[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 47 (Thursday, March 10, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 12757-12759]
[FR Doc No: 2016-05327]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-77298; File No. SR-EDGX-2016-14]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; EDGX Exchange, Inc.; Notice of
Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change to Reflect
a Legal Name Change by BATS Global Markets, Inc. and the Legal Names of
Certain Subsidiaries

March 4, 2016.
    Pursuant to section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the ``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given
that on February 26, 2016, EDGX Exchange, Inc. f/k/a EDGX Exchange,
Inc. (the ``Exchange''

or ``EDGX'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I, III
and III below, which Items have been prepared by the Exchange. The
Exchange has designated this proposal as one being concerned solely
with the administration of the Exchange pursuant to section
19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act \3\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(3) thereunder,\4\
which renders the proposal effective upon filing with the Commission.
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.
    \3\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(iii).
    \4\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange is proposing a rule change to amend its rules as well
as certain corporate documents of the Exchange to reflect a legal name
change by the Exchange's ultimate parent entity, BATS Global Markets,
Inc. (the ``Parent'') to Bats Global Markets, Inc., and the legal names
of certain of the Parent's subsidiaries. As a result of this change,
the Exchange also proposes to amend its rules to change its name from
EDGX Exchange, Inc. to Bats EDGX Exchange, Inc. throughout its rules
and corporate documents.
    The text of the proposed rule change is available at the Exchange's
Web site at www.batstrading.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 parts 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, on behalf of its Parent, recently filed to change the
Parent's legal name from ``BATS Global Markets, Inc.'' to ``Bats Global
Markets, Inc.'' \5\ For the purposes of consistency, certain of the
Parent's subsidiaries have also undertaken to change their legal names.
As a result, the Exchange also proposes to change its name from EDGX
Exchange, Inc. to Bats EDGX Exchange, Inc. throughout its rules and
corporate documents (collectively, with the other legal name changes
for Parent and certain of its subsidiaries, the ``name changes'').\6\
Therefore, the Exchange proposes to amend its: (i) Rulebook; (ii) fee
schedules applicable to its equity and options platforms issued
pursuant to Exchange Rules 15.1(a) and (c) (``Fee Schedules''); (iii)
Restated Certificate of Incorporation (``Certificate''); and (iv)
Fourth Amended and Restated Bylaws of the Exchange (``Bylaws'')
(collectively, the ``Operative Documents'') to reflect the name change
and to replace all references to ``BATS'' with ``Bats''.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 77147 (February 16,
2016) (SR-EDGX-2016-04).
    \6\ The Exchange initially filed the proposed fee [sic] change
on February 19, 2016 (SR-BYX-2016-06). On February 26, 2016, the
Exchange withdrew that filing and submitted this filing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange proposes to replace all references to BATS with Bats
throughout the Exchange's Rulebook and Fee Schedules. The Exchange
understands that its affiliated Exchanges also intend to file similar
proposed rule changes with the Commission to amend their exchange
names.\7\ Therefore, the Exchange proposes to amend the following rules
to reflect the name changes, including the expected filings by its
affiliates to amend their names: Rule 1.5 (Definitions), Rule 2.3
(Member Eligibility), Rule 2.10 (Affiliation Between Exchange and a
Member), Rule 2.11 (BATS Trading, Inc. as Outbound Router), Rule 2.12
(BATS Trading, Inc. as Inbound Router), Rule 11.11 (Routing to Away
Trading Centers), Rule 13.4 (Usage of Data Feeds), Rule 13.8 (EDGX Book
Feeds), Rule 13.9 (BATS Connect), Rule 14.2 (Investment Company Units),
Rule 14.8 (Portfolio Depository Receipts), Rule 16.1 (Definitions), and
Rule 21.9 (Order Routing). Throughout these rules, the Exchange
proposes the following changes:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ The Exchange's affiliates are EDGA Exchange, Inc., BATS
Exchange, Inc. and BATS Y-Exchange, Inc. The Exchange understands
that proposed rule changes are to be filed by each of its affiliates
to amend their names as follows: EDGA Exchange, Inc. would be
changed to Bats EDGA Exchange, Inc., BATS Exchange, Inc. would be
amended to Bats BZX Exchange, Inc., and BATS Y-Exchange, Inc. would
be amended to Bats BYX Exchange, Inc.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     All references to ``EDGX Exchange'', ``EDGX EXCHANGE'' and
``EDGX EXCHANGE, Inc.'' are proposed to be changed to ``Bats EDGX
Exchange, Inc.''; \8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ The Exchange does not propose to amend the name of EDGX
Options within its Rulebook and but does propose to amend the title
of its options fee schedule to replace ``BATS'' with ``Bats''.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     All references to ``EDGX'' in Rule 13.8 are proposed to be
changed to ``the Exchange'';
     All references to ``BATS'' are proposed to be changed to
``Bats'';
     All references to the Parent are proposed to be changed to
``Bats Global Markets, Inc.'' (which includes changes from ``BATS'' to
``Bats'' as well as the correction of pre-existing errors in such
references);
     All references to ``BATS Exchange, Inc.'' are proposed to
be changed to ``Bats BZX Exchange, Inc.'';
     All references to ``BATS Y-Exchange, Inc.'' are proposed
to be changed to ``Bats BYX Exchange, Inc.'';
     All references to ``EDGA Exchange, Inc.'' are proposed to
be changed to ``Bats EDGA Exchange, Inc.''
    In addition to these changes, the Exchange proposes to modify its
Fee Schedules to reflect the name change of the Exchange to Bats EDGX
Exchange \9\ and to change all references to ``BATS'' to instead refer
to ``Bats''. The Exchange also proposes on its Fee Schedules to refer
to its affiliates, Bats BZX Exchange, Inc. and Bats BYX Exchange, Inc.
(as each is proposed to be re-named), simply as ``BZX'' and ``BYX'',
respectively. The Exchange believes that this is more consistent with
other references on the Fee Schedules, such as the general references
to ``EDGA'', which refer to the Exchange's affiliate, Bats EDGA
Exchange, Inc. (as proposed to be re-named).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ The Exchange notes that the Exchange will continue to be
referred to as ``EDGX'' in certain areas of the Fee Schedules. These
areas of the Fee Schedules are: (i) The Fee Codes and Associated
Fees table; (ii) footnote 1 under Membership Fees; (iii) Bats
Connect pricing table; and (iv) Unicast Access--Order Entry.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange also proposes to amend Article First of the
Certificate to change the name of the Exchange to Bats EDGX Exchange,
Inc. and make conforming changes throughout, including the title of the
Certificate. The Exchange proposes to amend the Bylaws to amend the
title to reflect that the Bylaws will be titled the ``FIFTH AMENDED AND
RESTATED BYLAWS OF BATS EDGX EXCHANGE, INC.'' The Exchange also
proposes to amend Article I, paragraph (f) and Article XI, section 2 to
reflect the name changes.
    The name change from EDGX Exchange, Inc. to Bats EDGX Exchange,
Inc. is a non-substantive change. No changes to the ownership or
structure of

the Exchange or BATS Global Markets, Inc. have taken place.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with section
6(b) of the Act,\10\ in general, and furthers the objectives of section
6(b)(5) of the Act,\11\ in particular, in that it is designed to
promote just and equitable principles of trade, to remove impediments
to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national
market system, and, in general to protect investors and the public
interest. The Exchange also believes that the proposed rule change is
consistent with section 6(b)(1) of the Act \12\ in that it is designed
to continue to ensure that the Exchange is so organized and has the
capacity to carry out the purposes of Act and to comply, and enforce
compliance by its members with the provisions of the Act and the rules
and regulations thereunder, and rules of the Exchange. The Exchange is
proposing amendments to the Operative Documents to effectuate its name
change to Bats EDGX Exchange, Inc. and to reflect the name changes of
its affiliates. These changes are limited to capitalization and
ministerial name changes and to reflect similar proposed rule changes
to be submitted to the Commission by the Exchange's affiliates. The
Exchange believes that the changes will protect investors and the
public interest by eliminating confusion that may exist because of
differences between its corporate name and the new naming conventions
of the Parent and its subsidiaries, including the Exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 15 U.S.C. 78f.
    \11\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
    \12\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    Because the rule change proposes ministerial changes related to the
administration, and not the governance or operation, of the Exchange,
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.

