Standard Data Elements for Per information ( Draft) 05/ 06/ 2003 The Environmental Data Standards Council ( EDSC) chartered a Permitting Data Standard Action Team late in 2000 to identify and define the major areas of permitting information, and be used for the excha cking data believed to be of the original Action Team to create a permitting standard that did not iled program specific information, and that if the need arose, standardization of program specific data w standards or through the deve exchange partners. The need subsequently arose and prior to developing program specific permitting data standards, the EDSC charged a new action team ( Permitting II) in September 2002 with the task of broadening the existing Permitting Data Standard to include any rmation that is useful to multiple programs in order to avoid capturing similar information in more than one standard. omplished via the development of program specific nt of Data Exchange Templates between information The Permitting I1 Action Team has identified additional areas of permit related information that it believes to be of common interest to multiple programs. These additional areas include the data blocks , Facility/ Feature Characteristics , Permit Condition, Reporting Condition, Monitoring Condition, and Control Methodology. These data blocks and a few additional data elements have been added to the original Permitting Data Standard to form the expanded draft data standard that follows.

As with the previous Standard, the expanded draft Permitting Data Standard has a number of associations with existing data standards. Environmental business areas are typically inter related ( e. g. , facilities have permits, agencies take enforcement actions against organizations who own facilities and have permits) and in order to express these relationships, data elements and in some cases data blocks from other standards will need to be incorporated to complete an exchange of information for a particular area. Rather than reinvent or duplicate the content of existing standards, the Team has identified cases where portions of other data standards should be used to complete associations among data elements within data blocks.

The original Permitting Data Standard contained a definition of " permit. " The Permitting I1 Action Team identified some aspects of the original definition that it believes are distinct and should not be included within a single definition. A revised definition follows. A " permit" is an authorization, license, or control document used to implement the requirements of a regulation. A permit may be issued to an individual or an organization and typically specifies pollutant limits or operating procedures. A pernit m y be uniquely identified by the combination of three data elements: 1) Permit NumbedIdentifier, 2) Name of Issuing 1 Organization, and 3) Permit Type.

Other Permit NumbedIdentifier data blocks and data elements that comprise the expanded and does not represent a mandatory list of required elements and its partners.

Other alphanumeric identifiers used to tion information about the permit and the organization responsible for issuing or A permittee may be associated with Facility Site Name, Facility Owner/ Operator ( a permissible value for Affi iation Type), Facility Registry Identifier, and State Facility Identifier. A permit name may be associated with Environmental Interest Type. A facility may have one or more permits. ss one or more regulated substances ( Chemical Identification and/ or Biological A permit may be related to another permit ( e. g., an individual permitted facility may be related to an A permit may have one or more permitted features. A permit may be associated with one or more data elements of administrative information ( multiple A permit may be associated with one or more permitting contacts. A number of contact related data elements exist in the Contact Data Standard and should be used as overarching General Permit).

dates may create history).

needed to identify entities and their affiliation such as; Permittee Name of Issuing Organization Organization Type Permitted Entity Contact Full Name 0  1  2  3  ' ermitted Entity Cont Permit Name Permit NurnbedIdentifier : t information ( e. g., mailir The name assigned to the permit by a permit issuing/ granting organization to identify a permit or permit application.

The alphanumeric identifier assigned to the permit by a permit issuing/ granting organization to identify a permit or permit amlication. address, phone number, etc. ( e. g., Dupont Chamberworks RCRA Treatment Permit). This data element may be associated to Environmental Interest Type in the USEPA Facility Registry System. ( e. g., 51432)

2 Alphanumeric ( 120)

Alphanumeric ( 30)

Alphanumeric ( 30) Draft Permitting Data Standard I Data Element Name Other Permit NumberAdentifier Context Program Name Permit Type Data Element Defiitioi identify a permit or The type of permit issued or granted to a regulated entity. Notes ( e. g., authorization ID= by PA DEP for tracking)

The following are representative samples of permissible values:

Air Quality Water QualityINPDES Hazardous Was te/ RCRA Underground Injection Solid Waste Mining The following is a representative sample of permissible values for Federal and State environmental permit programs. Permissible values are specific to program name. Control ( UIC)

