[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 46 (Thursday, March 9, 2023)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 14491-14495]
[FR Doc No: 2023-04806]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 180

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2022-0737; FRL-10688-01-OCSPP]

Diglycerol in Pesticide Formulations; Tolerance Exemption

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule and correction.

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

SUMMARY: This regulation establishes an exemption from the requirement
of a tolerance for residues of diglycerol when used as an inert
ingredient (plasticizer) on growing crops and raw agricultural
commodities pre- and post-harvest. This regulation eliminates the need
to establish a maximum permissible level for residues of diglycerol,
when used in accordance with the terms of the exemption. This
regulation also amends the tolerance

exemption 2,6-pyridinedicarboxylic acid by correcting the CAS Reg. No.

DATES: This regulation is effective March 9, 2023. Objections and
requests for hearings must be received on or before May 8, 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-2022-0737, 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 the OPP docket is<PHONE_NUMBER>. For the latest
status information on EPA/DC services, docket access, visit https://www.epa.gov/dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Daniel Rosenblatt, 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 40 CFR
part 180 through the Government Publishing Office'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(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-2022-0737 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
May 8, 2023. 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-2022-0737, 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. Petition for Exemption

    In the Federal Register of September 23, 2022 (87 FR 58047) (FRL-
9410-05-OSCPP), EPA issued a document pursuant to FFDCA section 408, 21
U.S.C. 346a, announcing the filing of a pesticide petition (PP IN-
11673) by RRStewart Consulting, LLC, on behalf of Aicello America
Corporation, 182 Nassau Street, Princeton, NJ 08542. The petition
requested that 40 CFR 180.910 be amended by establishing an exemption
from the requirement of a tolerance for residues of diglycerol (CAS
Reg. No. 59113-36-9) when used as an inert ingredient (plasticizer) in
pesticide formulations applied to growing crops or raw agricultural
commodities pre- and post-harvest. That document referenced a summary
of the petition prepared by RRStewart Consulting, LLC, on behalf of
Aicello America Corporation, which is available in the docket, https://www.regulations.gov. There were no comments received in response to the
notice of filing.
    On November 23, 2022, (87 FR 71523) (FRL-10400-01-OCSPP), the
exemption from the requirement of a tolerance was published for 2,6-
pyridinedicarboxylic acid; however, the rule inadvertently included an
error in the CAS Reg. No. This document also corrects (CAS Reg. No.
449-83-2) to read (CAS Reg. No. 499-83-2) under 40 CFR 180.910.

III. Inert Ingredient Definition

    Inert ingredients are all ingredients that are not active
ingredients as defined in 40 CFR 153.125 and include, but are not
limited to, the following types of ingredients (except when they have a
pesticidal efficacy of their own): solvents such as alcohols and
hydrocarbons; surfactants such as polyoxyethylene polymers and fatty
acids; carriers such as clay and diatomaceous earth; thickeners such as
carrageenan and modified cellulose; wetting, spreading, and dispersing
agents; propellants in aerosol dispensers; microencapsulating agents;
and emulsifiers. The term ``inert'' is not intended to imply
nontoxicity; the ingredient may or may not be chemically active.
Generally, EPA has exempted inert ingredients from the requirement of a
tolerance based on the low toxicity of the individual inert
ingredients.

IV. Aggregate Risk Assessment and Determination of Safety

    Section 408(c)(2)(A)(i) of FFDCA allows EPA to 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 tolerance 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. When making a safety determination for an
exemption for the requirement of a tolerance, FFDCA section
408(c)(2)(B) directs EPA to take into account the considerations in
section 408(b)(2)(C) and (D). 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 or
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. . . .'' Section 408(b)(2)(D) lists other
factors for EPA's consideration in making safety determinations, e.g.,
the validity, completeness, and reliability of available data, nature
of toxic effects, available information concerning the cumulative
effects of the pesticide chemical and other substances with a common
mechanism of toxicity, and available information concerning aggregate
exposure levels to the pesticide chemical and other related substances,
among other factors.
    EPA establishes exemptions from the requirement of a tolerance only
in those cases where it can be clearly demonstrated that the risks from
aggregate exposure to pesticide chemical residues under reasonably
foreseeable circumstances will pose no harm to human health. In order
to determine the risks from aggregate exposure to pesticide inert
ingredients, the Agency considers the toxicity of the inert in
conjunction with possible exposure to residues of the inert ingredient
through food, drinking water, and through other exposures that occur as
a result of pesticide use in residential settings. If EPA is able to
determine that a finite tolerance is not necessary to ensure that there
is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result from aggregate
exposure to the inert ingredient, an exemption from the requirement of
a tolerance may be established.
    Consistent with FFDCA section 408(c)(2)(A), and the factors
specified in FFDCA section 408(c)(2)(B), 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 diglycerol, including exposure
resulting from the exemption established by this action. EPA's
assessment of exposures and risks associated with diglycerol follows.