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

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

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

    Because it is concerned solely with the administration of the
Exchange, the foregoing proposed rule change has become effective
pursuant to section 19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act \13\ and Rule 19b-
4(f)(3) thereunder.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(iii).
    \14\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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: (1)
Necessary or appropriate in the public interest; (2) for the protection
of investors; or (3) otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the
Act. If the Commission takes such action, the Commission shall
institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule should be
approved or disapproved.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-EDGX-2016-14 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-EDGX-2016-14. 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 the 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-EDGX-2016-14, and should be
submitted on or before March 31, 2016.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\15\
Brent J. Fields,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2016-05327 Filed 3-9-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


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

General Comment:Dear Mr. Zeller:

I am writing as an individual consumer to request an extension of the comment period for the Food and Drug Administration's ("FDA") Proposed Rule Deeming Tobacco Products to be Subject to the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, as amended by the Family Smoking and Prevention and Tobacco Control Act (the "Proposed Rule") published at 79 Fed. Reg. 23,142 and Federal Register No. 2014-09491. On behalf of myself, I am requesting that the comment period for the Proposed Rule be extended by the FDA for an additional 105 days, from its current 75-day period, to 180 days.

The Proposed Rule raises a number of significant issues and questions that are important and relevant to me, as a consumer of products that are proposed for regulation under the Proposed Rule. The Proposed Rule asks about a hundred different questions I might want to respond to. I want to provide my thoughts and comments on many of these issues, but my time to devote to researching and providing thoughtful comments on these important questions is limited. I have already spent many hours researching and dissecting these issues, but they take time. I know that the FDA took many years to even come up with the Proposed Rule, so I do not think it is at all unreasonable to allow the public a mere six months to comment on it. This is our only opportunity, as consumers, to provide our feedback.

I feel very strongly about e-cigarettes as an alternative to combustible cigarettes. Quite simply, I firmly believe that they saved my life. I wish to provide you with my personal story, as well as science- and evidence-based responses to your questions so that you can take my comment into account. I realize that the FDA has the authority under 21 CFR 10.40 to extend this time frame and that the FDA has exercised this authority on numerous occasions in the past. I would therefore ask that you do so here, so that all stakeholders have the opportunity to provide their comments on this proposed regulation.

I appreciate your consideration of my request and am happy to discuss this issue with you further. My story is that I have been a smoker for well over 20 years since my first cigarette. I have tried to quit smoking by almost every way possible and none have been as successful as electronic cigarettes. It is hands down much better. I feel better. I can breathe better. Please I do beg of you don't see these products as a step backwards on smoking. See them as devices that truly help people quit smoking combustibles.

Thank you very much.


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 119 (Wednesday, June 20, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 37035-37036]
[FR Doc No: 2012-15038]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 2804-027]

Goose River Hydro, Inc.; Independence Hydro, LLC; Notice of
Application for Transfer of License, and Soliciting Comments and
Motions to Intervene

    On June 6, 2012, Goose River Hydro, Inc. (transferor) and
Independence Hydro, LLC (transferee) filed an application for the
transfer of license for the Goose River Project (FERC No. 2804),
located on the Goose River in Waldo County, Maine.
    Applicants seek Commission approval to transfer the license for the
Goose River Project from the transferor to the transferee.
    Applicants' Contact: Transferor: Ms. Catherine Gleeson, President,
Goose River Hydro, Inc., P.O. Box 402, Belfast, ME 04917, (540) 535-
8137. Transferee: Mr. Clifford Ginn, Manager, Independence Hydro, LLC,
220 Maine Mall Road, South Portland, ME 01406,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    FERC Contact: Patricia W. Gillis<PHONE_NUMBER>,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    Deadline for filing comments and motions to intervene: 30 days from
the issuance date of this notice. Comments and motions to intervene may
be filed electronically via the Internet. See 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1) and
the instructions on the Commission's Web site under http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling.asp. Commenters can submit brief
comments up to 6,000 characters, without prior registration, using the
eComment system at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/ecomment.asp. You
must include your name and contact information at the end of your

comments. If unable to be filed electronically, documents may be paper-
filed. To paper-file, an original plus seven copies should be mailed
to: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission,
888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426. More information about this
project can be viewed or printed on the eLibrary link of Commission's
Web site at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/elibrary.asp. Enter the
docket number (P-2804) in the docket number field to access the
document. For assistance, call toll-free 1-866-208-3372.

    Dated: June 14, 2012.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-15038 Filed 6-19-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: May 30, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 105)]
[Notices]
[Page 31182-31183]
[DOCID:fr30my08-107]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Office of the Secretary

[Docket No. DOT-OST-2007-0108]

National Task Force To Develop Model Contingency Plans To Deal
With Lengthy Airline On-Board Ground Delays

AGENCY: Office of the Secretary (OST), Department of Transportation
(DOT).

ACTION: Notice of meeting of advisory committee.

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

SUMMARY: This notice announces a meeting of the National Task Force to
Develop Model Contingency Plans to Deal with Lengthy Airline On-Board
Ground Delays.

DATES: The Task Force meeting is scheduled for June 16, 2008, from 8:30
a.m. to 5 p.m., Eastern Time.

ADDRESSES: The Task Force meeting will be held at the U.S. Department
of Transportation (U.S. DOT), 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington,
DC, in the Oklahoma City Conference Room on the lobby level of the West
Building.