NPDES Major nonmunicipal  individual NPDES Minor nonmunicipal  individual NPDES Major municipal

NPDES Minor municipal

WDES General permit VPDES General permit coverage  individual facility, major VPDES General permit coverage  individual facility, minor ' JPDES No exposure Certification WRA Part A KRA Part B UR General iIR Title IV ( acid rain) UR Title V individual individual 3 I Format Alphanumeric ( 40)

Alphanumeric ( 120) , 1 Draft Permitting Data Standard Data Element Name Data Element Definition Notes Format AIR Synthetic Minor AIR Minor UIC Construction Land Fill Land Fill Station Application MINING Coal Mining Surface Mining Permit MINING Coal Mining Operators License MINING Industrial Minerals Mining SOLID WASTE Industrial SOLID WASTE Transfer SOLID WASTE Land 1 Permitted Feature Definition: Information about the permitted feature of a permit. A permitted feature is a unit, physical structure, feature, or process described in a permit. Relationships: A permitted feature may be associated with one or more data elements of administrative information. A permitted feature identifier may be associated with one of more permitted feature types. A permitted feature may address one or more regulated substances ( Chemical Identification and/ or Biological Taxonomy Data Standards.) 7 Permitted Feature The alphanumeric ( e. g . , Smith Furnace AV) . Alphanumeric Identifier identifier or name This data element may be ( 40) assigned by a permit issuing organization to identify a permitted unit, feature, or process. used multiple times to describe multiple features. Each feature identified name should be associated to at least one feature type ( See item # 12).  8 Permitted Feature The type of permitted Permissible values may Alphanumeric Type unit, feature, or process include: ( 40) represented by an identifier. External outfall Internal outfall Lagoon Land application site Incinerator Stack Pumping station Monitoring well 4 I Draft Permitting Data Standard 10 Operating Status Permitted Feature Start Date  11 ,

Permitted Feature End Date I Permit Administration zition: Administrative Permit/ Permitted Feature Administrative or Legal Status Data Element Definition The name of the category describing the operating status of a permitted unit.

' he calendar date that the iperating status of a iermitted feature takes ffect. ' he calendar date that the iperating status of a iermitted feature. is no anger in effect.

nformation about the pern The administrative or legal status of a permit or permitted feature.

5 Notes Perc pond Landfill Surface impoundment Waste pile Tank Container Boiler and industrial furnace Permissible values may include :

Proposed Under construction Constructed, but not yet Active/ Operating Inactive Clean/ Closed Closed in place Not constructed Operating Operating, but not discharging Not operating Seasonal shut down Temporary shut down ' active Format Alphanumeric ( 40)

Dt8) YYYYMMDD Source: Date DS D( 8) YYYYMMDD Source: Date DS I Pending Appealed Denied Active Inactive Expired Extended Withdrawn 19 facility/ feature is designed to or actually accommodates, or produces. Facility/ Feature The descriptive name of Example values may include: Alphanumeric Sewage Pollutant Chemical BiologicaI Product Nylon Characteristic Name I ] Heat InDut the item that the ( 40)

I ; acility/ Feature lharacteristic Text The description of the ( e. g., removal of pollutants capability or function that from municipal wastewater) the facility/ feature is designed to or actually accommodates, or Droduces . I* I ; acility/ Feature lThe name that describes le. g., of permissible values Uphanumeric 120)

Uphanumeric ,

6 I Draft Permitting Data Standard 25 Name characteristic represents. Potential Flow Production Amount measure value was Methodology Type The type of process and/ or e. g., of permissible values tool designed or used to include: Numeric ( 8) Source: PCS: Measurement/ Violation Quanti0 manage storage, disposal, treatment, and other handling protocols. Maximum Alphanumeric Incineration Disposal ( 10) Source: RWQRCMA DS: Result Value Unit of Measure 26 Alphanumeric ( 30)

Methodology Description process and/ or tools that provide extensive detail to The text that describes the This field allows the user to I derived. 1 Average Control Methodology Definition: A process and/ or tools to manage storage, disposal, treatment, and other handling protocol! lesigned for and/ or used. Relationships:

manage storage, disposal, treatment, and other handling protocols designed for and/ or used. describe the methodology used beyond that provided by Methodology Type ( e. g., equipment manufacturer, make, model, location Alphanumeric ( 30)

Alphanumeric ldescription, . etc. ,) Permit Condition 3e$ nition: The requirement applied to the facility, entity, or feature. Conditions could be imit/ numeric, scheduleldate, or descriptive requirements. Pelationships: A permit condition is associated with a Permit NumberAdentifier.