A. Toxicological Profile

    EPA has evaluated the available toxicity data and considered their
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. Specific information on the studies received and the nature
of the adverse effects caused by diglycerol as well as the no-observed-
adverse-effect-level (NOAEL) and the lowest-observed-adverse-effect-
level (LOAEL) from the toxicity studies are discussed in this unit.
    The toxicological database of diglycerol is supported by data
regarding glycerol and polyglycerol. EPA has determined that it is
appropriate to bridge glycerol and polyglycerol data to assess
diglycerol due to similarities in functional groups/structure.
    Diglycerol exhibits low levels of acute toxicity via the oral and
dermal routes of exposure, and it is anticipated to have low acute
inhalation toxicity. Diglycerol is not an acute skin or eye irritant
nor a skin sensitizer.
    Portal-of-entry effects (squamous metaplasia of the epithelium
lining the base of the epiglottis) were observed in the available
subchronic inhalation toxicity study. There is no evidence of offspring
susceptibility in the available developmental toxicity study or in the
2-generation reproductive toxicity study with the surrogate chemical
glycerol. No effects on reproductive parameters were observed in the 2-
generation reproductive toxicity study with glycerol. Concern for
carcinogenicity is low, based on negative results in mutagenicity and
genotoxicity studies and lack of treatment-related neoplastic effects
in the available chronic toxicity study in rats. No evidence of
neurotoxicity or immunotoxicity was seen in the available studies.

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/overview-risk-assessment-pesticide-program.
    The hazard profile of diglycerol is adequately defined. No acute
dietary, chronic dietary, incidental oral, or dermal endpoints were
selected because no adverse effects were identified following dietary
exposure to diglycerol or related compounds. The short-term inhalation
endpoints are selected from the inhalation toxicity study in rats, with
a no observed adverse effect concentration (NOAEC) of 0.165 mg/L and a
lowest observed adverse effect concentration (LOAEC) of 0.66 mg/L,
based on squamous metaplasia of the epithelium lining the base of the
epiglottis.

C. Exposure Assessment

    1. Dietary exposure. Dietary exposure (food and drinking water) may
occur from consuming food treated with pesticide formulations
containing this inert ingredient and from non-pesticidal uses (e.g.,
personal care products). However, no dietary endpoints of concern were
identified, and therefore, a quantitative dietary exposure assessment
for diglycerol was not conducted.
    Based on the lack of treatment-related tumors in the
carcinogenicity study in rats and the lack of mutagenicity in the
available in vitro studies, diglycerol is considered not likely to be
carcinogenic. Therefore, a cancer dietary exposure assessment was not
performed.
    2. Residential 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, etc.).
Diglycerol may be used as an inert ingredient in pesticide products
that are registered for specific uses that may result in residential
exposure, such as pesticides used in and around the home. For
residential handlers, the Agency assumed handlers may receive short-
term dermal and inhalation exposure to diglycerol from formulations
containing

the inert ingredient in outdoor and indoor scenarios. However, as
dermal endpoints were not selected, margins of exposure (MOEs) were
only calculated for inhalation exposure scenarios. For residential
handler short-term outdoor and indoor exposure scenarios, inhalation
MOEs ranged from 23,000 to 940,000 and are not of concern (i.e., the
level of concern (LOC) for inhalation exposure is for MOEs that are
less than 100). Residential handler intermediate-term and long-term
exposures are not calculated because applications are not expected to
occur daily or for more than 30 days.
    Residential post-application scenarios include short- and
intermediate-term dermal (skin contact with treated surfaces) exposure
for adults and children as well as short- and intermediate-term
incidental oral exposure for children (hand-to-mouth exposure with
treated surfaces). However, no dermal or dietary endpoints were
selected for diglycerol and therefore, a post-application exposure
assessment was not performed.
    3. 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.''
    Unlike pesticides for which EPA has followed a cumulative risk
approach based on a common mechanism of toxicity, EPA has not made a
common mechanism of toxicity finding as to diglycerol and any other
substances, and diglycerol does not appear to produce a toxic
metabolite produced by other substances. For the purposes of this
tolerance exemption, therefore, EPA has assumed that diglycerol 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. Additional Safety Factor for the Protection of Infants and Children