For Further Information or to Contact the Department Concerning the
Task Force: Livaughn Chapman, Jr., or Kathleen Blank-Riether, Office of
the General Counsel, U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey
Ave., SE., W-96-429, Washington, DC 20590-0001; Phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>;
Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; E-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), 5
U.S.C. App. 2, and the General Services Administration regulations
covering management of Federal advisory committees, 41 CFR part 102-3,
this notice announces a meeting of the National Task Force to Develop
Model Contingency Plans to Deal with Lengthy Airline On-Board Ground
Delays. The Meeting will be held on June 16, 2008, between 8:30 a.m.
and 5 p.m., at the U.S. Department of Transportation (U.S. DOT), 1200
New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC, in the Oklahoma City Conference
Room on the lobby level of the West Building.
    DOT's Office of Inspector General recommended, in its audit report,
entitled ``Actions Needed to Minimize Long, On-Board Flight Delays,''
issued on September 25, 2007, that the Secretary of Transportation
establish a national task force of airlines, airports, and the Federal
Aviation Administration (FAA) to coordinate and develop contingency
plans to deal with lengthy delays, such as working with carriers and
airports to share facilities and make gates available in an emergency.
To effectuate this recommendation, on January 3, 2008, the Department,
consistent with the requirements of the FACA, established the National
Task Force to Develop Model Contingency Plans to Deal with Lengthy
Airline On-Board Ground Delays. The first meeting of the Task Force
took place on February 26, 2008.
    The agenda topics for the June 16, 2008, meeting will include the
following: (1) A briefing by the Contingency Plan Working Group, the
working group that is tasked with reviewing existing airline and
airport contingency plans for extended tarmac delays for best practices
and developing a model contingency plan; and (2) one or more
presentations on recent tarmac delay events and efforts to avoid them.
    Attendance is open to the public, and time will be provided for
comments by members of the public. Since access to the U.S. DOT
headquarters building is controlled for security purposes, any member
of the general public who plans to attend this meeting must notify the
Department contact noted above ten (10) calendar days prior to the
meeting. Attendance will be necessarily limited by the size of the
meeting room.
    Members of the public may present written comments at any time and,
at the discretion of the Chairman and time permitting, oral comments at
the meeting. Any oral comments permitted must be limited to agenda
items and will be limited to five (5) minutes per person. Members of
the public who wish to present oral comments must notify the Department
contact noted above via e-mail that they wish to attend and present
oral comments at least ten (10) calendar days prior to the meeting. For
this June 16, 2008, meeting, no more than one hour will be set aside
for oral comments. Although written material may be filed in the docket
at any time, comments regarding upcoming meeting topics should be sent
to the Task Force docket, (10) calendar days prior to the meeting.
Members of the public may also contact the Department contact noted
above to be placed on the Task Force mailing list.
    Persons with a disability requiring special accommodations, such as
an interpreter for the hearing impaired, should contact the Department
contact noted above at least seven (7) calendar days prior to the
meeting.
    Notice of this meeting is provided in accordance with the FACA and
the General Services Administration regulations covering management of
Federal advisory committees.

    Issued on: May 28, 2008.
Samuel Podberesky,
Assistant General Counsel for Aviation Enforcement & Proceedings, U.S.
Department of Transportation.
 [FR Doc. E8-12237 Filed 5-29-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-9X-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 153 (Thursday, August 8, 2013)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 48291-48292]
[FR Doc No: 2013-18709]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2013-0165; Airspace Docket No. 13-AGL-6]

Amendment of Class D Airspace; Sparta, WI

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This action amends Class D airspace at Sparta, WI. Changes to
the airspace description are necessary due

to the need to exclude active military restricted airspace at Sparta/
Fort McCoy Airport. The FAA is taking this action to enhance the safety
and management of Instrument Flight Rule (IFR) operations at the
airport.

DATES: Effective date: 0901 UTC, October 17, 2013. 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: Scott Enander, Central Service Center,
Operations Support Group, Federal Aviation Administration, Southwest
Region, 2601 Meacham Blvd., Fort Worth, TX 76137; telephone 817-321-
7716.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

History

    On May 1, 2013, the FAA published in the Federal Register a notice
of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend Class D airspace for Sparta/Fort
McCoy Airport (78 FR 25402) Docket No. FAA-2013-0165. Interested
parties were invited to participate in this rulemaking effort by
submitting written comments on the proposal to the FAA. No comments
were received. Class D airspace designations are published in paragraph
5000 of FAA Order 7400.9W dated August 8, 2012, and effective September
15, 2012, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class
D airspace designations listed in this document will be published
subsequently in the Order.

The Rule

    This action amends Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR)
Part 71 by amending Class D airspace at Sparta/Fort McCoy Airport,
Sparta, WI, to reflect the exclusion of that airspace within Restricted
Areas R-6901 A/B. This action enhances the safety and management of IFR
operations at the airport.
    The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an
established body of technical regulations for which frequent and
routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current.
Therefore, this regulation: (1) Is not a ``significant regulatory
action'' under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a ``significant rule''
under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26,
1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation
as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter
that only affects air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is
certified that this rule, when promulgated, does not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the
criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
    The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is
found in Title 49 of the U.S. Code. Subtitle 1, Section 106, describes
the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation
Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority.
This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in
Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the
FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of
airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient
use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority
as it amends controlled airspace at Sparta/Fort McCoy Airport, Sparta,
WI.

Environmental Review

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

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

Adoption of the Amendment

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

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

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

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

Sec.  71.1  [Amended]

0
2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of the Federal
Aviation Administration Order 7400.9W, Airspace Designations and
Reporting Points, dated August 8, 2012, and effective September 15,
2012, is amended as follows:

Paragraph 5000 Class D airspace.

* * * * *

AGL WI D Sparta, WI [Amended]

Sparta, Sparta/Fort McCoy Airport, WI
    (Lat. 43[deg]57'30'' N., long. 90[deg]44'16'' W.)

    That airspace extending upward from the surface to and including
3,300 feet MSL within a 4-mile radius of Sparta/Fort McCoy Airport,
excluding that airspace within Restricted Area R-6901 A/B. This
Class D airspace area is effective during the specific dates and
times established in advance by a Notice to Airmen. The effective
date and time will thereafter be continuously published in the
Airport/Facility Directory.

    Issued in Fort Worth, Texas, on July 19, 2013.
David P. Medina,
Manager, Operations Support Group, ATO Central Service Center.
[FR Doc. 2013-18709 Filed 8-7-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 22 (Wednesday, February 2, 2011)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 5691-5696]
[FR Doc No: 2011-2157]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 180

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2010-0385; FRL-8860-3]

Cyprodinil; Pesticide Tolerances

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This regulation amends tolerances for residues of cyprodinil
in or on fruit, pome, group 11 and apple wet pomace. This regulation
also establishes tolerances for meat byproducts of cattle, goats,
horses and sheep. Syngenta Crop Protection requested these tolerances
under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA).

DATES: This regulation is effective February 2, 2011. Objections and
requests for hearings must be received on or before April 4, 2011, 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: EPA has established a docket for this action under docket
identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2010-0385. All documents in the
docket are listed in the docket index available at http://www.regulations.gov. Although listed in the index, some information is
not publicly available, e.g., Confidential Business Information (CBI)
or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain
other material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the
Internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy form.
Publicly available docket materials are available in the electronic
docket at http://www.regulations.gov, or, if only available in hard
copy, at the OPP Regulatory Public Docket in Rm. S-4400, One Potomac
Yard (South Bldg.), 2777 S. Crystal Dr., Arlington, VA. The Docket
Facility is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday,
excluding legal holidays. The Docket Facility telephone number is (703)
305-5805.

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

I. General Information

A. Does this action apply to me?

    You may be potentially affected by this action if you are an
agricultural producer, food manufacturer, or pesticide manufacturer.
Potentially affected entities may include, but are not limited to those
engaged in the following activities:
     Crop production (NAICS code 111).
     Animal production (NAICS code 112).
     Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311).
     Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532).
    This listing is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather to
provide a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be affected by
this action. Other types of entities not listed in this unit could also
be affected. The North American Industrial Classification System
(NAICS) codes have been provided to assist you and others in
determining whether this action might apply to certain entities. If you
have any questions regarding the applicability of this action to a
particular entity, consult the person listed under FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT.

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

    You may access a frequently updated electronic version of EPA's
tolerance regulations at 40 CFR part 180 through the Government
Printing Office's e-CFR site at http://www.gpoaccess.gov/ecfr.