7 34 35 36 activates a requirement. Numeric Condition The numeric value that Numeric ( 8) Quantity represents the limitation Source: PCS: being placed on a Measurement/ parameter for a feature. Violation Quantity Maximum Numeric Condition Unit The name of the e. g., of permissible values Alphanumeric of Measure Name determinate quantity for a include: ( 10) standard of measurement Source: used for measuring dimension, capacity, or amount of the numeric condition. units per milliliter The name of the statistical e. g., of permissible values  pg/ L  Micrograms per liter RWQRCMA DS:  pCi/ L  Pico Curies per Iiter & sult value Unit  CFU/ ml  Colony forming Of Measure Numeric Condition Alphanumeric include:

A reporting condition may be associated with one or more 38 Report Recipient Name The name of the entity or entities directed by the permit or regulations to receive the report.

39 Reporting Frequency The frequency with which the report is required to be submitted to the report recipient.

40 Report Due Date The date that the report is due to the report recipient. The actual date the report was received by the report recipient. The unique tracking number or name assigned by a system or program that identifies the report. 41 Report Received Date 42 Report Identifier Monitoring Condition I   Reporting Condition Definition: Administrative information associated with submission or reporting requirements. Relationshim: permit conditions.

e. g., of permissible values include:

Annually Quarterly Monthly Daily e. g., of permissible values include:

4" Quarterly Report 20030714A Alphanumeric Source: Facility DS & Contact DS: Organization Formal Name Alphanumeric D( 8) YYYYMMDD Source: Date DS D( 8) YYYYMMDD Source: Date DS Alphanumeric ( 30)

Definition: Administrative information that describes the monitoring requirements. Relationships: A monitoring condition may be associated with one or more permit conditions. Note: This data block is intended to capture monitoring activities required by a permit such as a description of the monitoring site, its location, monitoring frequency, the method used to collect a sample, or the reference number of the analytical method used. Where they exist, data elements from other final data standards are referenced for use as needed.

9 I Draft Permitting Data Standard  1 The standard data element Analytical Method Number from the Reporting Water Quality Results for to be conducted at the site Semi annually Yearly Bi annual Tri annual No reporting requirements Sources used for data element data types and lengths:

0 0 0 0 AIRWAQS: Aerometric Information Retrieval System ( AIRS)/ Air Quality Subsystem ( AQS) Contact DS: Environmental Data Standards Council ( EDSC) Contact Information Data Standard E/ C DS: EDSC Enforcement/ Compliance Data Standard Facility DS: EDSC Facility Identification Data Standard RWQRCMA DS: EDSC Reporting Water Quality Results for Chemical and Microbiological Date DS: EDSC Date Data Standard PCS: Permit Compliance System 0 0 Analytes Data Standard


[Federal Register: December 7, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 233)]
[Notices]
[Page 64110-64112]
[DOCID:fr07de09-936]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-61073; File No. SR-BX-2009-075]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NASDAQ OMX BX; Notice of Filing
and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To Clarify the
Definition of Material Changes in Business Operations Found in the
Membership Rules and To Make a Technical Correction

November 30, 2009.

    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 November 23, 2009, NASDAQ OMX BX, Inc. (``BX'') 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 BX. BX has designated the proposed rule change as
constituting a non-controversial rule change under Rule 19b-4(f)(6)
under the Act,\3\ 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\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    BX proposes to amend Rule 1011(g)(2) to clarify the definition of
what BX considers a ``material change in business operations,'' and to
delete a superfluous ``and'' from the rule text.
    The text of the proposed rule change is below. Proposed new
language is in italics and proposed deletions are in brackets.