    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. 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.
    Based on the evaluation of available toxicity studies, there is low
concern for pre- and postnatal susceptibility for infants and children
from exposure to diglycerol. The FQPA safety factor has been reduced to
1X because: (1) the toxicity database is adequate to characterize
potential pre- and postnatal risk for infants and children; (2) no
developmental or reproductive effects were observed in the available
reproduction toxicity and developmental studies; (3) no evidence of
neurotoxicity was observed in the database; and (4) the assumptions for
the exposure assessment are unlikely to underestimate risk.

E. Aggregate Risks and Determination of Safety

    In an aggregate assessment, exposures from relevant sources are
added together and compared to quantitative estimates of hazard (e.g.,
a NOAEL or PAD), or the risks themselves can be aggregated. When
aggregating exposures and risks from various sources, EPA considers
both the route and duration of exposure.
    1. Acute aggregate risk. An acute aggregate risk assessment takes
into account exposure estimates from acute dietary consumption of food
and drinking water. However, there was no hazard attributable to a
single exposure seen in the toxicity database for diglycerol.
Therefore, diglycerol is not expected to pose an acute aggregate risk.
    2. Short-term aggregate risk. Short-term aggregate exposure takes
into account short-term residential (dermal and inhalation) exposure
plus chronic dietary exposure (food and drinking water). However, there
was no hazard attributable to chronic dietary or dermal exposure.
Therefore, the short-term aggregate risk is equal to the inhalation
exposure risk, which is not of concern.
    3. Chronic aggregate risk. A chronic aggregate risk assessment
takes into account exposure estimates from chronic dietary consumption
of food and drinking water. However, there was no hazard attributable
to chronic dietary exposure. Therefore, diglycerol is not expected to
pose a chronic aggregate risk.
    4. Cancer aggregate risk. EPA has not identified any concerns for
carcinogenicity relating to diglycerol. Therefore, diglycerol is not
expected to pose a cancer aggregate risk.
    5. Determination of safety. Therefore, based on the risk
assessments and information described above, EPA concludes there is a
reasonable certainty that no harm will result to the general
population, or to infants and children, from aggregate exposure to
diglycerol residues. More detailed information on this action can be
found in the ``Diglycerol. Human Health Risk Assessment and Ecological
Effects Assessment to Support Inert Ingredient Approval for use in
Pesticide Formulations'' in docket ID EPA-HQ-OPP-2022-0737.

V. Other Considerations

Analytical Enforcement Methodology

    An analytical method is not required for enforcement purposes since
the Agency is establishing an exemption from the requirement of a
tolerance without any numerical limitation.

VI. Conclusions

    Therefore, an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance is
established for residues of diglycerol (CAS Reg. No. 59113-36-9) when
used as an inert ingredient (plasticizer) in pesticide formulations
applied to growing crops and raw agricultural commodities pre- and
post-harvest under 40 CFR 180.910.

VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    This action establishes an exemption from the requirement of a
tolerance 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 exemption 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).

VIII. 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: March 3, 2023.
Daniel Rosenblatt,
Acting Director, Registration Division, 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. In Sec.  180.910, amend table 1 to 180.910 by:
0
a. Adding in alphabetical order an entry for ``diglycerol'' and
0
b. Revising the entry for ``2,6-Pyridinedicarboxylic acid''.
    The addition and revision read as follows:

Sec.  180.910  Inert ingredients used pre- and post-harvest; exemptions
from the requirement of a tolerance.

* * * * *

                           Table 1 to 180.910
------------------------------------------------------------------------
       Inert ingredients              Limits                Uses
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                              * * * * * * *
Diglycerol (CAS Reg. No. 59113- .................  Plasticizer.
 36-9).