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

    Under FFDCA section 408(g), 21 U.S.C. 346a, any person may file an
objection to any aspect of this regulation and may also request a
hearing on those objections. You must file your objection or request a
hearing on this regulation in accordance with the instructions provided
in 40 CFR part 178. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, you must identify
docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2010-0385 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
April 4, 2011. 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 that does not contain any 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 a copy of
your non-CBI objection or hearing request, identified by docket ID
number EPA-HQ-OPP-2010-0385, by one of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments.
     Mail: Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP) Regulatory Public
Docket (7502P), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania
Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001.
     Delivery: OPP Regulatory Public Docket (7502P),
Environmental Protection Agency, Rm. S-4400, One Potomac Yard (South
Bldg.), 2777 S. Crystal Dr., Arlington, VA. Deliveries are only
accepted during the Docket Facility's normal hours of operation (8:30
a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays).
Special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed
information. The Docket Facility telephone number is<PHONE_NUMBER>.

II. Summary of Petitioned-For Tolerance

    In the Federal Register of June 8, 2010 (75 FR 32466) (FRL-8827-5),
EPA issued a notice pursuant to section 408(d)(3) of FFDCA, 21 U.S.C.
346a(d)(3), announcing the filing of a pesticide petition (PP 0F7696)
by Syngenta Crop Protection, P.O. Box 18300, Greensboro, NC 27409. The
petition requested that 40 CFR 180.532 be amended by raising tolerances
for residues of the fungicide cyprodinil, in or on fruit, pome, group
11 from 0.1 parts per million (ppm) to 1.7 ppm. That notice referenced
a summary of the petition prepared by Syngenta Crop Protection, the
registrant, which is available in the docket, http://www.regulations.gov. There were no comments received in response to the
notice of filing.
    Based upon review of the data supporting the petition, EPA has
increased the tolerance for apple, wet pomace from 0.15 ppm to 4.6 ppm.
EPA has also established tolerances for meat byproducts of cattle,
goats, horses, and sheep at 0.02 ppm. The reason for this change is
explained in Unit IV.C.

III. Aggregate Risk Assessment and Determination of Safety

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

A. Toxicological Profile

    EPA has evaluated the available toxicity data and considered its
validity, completeness, and reliability as well as the relationship of
the results of the studies to human risk. EPA has also considered
available information concerning the variability of the sensitivities
of major identifiable subgroups of consumers, including infants and
children.
    Cyprodinil has low acute toxicity via the oral, dermal, and
inhalation routes. Cyprodinil is mildly irritating to the eyes and
negligibly irritating to the skin. It is a dermal sensitizer. The major
target organs of cyprodinil are the liver in both rats and mice and the
kidney in rats. Liver effects observed consistently in subchronic and
chronic studies in rats and mice include increased liver weights,
increases in serum clinical chemistry parameters associated with
adverse effects on liver function, hepatocyte hypertrophy, and
hepatocellular necrosis. Adverse kidney effects include tubular lesions
and inflammation following subchronic exposure of male rats. The
hematopoietic system also appeared to be a target of cyprodinil,
causing mild anemia in rats exposed subchronically. Chronic effects in
dogs were limited to decreased body-weight gain, decreased food
consumption and decreased food efficiency. There was no evidence of
increased susceptibility in the developmental rat or rabbit study
following in utero exposure or in the 2-generation reproduction study
following prenatal or postnatal exposure. There was no evidence of
neuropathological or other neurological effects in the available
subchronic neurotoxicity study. The results of a preliminary
immunotoxicity study provided no evidence for immunotoxicity. There was
no evidence of carcinogenic potential in either the rat chronic
toxicity/carcinogenicity or mouse carcinogenicity 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 (LOC) 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 http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/factsheets/riskassess.htm.
    A summary of the toxicological endpoints for cyprodinil used for
human risk assessment is discussed in Unit III.A of the final rule
published in the Federal Register of April 28, 2010 (75 FR 22242) (FRL-
8818-8).

C. Exposure Assessment

    1. Dietary exposure from food and feed uses. In evaluating dietary
exposure to cyprodinil, EPA considered exposure under the petitioned-
for tolerances as well as all existing cyprodinil tolerances in 40 CFR
180.532. EPA assessed dietary exposures from cyprodinil in food as
follows:
    i. Acute exposure. Quantitative acute dietary exposure and risk
assessments are performed for a food-use pesticide, if a toxicological
study has indicated the possibility of an effect of concern occurring
as a result of a 1-day or single exposure. Such effects were identified
for cyprodinil. In estimating acute dietary exposure, EPA used the
Dietary Exposure Evaluation Model-Food Consumption Intake Database
(DEEM-FCIDTM, Version 2.03), which uses food consumption
data from the U. S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Continuing Surveys
of Food Intakes by Individuals (CSFII) from 1994-1996 and 1998. As to
residue levels in food, EPA performed a screening level acute dietary
exposure analysis for the population subgroup females 13 to 49 only. No
acute endpoint was identified for the remaining population subgroups.
Tolerance level residues and 100 percent crop treated (PCT) assumptions
were used. DEEM default and empirical processing factors were used to
modify the tolerance values.
    ii. Chronic exposure. In conducting the chronic dietary exposure
assessment, EPA used the DEEM-FCIDTM, Version 2.03, which
uses food consumption data from the USDA 1994-1996 and 1998 CSFII. A
moderately refined chronic dietary exposure analysis was performed for
the general U.S. population and various population subgroups. Average
field trial residues for pome fruit, tolerance level residues for the
remaining commodities, and 100 PCT assumptions were used. DEEM default
and empirical processing factors were used.
    iii. Cancer. EPA determines whether quantitative cancer exposure
and risk assessments are appropriate for a food-use pesticide based on
the weight of the evidence from cancer studies and other relevant data.
If quantitative cancer risk assessment is appropriate, cancer risk may
be quantified using a linear or non-linear approach. If sufficient
information on the carcinogenic mode of action is available, a
threshold or non-linear approach is used and a cancer RfD is calculated
based on an earlier non-cancer key event. If carcinogenic mode of
action data are not available, or if the mode of action data determine
a mutagenic mode of action, a default linear cancer slope factor
approach is utilized. Data summarized in Table 2 of the document
``Human Health Risk--Cyprodinil Increased Pome Fruit Tolerance'', pp.
24 through 29, in docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2010-0385 at http://www.regulations.gov, showed no evidence of carcinogenic potential in
either the rat chronic toxicity/carcinogenicity or mouse
carcinogenicity studies. EPA therefore concluded that cyprodinil does
not pose a cancer risk to humans. Therefore a dietary exposure
assessment for the purpose of assessing cancer risk is unnecessary.
    iv. Anticipated residue and percent crop treated (PCT) information.
Section 408(b)(2)(E) of FFDCA authorizes EPA to use available data and
information on the anticipated residue levels of pesticide residues in
food and the actual levels of pesticide residues that have been
measured in food. If EPA relies on such information, EPA must require
pursuant to FFDCA section 408(f)(1) that data be provided 5 years after
the tolerance is established, modified, or left in effect,
demonstrating that the levels in food are not above the levels
anticipated. For the present action, EPA will issue such data call-ins
as are required by FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(E) and authorized under
FFDCA section 408(f)(1). Data will be required to be submitted no later
than 5 years from the date of issuance of these tolerances.
    2. Dietary exposure from drinking water. The Agency used screening
level water exposure models in the dietary exposure analysis and risk
assessment for cyprodinil in drinking water. These simulation models
take into account data on the physical, chemical, and fate/transport
characteristics of cyprodinil. Further information regarding EPA
drinking water models used in pesticide exposure assessment can be
found at http://www.epa.gov/oppefed1/models/water/index.htm.
    Based on the Pesticide Root Zone Model/Exposure Analysis Modeling
System (PRZM/EXAMS) and Screening Concentration in Ground Water (SCI-
GROW) models the estimated drinking water concentrations (EDWCs) of
cyprodinil for acute exposures are 34.79 parts per billion (ppb) for
surface water and 0.0861 ppb for ground water and for chronic exposures
for non-cancer assessments are estimated to be 24.65 ppb for surface
water and 0.0861 ppb for ground water.
    Modeled estimates of drinking water concentrations were directly
entered into the dietary exposure model. For acute dietary risk
assessment, the water concentration value of 34.79 ppb was used to
assess the contribution to drinking water. For chronic dietary risk
assessment, the water concentration value of 24.65 ppb was used to
assess the contribution to drinking water.
    3. From non-dietary exposure. The term ``residential exposure'' is
used in this document to refer to non-occupational, non-dietary
exposure (e.g., for lawn and garden pest control, indoor pest control,
termiticides, and flea and tick control on pets). Cyprodinil is not
registered for any specific use patterns that would result in
residential exposure.
    4. Cumulative effects from substances with a common mechanism of
toxicity. Section 408(b)(2)(D)(v) of FFDCA requires that, when
considering whether to establish, modify, or revoke a tolerance, the
Agency consider ``available information'' concerning the cumulative
effects of a particular pesticide's residues and ``other substances
that have a common mechanism of toxicity.''
    EPA has not found cyprodinil to share a common mechanism of
toxicity with any other substances, and cyprodinil does not appear to
produce a toxic metabolite produced by other substances. For the
purposes of this tolerance action, therefore, EPA has assumed that
cyprodinil 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 Web site at