1011. Definitions

    Unless otherwise provided, terms used in the Rule 1000 Series shall
have the meaning as defined in Rule 0120.
    (a)-(f) No change.
    (g) ``material change in business operations''
    The term ``material change in business operations'' includes, but
is not limited to:
    (1) removing or modifying a membership agreement restriction;
    (2)(A) [market making, underwriting, or ] acting as a dealer for
the first time; or
    (B) market making for the first time on NASDAQ OMX BX; provided,
however, that market making for the first time on NASADQ OMX BX will
not be considered a material change in business operations if the
member's market making has previously been approved by FINRA under NASD
Rule 1017 or NASDAQ under NASDAQ Rule 1017; [and]
    (3) adding business activities that require a higher minimum net
capital under SEC Rule 15c3-1; and
    (4) adding business activities that would cause a proprietary
trading firm no longer to meet the definition of that term contained in
this rule.
    (h)-(o) 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, BX 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. BX has prepared summaries, set forth in Sections A, B,
and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.

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

1. Purpose
    BX is proposing to amend Rule 1011(g)(2) to clarify its
applicability. Rule 1011(g) defines what BX considers a ``material
change in business operations.'' Pursuant to Rule 1017(a)(5), a member
must file an application for approval of any material change in its
business operations with BX. Rule 1011(g)(2) includes ``market making,
underwriting, or acting as a dealer for the first time'' within the
definition of ``material change in business operations.'' Rule
1011(g)(2) is intended to require BX members to undergo an assessment
and obtain approval pursuant to Rule 1017 if they intend to expand
their business operations to include market making, underwriting, or
acting as a dealer. The definition found in Rule 1011(g)(2) could,
however, also be interpreted to include engaging in market making for
the first time on a market other than BX, notwithstanding that BX has
no regulatory responsibility with respect to that business activity.
    BX's Rule 1011(g)(2) is based on NASD Rule 1011(k)(2), and as such,
was drafted by NASD \4\ (now known as ``FINRA'') to be broad in
application given its broad, cross-market regulatory
responsibilities.\5\ In adopting Rule 1011(g)(2), however, BX did not
contemplate that the rule would extend to business operations engaged
in on other markets. Under such an interpretation of the rule, BX would
be required to approve a member's planned change in business operations
that would be conducted solely on another market. For example, a BX
member that is not a market maker, yet determines to make markets on a
market other than BX would, under this interpretation,