                              * * * * * * *
2,6-Pyridinedicarboxylic acid   Not to exceed 2    Stabilizer.
 (CAS Reg. No. 499-83-2).        ppm.

                              * * * * * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 2023-04806 Filed 3-8-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register: September 8, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 174)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 51941-51943]
[DOCID:fr08se08-10]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[Docket No. USCG-2008-0290]
RIN 1625-AA00

Safety Zone; Gulf of Mexico--Johns Pass, FL

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Temporary final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary safety zone on the
waters of Johns Pass, Florida while construction operations are being
conducted. This rule is necessary to ensure the safety of the workers
and mariners on the navigable waters of the United States. No person or
vessel may anchor, moor, or transit the Regulated Area without
permission of the Captain of the Port St. Petersburg, Florida.

DATES: This safety zone will be effective August 29, 2008 through
August 30, 2010.

ADDRESSES: Comments and material received from the public, as well as
documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket,
are part of docket USCG-2008-0290 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 Coast Guard
Sector St Petersburg Prevention Department, 155 Columbia Dr., Tampa, FL
33606 between 7:30 a.m. and 3:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, except
Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this
temporary rule, call BM1 Charles Voss at Coast Guard Sector St.
Petersburg,<PHONE_NUMBER> Ext 8307. If you have questions on viewing
the docket, call Renee V. Wright, Program Manager, Docket Operations,
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Regulatory Information

    On May 29, 2008 we published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM)
entitled Safety Zone; Gulf of Mexico--Johns Pass, FL in the Federal
Register, 73 FR 30868. We did not receive any letters commenting on the
proposed rule. No public meeting was requested, and none was held.

Background and Purpose

    Flatiron Construction will be performing construction work on the
new Johns Pass Bridge. This work will involve setting girders,
installing a new fendering system, setting the deck, setting overhangs,
placing resteel, pouring the bridge deck, and wrecking the old bridge's
deck. These operations will require the closure of the navigable
channel. The closures will only be for limited times, during nighttime
hours, and scheduled to accommodate the local marine traffic. The
nature of the operation and environment surrounding the Johns Pass
Bridge presents a danger to the workers and mariners transiting the
area. This proposed safety zone is being established to ensure the
safety of life on the navigable waters of the United States.

Discussion of Comments and Changes

    No comments were received for this rule and no changes were made to
the proposed rule text.

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. We expect the economic impact of this
rule to be so minimal that a full Regulatory Evaluation is unnecessary.
    The rule will only be enforced during a time when vessel traffic is
expected to be minimal. Moreover, vessels may still enter the safety
zone with the express permission of the Captain of the Port St.
Petersburg or a designated representative.

Small Entities

    Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we have
considered whether this rule would have a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities. The term ``small entities''
comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are
independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields,
and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000.
    The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule
would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of
small entities. This rule may affect the following entities, some of
which may be small entities: The owners or operators of vessels
intending to transit Johns Pass, FL. This safety zone will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities
for the following reasons: This rule will be enforced for a limited
time when marine traffic is expected to be minimal; additionally
traffic will be allowed to enter the zone with the permission of the
Captain of the Port Sector St. Petersburg or a designated
representative.

Assistance for Small Entities

    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), in the NPRM, we offered to
assist small entities in understanding the rule so that they could
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 Commandant Instruction M16475.lD
and Department of Homeland Security Management Directive 5100.1, 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. A final ``Environmental Analysis Check
List'' and a final ``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, and Waterways.

0
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. 1226, 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, and 160.5;
Pub. L. 107-295, 116 Stat. 2064; Department of Homeland Security
Delegation No. 0170.1.

0
2. A new temporary Sec.  165.T08-0290 is added to read as follows:

Sec.  165.T08-290  Safety Zone; Gulf of Mexico--Johns Pass, Florida.

