
fee to $0.17 per contract and decrease the Firm volume requirement from
600,000 to 500,000 electronically-delivered contracts for the
Electronic Firm Fee Discount because all Firms will continue to have an
opportunity to qualify for this incentive as they do today, provided
they achieve the requisite volume. The Exchange also believes that the
increased opportunity to obtain the Electronic Firm Fee Discount,
because of the reduced volume requirement, will assist Firms to offset
the increased Firm fee proposed herein. While the Exchange is
decreasing the discount (from no charge to $0.17 per contract) on Firm
electronic Complex Orders that add liquidity, the Exchange believes
that reducing the discount for all Firm electronic Penny Pilot and non-
Penny Pilot Options Transaction Charges by the same amount is equitable
and not unfairly discriminatory.
    Finally, the Exchange believes that the technical amendment to
Section VI of the Pricing Schedule to amend the reference to the Permit
Fee for Phlx Members transacting business on Phlx is reasonable,
equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because the proposed
amendment should clarify the incorrect text on the Pricing Schedule and
provide consistent information in that section of the Pricing Schedule.

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The Exchange believes that
increasing the electronic Firm Penny Pilot Options Transaction Charge
does not misalign the pricing in Section II as between the market
participants. The Firm electronic Options Transaction Charges in Penny
Pilot Options would continue to be higher than Customer fees,
electronic Professional fees and electronic Specialist and Market Maker
fees in

Penny Pilot Options. Additionally, the increased Firm fee narrows the
differential as between Firms and Broker-Dealers. Further, the Exchange
is offsetting the Firm fee increase with an increased opportunity to
obtain the Electronic Firm Fee Discount of $0.17 per contract by
decreasing the Firm volume requirement. The increased Firm discount of
$0.17 per contract applies equally to all Firms. The Exchange does not
believe that any of the proposed amendments impose a burden on
competition as between market participants. The Exchange proposes to
balance an increased fee applicable only to Firms with an increased
opportunity for Firms to benefit from a discount.
    The Exchange operates in a highly competitive market, comprised of
eleven exchanges, in which market participants can easily and readily
direct order flow to competing venues if they deem fee levels at a
particular venue to be excessive. Accordingly, the fees that are
assessed by the Exchange must remain competitive with fees charged by
other venues and therefore must continue to be reasonable and equitably
allocated to those members that opt to direct orders to the Exchange
rather than competing venues.

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

    No written comments were either solicited or received.

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

    The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act.\17\ At any time within 60 days of the
filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may
temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission
that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest,
for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the
purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the
Commission shall institute proceedings to determine whether the
proposed rule should be approved or disapproved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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-Phlx-2013-10 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-Phlx-2013-10. 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 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-Phlx-2013-10 and should be
submitted on or before March 7, 2013.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2013-03390 Filed 2-13-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 47 (Friday, March 9, 2012)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 14269]
[FR Doc No: 2012-5704]

========================================================================
Rules and Regulations
                                                Federal Register
________________________________________________________________________

This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains regulatory documents
having general applicability and legal effect, most of which are keyed
to and codified in the Code of Federal Regulations, which is published
under 50 titles pursuant to 44 U.S.C. 1510.

The Code of Federal Regulations is sold by the Superintendent of Documents.
Prices of new books are listed in the first FEDERAL REGISTER issue of each
week.

========================================================================

Federal Register / Vol. 77 , No. 47 / Friday, March 9, 2012 / Rules
and Regulations

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2011-1406; Airspace Docket No. 11-AWA-5]
RIN 2120-AA66

Amendment of Class C Airspace; Springfield, MO; Lincoln, NE;
Grand Rapids, MI

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule; correction.

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

SUMMARY: This action corrects the Class C airspace designation for
Gerald R. Ford International Airport, Grand Rapids, MI, published in
the Federal Register of February 6, 2012, to include the city name.

DATES: Effective date 0901 UTC, April 5, 2012. 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: Colby Abbott, Airspace, Regulations
and ATC Procedures Group, Office of Airspace Services, Federal Aviation
Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591;
telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

History

    On February 6, 2012, the FAA published a final rule in the Federal
Register amending the airport name and geographic coordinates of Gerald
R. Ford International Airport, Grand Rapids, MI, to match the FAA's
aeronautical database (77 FR 5691) Docket No. FAA-2011-1406. The Class
C airspace designation was published without including the city name.

Final Rule Correction

    Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, the legal
description for the Gerald R. Ford International Airport, Grand Rapids,
MI, Class C airspace, as published in the Federal Register of February
6, 2012 (77 FR 5691) (FR Doc. 2012-2485), is corrected as follows:
    On page 5692, column 3, lines 50 and 51, remove ``AGL MI C Gerald
R. Ford International Airport, MI'', and insert: ``AGL MI C Grand
Rapids, Gerald R. Ford International Airport, MI.''
    On page 5692, column 3, lines 52 and 53, remove ``Gerald R. Ford
International Airport, Grand Rapids, MI'', and insert: ``Grand Rapids,
Gerald R. Ford International Airport, MI.''

    Issued in Washington, DC, February 28, 2012.
Gary A. Norek,
Acting Manager, Airspace, Regulations, and ATC Procedures Group.
[FR Doc. 2012-5704 Filed 3-8-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 239 (Monday, December 14, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Page 77397]
[FR Doc No: 2015-31362]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Proposed Collection; Comment Request

Upon Written Request Copies Available From: Securities and Exchange
Commission, Office of FOIA Services, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC
20549-2736.

Extension:
    Schedule 14D-1F, OMB Control No. 3235-0376, SEC File No. 270-
338.

    Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction
Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), the Securities and Exchange
Commission (``Commission'') is soliciting comments on the collection of
information summarized below. The Commission plans to submit this
existing collection of information to the Office of Management and
Budget for extension and approval.
    Schedule 14D-1F (17 CFR 240.14d-102) is a form that may be used by
any person (the ``bidder'') making a cash tender or exchange offer for
securities of any issuer (the ``target'') incorporated or organized
under the laws of Canada or any Canadian province or territory that is
a foreign private issuer, where less than 40% of the outstanding class
of the target's securities that is the subject of the offer is held by
U.S. holders. Schedule 14D-1F is designed to facilitate cross-border
transactions in the securities of Canadian issuers. The information
required to be filed with the Commission provides security holders with
material information regarding the bidder as well as the transaction so
that they may make informed investment decisions. Schedule 14D-1F takes
approximately 2 hours per response to prepare and is filed by
approximately 2 respondents annually for a total reporting burden of 4
hours (2 hours per response x 2 responses).
    Written comments are invited on: (a) Whether this proposed
collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of
the functions of the agency, including whether the information will
have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of
the burden imposed by the collection of information; (c) ways to
enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected;
and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on
respondents, including through the use of automated collection
techniques or other forms of information technology. Consideration will
be given to comments and suggestions submitted in writing within 60
days of this publication.
    An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required
to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a
currently valid control number.
    Please direct your written comments to Pamela Dyson, Director/Chief
Information Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission, c/o Remi
Pavlik-Simon, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549; or send an email
to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
    Dated: December 8, 2015.
Brent J. Fields,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2015-31362 Filed 12-11-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P