http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/cumulative.

D. Safety Factor for Infants and Children

    1. In general. Section 408(b)(2)(C) of FFDCA provides that EPA
shall apply an additional tenfold (10X) margin of safety for infants
and children in the case of threshold effects to account for prenatal
and postnatal toxicity and the completeness of the database on toxicity
and exposure unless EPA determines based on reliable data that a
different margin of safety will be safe for infants and children. This
additional margin of safety is commonly referred to as the FQPA Safety
Factor (SF). In applying this provision, EPA either retains the default
value of 10X, or uses a different additional safety factor when
reliable data available to EPA support the choice of a different
factor.
    2. Prenatal and postnatal sensitivity. The database is considered
adequate for selection of study endpoints and determination of a dose/
response to characterize the potential prenatal or postnatal toxicity
of cyprodinil to infants and children. No increase in susceptibility
was seen in developmental toxicity studies in rat and rabbit or
reproductive toxicity studies in the rat. Toxicity to offspring was
observed at dose levels the same or greater than those causing maternal
or parental toxicity. Based on the results of developmental and
reproductive toxicity studies, there is not a concern for increased
qualitative and/or quantitative susceptibility following in utero
exposure to cyprodinil.
    3. Conclusion. EPA has determined that reliable data show the
safety of infants and children would be adequately protected if the
FQPA SF were reduced to 1X . That decision is based on the following
findings:
    i. The toxicology database for cyprodinil is largely complete,
missing only the recently-required acute neurotoxicity study and the
functional immunotoxicity study. EPA has determined that an additional
uncertainty factor is not needed to account for the lack of these
studies for the following reasons:
    The functional immunotoxicity study for cyprodinil is not expected
to alter the RfD. A preliminary immunotoxicity study was submitted. The
study did not meet all requirements, but is considered Upgradeable/
Guideline. The registrant must either submit a required Natural Killer
cell activity assay or provide justification that it is not needed.
Otherwise, the results of the preliminary study provided no evidence of
immunotoxicity. Specifically, there were no treatment-related effects
on absolute, adjusted, or relative spleen or thymus weights; no effects
on specific activity or total activity of splenic IgM antibody-forming
cells to the T cell-dependent antigen sRBC. There is no evidence in the
other existing studies that cyprodinil targets the immune system. No
other immunotoxicity studies have been submitted.
    The acute neurotoxicity study is not expected to alter the RfD for
cyprodinil because the available data show no evidence of neurotoxic
potential for cyprodinil. The NOAEL from an acute study is unlikely to
be appreciably lower than the NOAEL of 600 mg/kg/day from the
subchronic neurotoxicity study. Neurotoxicity was not observed in
subchronic neurotoxicity study or the prenatal developmental toxicity
studies in rats and rabbits.
    ii. A developmental neurotoxicity study is not required. As noted,
the available data show no evidence of neurotoxic potential for
cyprodinil.
    iii. There is no evidence that cyprodinil results in increased
susceptibility in in utero rats or rabbits in the prenatal
developmental studies or in young rats in the 2-generation reproduction
study.
    iv. There are no residual uncertainties identified in the exposure
databases. The acute dietary food exposure assessments were performed
based on 100 PCT and tolerance-level residues. The chronic dietary food
exposure assessments were performed based on average field trial
residues for pome fruit, tolerance level residues for the remaining
commodities, and 100 PCT assumptions. EPA made conservative
(protective) assumptions in the ground and surface water modeling used
to assess exposure to cyprodinil in drinking water. These assessments
will not underestimate the exposure and risks posed by cyprodinil.

E. Aggregate Risks and Determination of Safety

    EPA determines whether acute and chronic dietary pesticide
exposures are safe by comparing aggregate exposure estimates to the
acute population adjusted dose (aPAD) and chronic population adjusted
dose (cPAD). For linear cancer risks, EPA calculates the lifetime
probability of acquiring cancer given the estimated aggregate exposure.
Short-, intermediate-, and chronic-term risks are evaluated by
comparing the estimated aggregate food, water, and residential exposure
to the appropriate PODs to ensure that an adequate MOE exists.
    1. Acute risk. Using the exposure assumptions discussed in this
unit for acute exposure, the acute dietary exposure from food and water
to cyprodinil will occupy 4% of the aPAD for females 13 to 49 years
old, the population group receiving the greatest exposure.
    2. Chronic risk. Using the exposure assumptions described in this
unit for chronic exposure, EPA has concluded that chronic exposure to
cyprodinil from food and water will utilize 86% of the cPAD for
children 1 to 2 years old the population group receiving the greatest
exposure.
    3. Aggregate cancer risk for U.S. population. Based on the lack of
evidence of carcinogenicity in two adequate rodent carcinogenicity
studies, cyprodinil is not expected to pose a cancer risk to humans.
    4. Determination of safety. Based on these risk assessments, EPA
concludes that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result
to the general population, or to infants and children from aggregate
exposure to cyprodinil residues.