    (a) Regulated area. The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary
safety zone on the waters of the Gulf of Mexico, Florida, in the
vicinity of the John's Pass Bridge, that includes all the waters from
surface to bottom, within a 100-yard radius of the following
coordinates: 27[deg]46[min]58[sec] N,082[deg]46[min]57[sec] W. All
coordinates referenced use datum: NAD 83.
    (b) Definitions. The following definition applies to this section:
    Designated representative means Coast Guard Patrol Commanders
including Coast Guard coxswains, petty officers and other officers
operating Coast Guard vessels, and federal, state, and local officers
designated by or assisting the Captain of the Port (COTP) St.
Petersburg, Florida, in the enforcement of regulated navigation areas
and safety and security zones.
    (c) Regulations. In accordance with the general regulations in
Sec.  165.23 of this part, no person or vessel may anchor, moor or
transit the Regulated Area without the prior permission of the Captain
of the Port St. Petersburg, Florida, or a designated representative.
    (d) Dates. This rule is effective until the bridge construction is
completed tentatively scheduled for July 2010.
    (e) Enforcement. This regulated area will only be enforced while
construction operations are taking place. The Coast Guard does not know
the exact dates of the construction operations at this time, however
Sector St. Petersburg will announce each enforcement period by
publishing the restriction in the local notice to mariners and issuing
Broadcast Notice to Mariners 24 to 48 hours prior to the start of
enforcement. Additionally, on-scene notice will be provided by Coast
Guard or other local law enforcement maritime units enforcing the
safety zone.

    Dated: August 6, 2008.
T.M. Close,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port, St. Petersburg.
[FR Doc. E8-20481 Filed 9-5-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-15-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 49 (Wednesday, March 13, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 15995-15997]
[FR Doc No: 2013-05751]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-69069; File No. SR-NASDAQ-2013-043]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; the NASDAQ Stock Market LLC;
Notice of Filing of Proposed Rule Change To Adopt Chapter V, Section
3(d)(iii) Regarding Quoting Obligations

 March 7, 2013.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that
on March 5, 2013, The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC (``NASDAQ'' or
``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``SEC'' or ``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in
Items I and II, below, which Items have been prepared by the Exchange.
The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the
proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange proposes to adopt a new Chapter V, Section 3(d)(iii)
to provide for how the Exchange proposes to treat options market-making
quoting obligations, in response to the Regulation NMS Plan to Address
Extraordinary Market Volatility.
    The text of the proposed rule change is below; proposed new
language is italicized.
* * * * *

Chapter V Regulation of Trading on NOM

* * * * *

Sec. 3 Trading Halts

    (a)-(c) No change.
    (d) This paragraph shall be in effect during a pilot period to
coincide with the pilot period for the Plan to Address Extraordinary
Market Volatility Pursuant to Rule 608 of Regulation NMS, as it may be
amended from time to time (``LULD Plan''). Capitalized terms used in
this paragraph shall have the same meaning as provided for in the LULD
Plan. During a Limit State and Straddle State in the Underlying NMS
stock:
    (i)-(ii) No change.
    (iii) When evaluating whether a Market Maker has met the continuous
quoting obligations of Chapter VII, Section 6(d) in options overlying
NMS stocks, the Exchange will not consider as part of the trading day
the time that an NMS stock underlying an option was in a Limit State or
Straddle State.
    (e) No change.
* * * * *

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 the
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to adopt Chapter V, Section 3(d)(iii) \3\ to
provide for how the Exchange will treat options market making quoting
obligations in response to the Regulation NMS Plan to Address
Extraordinary Market Volatility (the ``Plan''), which is applicable to
all NMS stocks, as defined in Regulation NMS Rule 600(b)(47). The
Exchange proposes to adopt new Chapter V, Section 3(d)(iii) for a pilot
period that coincides with the pilot period for the Plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The provisions of Chapter V, Sections 3(d)(i)-(ii) and 3(e)
were filed and became effective on February 28, 2013, with a 30 day
operative delay, on a pilot basis. See SR-NASDAQ-2013-040.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Background
    Since May 6, 2010, when the markets experienced excessive
volatility in an abbreviated time period, i.e., the ``flash crash,''
the equities exchanges and the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority
(``FINRA'') have implemented market-wide measures designed to restore
investor confidence by reducing the potential for excessive market
volatility. Among the measures adopted include pilot plans for stock-
by-stock trading pauses,\4\ related changes to the equities market
clearly erroneous execution rules,\5\ and more stringent equities
market maker quoting requirements.\6\ On May 31, 2012, the Commission
approved the Plan, as amended, on a one-year pilot basis.\7\ In
addition, the Commission approved changes to the equities market-wide
circuit breaker rules on a pilot basis to coincide with the pilot
period for the Plan.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See e.g., NASDAQ Rule 4120.
    \5\ See e.g., NASDAQ Rule 4762.
    \6\ See e.g., NASDAQ Rule 4613.
    \7\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 67091 (May 31,
2012), 77 FR 33498 (June 6, 2012) (File No. 4-631) (Order Approving
the Plan on a Pilot Basis).
    \8\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 67090 (May 31,
2012), 77 FR 33531 (June 6, 2012) (SR-BATS-2011-038; SR-BYX-2011-
025; SR-BX-2011-068; SR-CBOE-2011-087; SR-C2-2011-024; SR-CHX-2011-
30; SR-EDGA-2011-31; SR-EDGX-2011-30; SR-FINRA-2011-054; SR-ISE-
2011-61; SR-NASDAQ-2011-131; SR-NSX-2011-11; SR-NYSE-2011-48; SR-
NYSEAmex-011-73; SR-NYSEArca-2011-68; SR-Phlx-2011-129).