technically be required to file an application for approval of the
market making pursuant to BX Rule 1017, in addition to satisfying the
other market's market making application and approval process. Under
this scenario, even though the business activity is not associated with
BX, and BX has no responsibility to oversee the business activity, BX
would be required to duplicate the efforts of another market and make
an independent determination whether the member could conduct such
business operations on that market. BX believes that this would be an
erroneous outcome, and would represent unnecessary duplication of
regulatory efforts among self-regulatory organizations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ In late July 2007, NASD changed its name to the Financial
Industry Regulatory Authority (``FINRA''). Accordingly, we use the
term NASD in this filing only (i) when referring to period of time
before the name change, and (ii) with respect to rules that are
still officially designated by FINRA as ``NASD rules.''
    \5\ BX's membership rules mirror, in most respects, those of
Nasdaq, which were derived from NASD's rules. BX notes that Nasdaq
is seeking to amend its Rule 1011(g)(2) consistent with the changes
to the BX rules proposed herein.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    BX is proposing to separate market making from the other business
activities currently found under Rule 1011(g)(2) by creating two new
subparts to the rule. Proposed new Rule 1011(g)(2)(B) will address
market making and adds new language to make clear that the rule applies
only to engaging in market making for the first time on BX, and as a
consequence, a BX member seeking to be designated as a market maker for
the first time on another market would not be required to follow the
Rule 1017 process. BX believes that the proposed rule change would not
lessen the regulatory oversight of members, since market making on
another market would fall within the jurisdiction and oversight of that
market together with the member's designated examining authority.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 17 CFR 240.17d-1. Rule 17d-1 authorizes the Commission to
name a single SRO as the designated examining authority to examine
common members for compliance with the financial responsibility
requirements imposed by the Act, or by Commission and SRO rules.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In making it clear that market making under Rule 1011(g)(2)(B)
applies only to such activity ``on BX,'' BX is concerned that common
members of BX and FINRA, or of BX and The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC
(``Nasdaq''), may misinterpret Rule 1011(g)(2)(B) to require approval
pursuant to BX Rule 1017 of market making on BX for the first time when
the same business operation had been previously approved by FINRA or
Nasdaq pursuant to their respective Rules 1017. BX based much of its
membership rules on those of Nasdaq, which had based much of its
membership rules on those of NASD, with minor modifications in some
instances resulting from Nasdaq's exchange status. As noted above, BX
Rule 1011(g) is virtually identical to NASD Rule 1011(k), except for
the addition of a fourth material change to business operations to
reflect a change that results in a loss of proprietary trading firm
status. BX Rule 1017 is also substantially similar to NASD Rule 1017.
In a similar regard, the membership rules of BX mirror those of Nasdaq
in most respects. BX notes that the underlying review pursuant to
either BX Rule 1017 or Nasdaq Rule 1017, upon which BX or Nasdaq would
reference in making a determination, is conducted by FINRA.\7\ As such,
the process leading to a prior approval of market making by either
FINRA or Nasdaq pursuant to their Rules 1017 would follow the same
process as if the BX Rule 1017 review were conducted.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ When conducting a review on behalf of BX or Nasdaq pursuant
to their respective Rules 1017, FINRA provides a recommendation on
whether to approve the change in business operations or not.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    BX is proposing to add language to Rule 1011(g)(2)(B) that will
make it clear that BX does not consider market making under the rule
for the first time on BX to be a material change, if the market making
has already been approved by either FINRA pursuant to NASD Rule 1017,
or alternatively by Nasdaq pursuant to Nasdaq Rule 1017. BX believes
that the proposed clarifying language under BX Rule 1011(g)(2)(B)
recognizing prior approvals of market making under the rules of FINRA
and Nasdaq will serve to avoid confusion over the application of the
rule in regards to common members. BX believes the proposed changes are
consistent BX's current practice and will avoid unnecessary regulatory
duplication.
    BX is also proposing to delete references to underwriting from Rule
1011(g)(2). Underwriting is not conducted on BX and there is no
circumstance in which a BX member could act as an underwriter unless
that member was also a member of FINRA, and hence subject to FINRA's
rules and oversight. BX believes that the keeping the term in Rule
1011(g)(2) serves no purpose and could be misleading. Accordingly, BX
is proposing to delete the term from the rule.
    BX is also proposing to make a minor technical correction to the
rule by deleting a superfluous ``and'' from the rule text.
2. Statutory Basis
    BX believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the
provisions of Section 6 of the Act,\8\ in general and with Section
6(b)(5) of the Act,\9\ in particular in that it is designed to prevent
fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to promote just and
equitable principles of trade, to foster cooperation and coordination
with persons engaged in regulating, clearing, settling, processing
information with respect to, and facilitating transactions in
securities, 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 proposed rule change is
designed to clarify the application of BX Rule 1011(g)(2) to ensure its
consistent interpretation, and to avoid extending the Rule 1017
approval process to non-BX business operations conducted on other
exchanges of which the BX member is also a member. Further, the
proposed rule change makes clear that BX recognizes FINRA and Nasdaq
approvals of material changes in business operations, which is based
upon the similarity of their rules and processes to those of BX. Such
recognition will serve to avoid unnecessary regulatory duplication
among self-regulatory organizations. The proposed rule change also
makes a minor technical correction to the rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78f.
    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    Nasdaq [sic] 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

    No written comments were either solicited or received.