IV. Other Considerations

A. Analytical Enforcement Methodology

    Adequate High Performance Liquid Chromatography, using ultra-violet
detection (HPLC/UV) methods with column switching (Syngenta Methods AG-
631 and AG-631B) are available for enforcing tolerances of cyprodinil
on plant commodities. The level of quantitation (LOQs) for these
methods range from 0.01 to 0.05 ppm depending on the plant commodities.
Method AG-631B also contains procedures for confirmatory analysis by
gas chromatography with nitrogen phosphorus detection (GC/NPD).
    An adequate HPLC/mass spectrometry method (GRM010.01A) is also
available for enforcing tolerances in livestock commodities. This
method determines residues of both parent and the metabolite CGA-304075
(free and conjugated), expressed as parent. The LOQ is 0.01 ppm for
each analyte for a combined LOQ of 0.02 ppm.
    The method may be requested from: Chief, Analytical Chemistry
Branch, Environmental Science Center, 701 Mapes Rd., Ft. Meade, MD
20755-5350; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail address:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
B. International Residue Limits

    In making its tolerance decisions, EPA seeks to harmonize U.S.
tolerances with international standards whenever possible, consistent
with U.S. food safety standards and agricultural practices. EPA
considers the international maximum residue limits

(MRLs) established by the Codex Alimentarius Commission (Codex), as
required by FFDCA section 408(b)(4). The Codex Alimentarius is a joint
U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization/World Health Organization food
standards program, and it is recognized as an international food safety
standards-setting organization in trade agreements to which the United
States is a party. EPA may establish a tolerance that is different from
a Codex MRL; however, FFDCA section 408(b)(4) requires that EPA explain
the reasons for departing from the Codex level.
    The Codex has established MRLs for residues of cyprodinil in/on
apple (0.05 mg/kg, the LOQ) and pear (1 mg/kg). There is also a
currently established Canadian MRL for residues of cyprodinil in/on
pome fruit (0.1 ppm); but none is established in Mexico. It is not
possible to harmonize with Codex and Canadian MRLs for residues of
cyprodinil in/on pome fruit commodities because the proposed use in the
United States results in residue levels greater than the Codex and
Canadian MRLs due to the shorter preharvest interval in the United
States.

C. Revisions to Petitioned-For Tolerances

    Based on the submitted apple field trial and available apple
processing data, the currently established tolerance for residues of
cyprodinil in apple wet pomace will need to be increased from 0.15 ppm
to 4.6 ppm to cover the proposed amended uses of cyprodinil on pome
fruit. Additionally, the Agency has determined the currently
established 0.02 ppm tolerance level for meat byproducts of cattle,
goats, horses, and sheep are adequate but the currently established
tolerance expression for livestock commodities should be changed to
reflect measurements of both parent and metabolite CGA-304075.

V. Conclusion

    Therefore, tolerances are established for residues of cyprodinil,
in or on pome fruit at 1.7 ppm and in apple wet pomace at 4.6 ppm.
Tolerances are also established for cyprodinil and (free and
conjugated) CGA-304075, expressed in parent equivalents on meat
byproducts of cattle, goats, horses, and sheep at 0.02 ppm.

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    This final rule establishes tolerances under section 408(d) of
FFDCA 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 final rule has been
exempted from review under Executive Order 12866, this final rule 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 final rule 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 section 408(d) of FFDCA, such as the tolerance in
this final rule, do not require the issuance of a proposed rule, the
requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601 et
seq.) do not apply.
    This final rule 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 section 408(n)(4) of FFDCA. 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 final rule. In addition,
this final rule does not impose any enforceable duty or contain any
unfunded mandate as described under Title II of the Unfunded Mandates
Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) (Pub. L. 104-4).
    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 of 1995 (NTTAA), Public Law 104-113, section 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272
note).

VII. Congressional Review Act

    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report to each House of the Congress and to
the Comptroller General of the United States. 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 this final rule in the Federal
Register. This final rule 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: January 24, 2011.
Lois Rossi,
Director, Registration Division, Office of Pesticide Programs.

    Therefore, 40 CFR chapter I is amended 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. Section 180.532 is amended by revising paragraph (a) to read:

Sec.  180.532  Cyprodinil; tolerances for residues.

    (a) General. (1) Tolerances are established for residues of the
fungicide cyprodinil, including its metabolites and degradates, in or
on the commodities in the table below. Compliance with the tolerance
levels specified below is to be determined by measuring only cyprodinil
4-cyclopropyl-6-methyl-N-phenyl-2-pyrimidinamine.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Parts per
                         Commodity                             million
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Almond.....................................................         0.02
Almond, hulls..............................................         8.0
Apple, wet pomace..........................................         4.6
Avocado....................................................         1.2
Bean, dry..................................................         0.6
Bean, succulent............................................         0.6
Brassica, head and stem, subgroup 5A.......................         1.0
Brassica, leafy greens, subgroup 5B........................        10.0

Bushberry subgroup 13B.....................................         3.0
Caneberry subgroup 13A.....................................        10
Canistel...................................................         1.2
Canola, seed \1\...........................................         0.03
Citrus, dried pulp.........................................         8.0
Citrus, oil................................................       340
Fruit, pome................................................         1.7
Fruit, stone...............................................         2.0
Grape......................................................         2.0
Grape, raisin..............................................         3.0
Herb subgroup 19A, dried, except parsley...................        15.0
Herb subgroup 19A, fresh, except parsley...................         3.0
Juneberry..................................................         3.0
Kiwifruit..................................................         1.8
Leafy greens subgroup 4A, except spinach 35................        30
Lemon......................................................         0.60
Lime.......................................................         0.60
Lingonberry................................................         3.0
Longan.....................................................         2.0
Lychee.....................................................         2.0
Mango......................................................         1.2
Onion, bulb................................................         0.60
Onion, green...............................................         4.0
Papaya.....................................................         1.2
Parsley, dried leaves......................................       170
Parsley, leaves............................................        35
Pistachio..................................................         0.10
Pulasan....................................................         2.0
Rambutan...................................................         2.0
Salal......................................................         3.0
Sapodilla..................................................         1.2
Sapote, black..............................................         1.2
Sapote, mamey..............................................         1.2
Spanish lime...............................................         2.0
Star apple.................................................         1.2
Strawberry.................................................         5.0
Tomatillo..................................................         0.45
Tomato.....................................................         0.45
Tomato, paste..............................................         1.0
Turnip, greens.............................................        10.0
Vegetable, cucurbit, group 9...............................         0.70
Vegetable, leaves of root and tuber, group 2...............        10
Vegetable, root, except sugarbeet, subgroup 1B 41..........         0.75
Watercress.................................................        20
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Import only.

    (2) Tolerances are established for residues of the fungicide
cyprodinil, including its metabolites and degradates, in the
commodities in the table below. Compliance with the tolerance levels
specified below is to be determined by measuring only the sum of
cyprodinil 4-cyclopropyl-6-methyl-N-phenyl-2-pyrimidinamine and free
and conjugated CGA-304075 4-(4-cyclopropyl-6-methyl-pyrimidin-2-
ylamino)-phenol, calculated as the stoichiometric equivalent of
cyprodinil.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                               Parts per
                          Commodity                             million
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cattle, meat byproducts.....................................        0.02
Goat, meat byproducts.......................................        0.02
Horse, meat byproducts......................................        0.02
Sheep, meat byproducts......................................        0.02
------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *

[FR Doc. 2011-2157 Filed 2-1-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 28 (Thursday, February 11, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 7386-7389]
[FR Doc No: 2016-02733]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-77069; File No. SR-BATS-2016-07]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; BATS Exchange, Inc.; Notice of
Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To Amend
Chapter XXI of BZX Options To Further Align the Rules With Those of
EDGX Options

February 5, 2016.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the ``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given
that on January 27, 2016, BATS Exchange, Inc. (the ``Exchange'' or
``BATS'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I and
II below, which Items have been prepared by the Exchange. The Exchange
has designated this proposal as a ``non-controversial'' proposed rule
change pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \3\ and Rule 19b-
4(f)(6)(iii) thereunder,\4\ which renders it effective upon filing with
the Commission. 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.
    \3\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \4\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii).