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

    The Plan is designed to prevent trades in individual NMS stocks
from occurring outside of specified Price Bands.\9\ As described more
fully below, the requirements of the Plan are coupled with Trading
Pauses to accommodate more fundamental price moves (as opposed to
erroneous trades or momentary gaps in liquidity). All trading centers
in NMS stocks, including both those operated by Participants and those
operated by members of Participants, are required to establish,
maintain, and enforce written policies and procedures that are
reasonably designed to comply with the requirements specified in the
Plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ Unless otherwise specified, capitalized terms used in this
rule filing are based on the defined terms of the Plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As set forth in more detail in the Plan, Price Bands consisting of
a Lower Price Band and an Upper Price Band for each NMS Stock are
calculated by the Processors.\10\ When the National Best Bid (Offer) is
below (above) the Lower (Upper) Price Band, the Processors shall
disseminate such National Best Bid (Offer) with an appropriate flag
identifying it as unexecutable. When the National Best Bid (Offer) is
equal to the Upper (Lower) Price Band, the Processors shall distribute
such National Best Bid (Offer) with an appropriate flag identifying it
as a Limit State Quotation.\11\ All trading centers in NMS stocks must
maintain written policies and procedures that are reasonably designed
to prevent the display of offers below the Lower Price Band and bids
above the Upper Price Band for NMS stocks. Notwithstanding this
requirement, the Processor shall display an offer below the Lower Price
Band or a bid above the Upper Price Band, but with a flag that it is
non-executable. Such bids or offers shall not be included in the
National Best Bid or National Best Offer calculations.\12\ Trading in
an NMS stock immediately enters a Limit State if the National Best
Offer (Bid) equals but does not cross the Lower (Upper) Price Band.\13\
Trading for an NMS stock exits a Limit State if, within 15 seconds of
entering the Limit State, all Limit State Quotations were executed or
canceled in their entirety. If the market does not exit a Limit State
within 15 seconds, then the Primary Listing Exchange would declare a
five-minute trading pause pursuant to Section VII of the Plan, which
would be applicable to all markets trading the security.\14\ In
addition, the Plan defines a Straddle State as when the National Best
Bid (Offer) is below (above) the Lower (Upper) Price Band and the NMS
stock is not in a Limit State. For example, assume the Lower Price Band
for an NMS Stock is $9.50 and the Upper Price Band is $10.50, such NMS
stock would be in a Straddle State if the National Best Bid were below
$9.50, and therefore unexecutable, and the National Best Offer were
above $9.50 (including a National Best Offer that could be above
$10.50). If an NMS stock is in a Straddle State and trading in that
stock deviates from normal trading characteristics, the Primary Listing
Exchange may declare a trading pause for that NMS stock if such Trading
Pause would support the Plan's goal to address extraordinary market
volatility.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See Section V(A) of the Plan.
    \11\ See Section VI(A) of the Plan.
    \12\ See Section VI(A)(3) of the Plan.
    \13\ See Section VI(B)(1) of the Plan.
    \14\ The primary listing market would declare a Trading Pause in
an NMS stock; upon notification by the primary listing market, the
Processor would disseminate this information to the public. No
trades in that NMS stock could occur during the trading pause, but
all bids and offers may be displayed. See Section VII(A) of the
Plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Proposal
    The Exchange proposes to adopt Chapter V, Section 3(d)(iii) to
provide that the Exchange shall exclude the amount of time an NMS stock
underlying a NOM option is in a Limit State or Straddle State from the
total amount of time in the trading day when calculating the percentage
of the trading day Options Market Makers are required to quote.
    Currently, the quoting requirements appear in Chapter VII, Sections
5 and 6, which generally require that, on a daily basis, a Market Maker
must during regular market hours make markets consistent with the
applicable quoting requirements specified in these rules, on a
continuous basis in at least sixty percent (60%) of the series in
options in which the Market Maker is registered. To satisfy this
requirement with respect to quoting a series, a Market Maker must quote
such series 90% of the trading day (as a percentage of the total number
of minutes in such trading day) or such higher percentage as NASDAQ may
announce in advance.
    The Exchange now proposes to subtract from the total number of
minutes in a trading day the time period for an option when the
underlying NMS stock was in a Limit State or Straddle State. The
Exchange believes that this is appropriate for the same reasons
discussed above, in light of the limited price discovery in the
underlying stock and the direct relationship between an options price
and the price of the underlying security. During a Limit State or
Straddle State, the bid price or offer price of the underlying security
will be unexecutable and the ability to hedge the purchase or sale of
an option will be jeopardized. Recognizing that it may be impossible to
hedge to offset the risk created by trading options, the Exchange
expects that Options Market Makers will, as a result, modify their
quoting behavior. The Exchange believes it is reasonable and
appropriate to exclude this time period, which the Exchange believes
will generally be limited.
    The Exchange has considered waiving its bid/ask differential
requirement (also known as quote spread parameters), but ultimately
determined that those requirements should be maintained in order to
promote liquidity and the operation of a fair and orderly market.
Accordingly, even when the quoting obligation is not in effect, Options
Market Makers who choose to quote must do so within the applicable bid-
ask differentials. The Exchange believes that this should help ensure
the quality of the quotes that are entered and preserves one of the
obligations of being a market maker.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with
the provisions of Section 6 of the Act,\15\ in general, and with
Section 6(b)(5) of the Act,\16\ in particular, which requires that the
rules of an exchange be designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative
acts and practices, promote just and equitable principles of trade,
foster cooperation and coordination with persons engaged in regulating,
clearing, settling, processing information with respect to, and
facilitating transactions in securities, remove impediments to and
perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market
system, and, in general, protect investors and the public interest,
because the Exchange believes that excluding the Limit and Straddle
State from an Options Market Maker's quoting obligation calculation
should promote just and equitable principles of trade by recognizing
the particular risk that arises for liquidity providers who cannot
hedge. Whenever an NMS stock is in a Limit State or Straddle State,
trading continues; however, there will not be a reliable price for a
security to serve as a benchmark for the price of the option.
Accordingly, the Exchange seeks to expressly remove these periods from
consideration in order to enable Options