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

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

    The Exchange filed a proposal for the BATS Options Market (``BATS
Options'' or ``BZX Options'') to amend various rules contained in
Chapter XXI in order to further improve such rules and to align such
rules with the rules applicable to the Exchange's affiliated options
platform operated by EDGX Exchange, Inc. (``EDGX Options'').
    The text of the proposed rule change is available at the Exchange's
Web site at www.batstrading.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 parts of such
statements.

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to amend various BZX Options Rules contained
in Chapter XXI in order to further improve such rules and to align such
rules with the rules applicable to EDGX Options, the Exchange's
affiliated options platform. EDGX Options recently launched after
receiving approval in August of 2015.\5\ In connection with the
creation of EDGX Options as well as in connection with rule
clarifications filed by the Exchange with respect to the Exchange's
equity securities trading platform (``BZX Equities''),\6\ the Exchange
has identified various BZX Options rules that could be improved or
clarified. In addition, to the extent possible, the Exchange wishes to
maintain identical rules with its affiliated trading platforms in order
to avoid potential confusion by participants on the Exchange and such
affiliated trading platforms. Each of the changes proposed below is
consistent with these objectives and is intended to clarify and to
include additional specificity regarding the current functionality of
the Exchange's System,\7\ including the descriptions of BZX Options
order types and order instructions, as further described below. None of
the changes proposed below represents a proposed change to the
operation of BZX Options.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 75650 (August 7,
2015), 80 FR 48600 (August 13, 2015) (SR-EDGX-2015-18).
    \6\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 74738 (April 16,
2015), 80 FR 22600 (April 22, 2015) (SR-BATS-2015-09).
    \7\ Exchange Rule 16.1(59) defines ``System'' as ``the automated
trading system used by BATS Options for the trading of options
contracts.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Proposed Changes to Terminology
    The Exchange proposes the following terminology changes that are
applicable to one or more rules within Chapter XXI applicable to BZX
Options:
     The Exchange proposes to re-name ``BATS Only Orders'',
which are not routable away from the Exchange, as ``Book Only Orders.''
     The Exchange proposes to re-name ``BATS Post Only
Orders'', which do not remove liquidity from the Exchange, as ``Post
Only Orders.''
     The Exchange proposes to refer to other ``options
exchanges'' rather than other ``trading centers.''
     The Exchange proposes to refer to ``contracts'' rather
than ``shares.''
Proposed Changes to Order Type Modifiers and Routing Instructions
    Rule 21.1 sets forth numerous definitions applicable to the
operation of the BZX Options System, primarily the order types and
order type modifiers accepted by BZX Options. Rule 21.9 describes the
process for routing orders away from BZX Options. The Exchange proposes
the following changes to Rules 21.1 and 21.9:
     Attributable and Non-Attributable Orders. The Exchange
proposes to state in Rule 21.1(a)(3) that the Exchange's data feed can
be used to display orders with or without attribution. The Exchange
also proposes to state in Rule 21.1(c) that the default treatment on
BZX Options is that an order is a Non-Attributable Order unless the
User directs otherwise. This is the opposite of EDGX Options and
represents an example of a difference between the rules of BZX Options
and EDGX Options that the Exchange currently intends to maintain.
Finally, the Exchange proposes to make minor formatting and structural
changes to conform to EDGX Options Rule 21.1(c). These changes will
conform BZX Options Rules 21.1(a)(3) and 21.1(c) to EDGX Options Rules
21.1(a)(3) and 21.1(c).
     Price Improving Orders. The Exchange proposes to remove
duplicative language from the definition of Price Improving Orders in
Rule 21.1(d)(6). First, because all orders are displayed on BZX
Options, the Exchange proposes to remove reference to orders ``that are
available for display.'' Second, because the display-price sliding
process described in Rule 21.1(h) describes the process by which orders
are displayed at the applicable minimum price variation and the
description of Price Improving Orders cross-references Rule 21.1(h),
the Exchange proposes to remove language stating that Price Improving
orders are ``rounded to the minimum price variation.'' These changes
will conform BZX Options Rule 21.1(d)(6) to EDGX Options Rule
21.1(d)(6).
     Destination Specific Orders, Directed ISOs and Parallel T.
Both Destination Specific Orders and Directed ISOs, described in Rule
21.1(d)(7) and 21.1(d)(12), respectively, are routing instructions
rather than order types or order type modifiers. Accordingly, to
conform BZX Options Rules to the structure of Exchange Rules 11.9 and
11.13, applicable to BZX Equities, as well as EDGX Options Rules 21.1
and 21.9, the Exchange proposes to re-locate these rules in Rules
21.9(a)(2)(C) and 21.9(a)(2)(D), applicable to routing away from BZX
Options. The Exchange also proposes to re-number the remainder of Rule
21.1(d) and to modify cross-references contained in other portions of
Chapter XXI in connection with this change. These changes will conform
BZX Options Rule 21.1(d) to EDGX Options Rule 21.1(d).
    As noted above, the Exchange proposes to re-locate the descriptions
of Destination Specific Orders and Directed ISOs to Rule 21.9, which
governs routing from BZX Options. The Exchange also proposes stylistic
changes to conform the descriptions of these routing strategies with
other routing strategies described in Rule 21.9(a)(2). Further, the
Exchange proposes to eliminate reference to an obsolete routing option,
Parallel T, which is set forth in Rule 21.9(a)(2)(D) and is not offered
on BZX Options (or EDGX Options).\8\ Finally, the Exchange

proposes to eliminate current Rule 21.9(a)(2)(E), which is simply a
cross-reference reflecting the fact that these routing strategies used
to be contained within Rule 21.1; to move the Parallel D routing
strategy to Rule 21.9(a)(2)(A), which is simply a paragraph that had
been reserved for future use due to the prior elimination of a routing
strategy; and to re-number all other routing strategies accordingly.
These changes will conform BZX Options Rule 21.9(a)(2) to EDGX Options
Rule 21.9(a)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ The Exchange notes that it adopted rules describing the
Parallel T routing strategy along with several other routing
strategies based the routing rules for BZX Equities. However, the
Exchange never implemented or offered the Parallel T routing
strategy for BZX Options. See Securities Exchange Act Release No.
63090 (October 13, 2010), 75 FR 64387 (October 19, 2010) (Notice of
Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change by BATS
Exchange, Inc. To Amend BATS Rule 21.9, Entitled ``Order Routing'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Routable Orders With Time in Force of Immediate-or-Cancel
or Fill-or-Kill. The Exchange proposes to modify Rule 21.1(f)(2) to
update the description of the Time in Force (``TIF'') of Immediate Or
Cancel (``IOC'') to make clear that orders with a TIF of IOC are
routable even though such TIF indicates an instruction to execute an
order immediately in whole or in part and/or cancel it back. Under
current rules, the TIF of IOC indicates that an order is to be executed
in whole or in part as soon as such order is received and the portion
not executed is to be cancelled. The Exchange proposes to expand upon
the description of IOC to specify that an order with such TIF may be
routed away from the Exchange but that in no event will an order with
such TIF be posted to the BATS Options Book. The Exchange notes that
IOC orders routed away from the Exchange are in turn routed as IOC
orders. The Exchange also notes that current Rule 21.9 already includes
reference to routable IOCs, and the proposed modifications to the rule
text are intended to add further specificity that IOCs are routable.
    In addition to the change described above, the Exchange proposes to
make clear in Rule 21.1(f)(5) that an order with a TIF of FOK is not
eligible for routing. Although orders with a TIF of FOK are generally
treated the same as IOCs, the Exchange does not permit routing of
orders with a FOK because the Exchange is unable to ensure the
instruction of FOK (i.e., execution of an order in its entirety)
through the routing process.
    Finally, in connection with these changes, the Exchange also
proposes to modify current Rule 21.9(a)(1) to add the cancellation of
an unfilled balance of an order as one possible outcome after an order
has been routed away. Rule 21.9(a)(1) currently describes other
variations of how the Exchange handles an order after it has been
routed away, but does not specifically state that it may be cancelled
after the routing process, which would be the case with an order
submitted to the Exchange with a TIF of IOC. The Exchange also proposes
to re-number the remainder of Rule 21.9(a)(1) accordingly and to
eliminate current Rule 21.9(a)(1)(D), which is duplicative to Rule
21.9(a)(1)(C). Finally, the Exchange proposes to number certain un-
numbered text at the end of Rule 21.9(a)(1) as Rule 21.9(a)(1)(E).
These changes will conform BZX Options Rules 21.9(f) and 21.9(a)(1) to
EDGX Options Rules 21.9(f) and 21.9(a)(1).
Proposed Changes to Priority Rule and Related Routing Rule
    The Exchange proposes two changes applicable to the priority of
orders on BZX Options.
     First, the Exchange proposes to adopt new paragraph (d) to
Rule 21.8, which recognizes existing match trade prevention rules that
optionally prevent the execution of orders from the same User (i.e.,
based on the User's ``Unique Identifier'', as set forth in Rule
21.1(g)) by stating that in such a case the System will not permit such
orders to execute against one another regardless of priority ranking.
Proposed BZX Options Rule 21.8(d) is based on and identical to EDGX
Options Rule 21.8(k).
     Second, the Exchange proposes to modify existing paragraph
(b) of Rule 21.9 to clarify the Exchange's rule regarding the priority
of routed orders. Paragraph (b) currently sets forth the proposition
that a routed order does not retain priority on the Exchange while it
is being routed to other markets. The Exchange believes that its
proposed clarification to paragraph (b) is appropriate because it more
clearly states that a routed order is not ranked and maintained in the
BATS Options Book pursuant to Rule 21.8, and therefore is not available
to execute against incoming orders. These changes will conform BZX
Options Rule 21.8(b) to EDGX Options Rule 21.8(b).
Proposed Changes to Other Rules Within Chapter XXI
    In addition to the changes proposed above, the Exchange proposes to
make the following changes:
     Rephrasing language within Rule 21.2 to avoid use of the
phrase ``BATS Options options.''
     Adding reference to the price adjust process, as defined
in Rule 21.1(i), to Rule 21.6(f) and Rule 21.9(a)(1)(B) where there are
currently already references to the display-price sliding process.
     Adding the term intra-day to Rule 21.10 when referring to
anonymous transaction reports because participants do learn the
identity of contra-parties in connection with the clearance and
settlement of transactions.
    Adding a new paragraph (a) to Rule 21.15 based on EDGX Options Rule
21.15(a). The new paragraph simply reflects the regulations already
applicable to the Exchange by stating that the Exchange will
disseminate to quotation vendors the highest bid and the lowest offer,
and the aggregate quotation size associated therewith that is
available, in accordance with the requirements of Rule 602 of
Regulation NMS under the Exchange Act. In accordance with this change,
the Exchange proposes to re-name the rule as ``Data Dissemination.''
The Exchange also proposes to add a new paragraph title within the
Rule, ``Exchange Data Products'', to describe the existing rule text,
and to re-number the existing rule text of Rule 21.15.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section
6(b) of the Act \9\ in general, and furthers the objectives of Section
6(b)(5) of the Act \10\ in particular, in that it is designed to
promote just and equitable principles of trade, to remove impediments
to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national
market system, and, in general to protect investors and the public
interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \10\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed rule changes are generally intended to better align
certain Exchange rules with the rules of EDGX Options (as well as BZX
Equities) in order to provide a consistent description of functionality
across the Exchange and its affiliates. Consistent descriptions of
functionality between the Exchange and EDGX Options will reduce
complexity and help to avoid potential confusion by Users of the
Exchange that are also participants on EDGX Options. The proposed rule
changes do not propose to implement new or unique functionality that
has not been previously filed with the Commission or is not available
on BZX Options already. The Exchange notes that the proposed rule text
is based on applicable EDGX Options Rules; the proposed language of the
Exchange's Rules differs only to extent necessary to conform to
existing Exchange rule text. The Exchange believes the proposed changes
will increase the understanding of the Exchange's operations for all
Members of the Exchange. Where possible, the Exchange has mirrored EDGX
Options rules verbatim, because consistent rules will simplify the
regulatory

requirements and increase the understanding of the Exchange's
operations for Members of the Exchange that are also participants on
EDGX Options. As such, the proposed rule change would foster
cooperation and coordination with persons engaged in facilitating
transactions in securities and would remove impediments to and perfect
the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system.

(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 that is not necessary or appropriate
in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The Exchange notes that the
proposal will provide consistent descriptions of functionality between
the BZX Options and EDGX Options, thereby reducing complexity and
providing improvements to rules to avoid potential confusion by Users
of the Exchange that are also participants on EDGX Options. As noted
elsewhere in the proposal, the Exchange is not proposing any
substantive changes to the System. Thus, the Exchange does not believe
the proposal creates any significant impact on competition.

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

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

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

    The Exchange has filed the proposed rule change pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act \11\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder.\12\
Because the proposed rule change does not: (i) Significantly affect the
protection of investors or the public interest; (ii) impose any
significant burden on competition; and (iii) become operative for 30
days from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as the
Commission may designate, the proposed rule change has become effective
pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act and Rule 19b-4(f)(6)
thereunder.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(iii).
    \12\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
    \13\ In addition, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii) requires the Exchange to
give the Commission written notice of the Exchange's intent to file
the proposed rule change, along with a brief description and text of
the proposed rule change, at least five business days prior to the
date of filing of the proposed rule change, or such shorter time as
designated by the Commission. The Exchange has satisfied this
requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A proposed rule change filed under Rule 19b-4(f)(6) normally does
not become operative for 30 days after the date of filing. However,
Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii) permits the Commission to designate a shorter
time if such action is consistent with the protection of investors and
the public interest. The Exchange has asked the Commission to waive the
30-day operative delay so that the proposal may become operative
immediately upon filing. The Commission believes that waiver of the 30-
day operative delay would provide immediate clarity to the Exchange's
rules described above. Because the proposal would provide consistent
descriptions of the same functionality on BZX Options and EDGX Options,
the Commission believes that the proposal could avoid potential
confusion by users of the Exchange that are also participants on EDGX
Options. Based on the foregoing, the Commission believes that waiving
the 30-day operative delay is consistent with the protection of
investors and the public interest.\14\ The Commission hereby grants the
Exchange's request and designates the proposal operative upon filing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ For purposes only of waiving the 30-day operative delay,
the Commission has also considered the proposed rule's impact on
efficiency, competition, and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C.
78c(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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.

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-BATS-2016-07 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-BATS-2016-07. 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 the 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-SR-BATS-2016-07 and should
be submitted on or before March 3, 2016.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Brent J. Fields,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2016-02733 Filed 2-10-16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P