Market Makers to provide the necessary liquidity and facilitate
transactions on the Exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ 15 U.S.C. 78f.
    \16\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
result in any burden on competition that is not necessary or
appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act, as amended.
Specifically, the proposal does not impose an intra-market burden on
competition, because it will apply to all Participants subject to those
obligations in the same manner. Nor will the proposal impose a burden
on competition among the options exchanges, because, in addition to the
vigorous competition for order flow among the options exchanges, the
proposal addresses a regulatory situation common to all options
exchanges. To the extent that market participants disagree with the
particular approach taken by the Exchange herein, market participants
can easily and readily operate on competing venues. The Exchange
believes this proposal will not impose a burden on competition and will
help provide liquidity during periods of extraordinary volatility in an
NMS stock.

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

    Written comments were neither solicited nor received.

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

    Within 45 days of the date of publication of this notice in the
Federal Register or within such longer period (i) as the Commission may
designate up to 90 days of such date if it finds such longer period to
be appropriate and publishes its reasons for so finding or (ii) as to
which the self-regulatory organization consents, the Commission will:
    (A) By order approve or disapprove such proposed rule change, or
    (B) institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule
change should be disapproved.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and
arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule
change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of
the following methods:

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File No. SR-NASDAQ-2013-043 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 No. SR-NASDAQ-2013-043. 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 No. SR-NASDAQ-2013-043 and should be
submitted on or before March 28, 2013.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2013-05751 Filed 3-12-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P