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

    Because the foregoing 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, it has become
effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) \10\ of the Act and Rule 19b-
4(f)(6) thereunder.\11\ At any time within 60 days of the filing of the
proposed rule change, the Commission may summarily abrogate 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \11\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    BX believes that the proposed rule change does not significantly
affect the protection of investors or the public interest because it
merely clarifies the application of an existing rule to avoid erroneous
interpretation of its applicability, prevents unnecessary regulatory
duplication among self-regulatory organizations, and makes a minor
technical correction to the rule.
    BX has asked that the Commission waive the 30-day pre-operative
waiting period contained in Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii).\12\ BX requests this
waiver so that these corrections can be immediately operative,
eliminating any potential confusion caused by the currently unclear
rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission notes the proposal presents no novel issues and is
designed to provide clarity regarding the application of an existing
rule. For these reasons, the Commission believes it is consistent with
the protection of investors and the public interest to waive the 30-day
operative delay, and hereby grants such waiver.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ For purposes only of waiving the 30-day operative delay,
the Commission has considered the proposed rule change's impact on
efficiency, competition, and capital formation. 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-BX-2009-075 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-BX-2009-075. This file
number should be included on the subject line if e-mail 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 inspection and
copying in the Commission's Public Reference Room on official business
days between the hours of 10 a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of such filing also
will be available for inspection and copying at the principal office of
BX. 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-BX-2009-075
and should be submitted on or before December 28, 2009.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. E9-29039 Filed 12-4-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 199 (Friday, October 14, 2011)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 63840]
[FR Doc No: 2011-26536]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 117

[Docket No. USCG-2011-0880]

Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Duwamish West Waterway, Seattle,
WA

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of temporary deviation from regulations.

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

SUMMARY: The Commander, Thirteenth Coast Guard District, has issued a
temporary deviation from the regulation governing the operation of the
Spokane Street Swing Bridge across the Duwamish West Waterway, mile
0.3, at Seattle, WA. This deviation mitigates the displacement of
approximately 110,000 vehicles that may be affected by the Alaska Way
Viaduct Tunnel construction, a major infrastructure improvement
project. This temporary deviation benefits public health and safety by
permitting more vehicle access across the bridge during peak hours.
This deviation allows the bridge to remain closed to waterway traffic
during weekday afternoon peak traffic times for a five day period.

DATES: This deviation is effective from 3 p.m. October 24, 2011 through
6 p.m. on October 28, 2011.

ADDRESSES: Documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in
the docket are part of docket USCG-2011-0880 and are available online
by going to http://www.regulations.gov, inserting USCG-2011-0880 in the
``Keyword'' box and then clicking ``Search''. They are also available
for inspection or copying at 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.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this rule,
call or e-mail the Bridge Administrator, Coast Guard Thirteenth
District; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>If
you have questions on viewing the docket, call Renee V. Wright, Program
Manager, Docket Operations, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Seattle Department of Transportation has
requested that the Spokane Street Swing Bridge not open for waterway
traffic, with the exception of deep draft vessels, during afternoon
peak traffic hours for a five day period. The Spokane Street Swing
Bridge crosses the Duwamish West Waterway at mile 0.3. Extremely heavy
roadway traffic is anticipated on the low-level Spokane Street Swing
Bridge during scheduled major transportation infrastructure
improvements. During this construction activity traffic will be
diverted to the low-level Spokane Street Swing Bridge from adjoining
roadways. In the closed position, the Spokane Street Swing Bridge
provides approximately 44 feet of vertical clearance. Waterborne
traffic on this stretch of the Duwamish waterway consists of vessels
ranging from small pleasure craft to commercial tug and tow. During the
entire month of October last year between 3 p.m. and 6 p.m. the Spokane
Street Swing Bridge opened a total of ten times; four of the openings
for sailboats and six of the openings for commercial waterway traffic.
Under normal operation the bridge opens on signal as required by 33 CFR
117.5. The deviation period is from 3 p.m. October 24 through 6 p.m.
October 28, 2011. From October 24, 2011 through and including October
28, 2011, the Spokane Street Swing Bridge across the Duwamish West
Waterway, mile 0.3, need not open for waterway traffic from 3 p.m.
through 6 p.m. daily. Vessels that do not require a bridge opening will
be allowed to pass under the bridge during the closure period. During
this authorized closure period the bridge will be required to open for
deep draft vessels provided 72 hours advance notification is given.
Also during this deviation the bridge will be required to open for
federal, state, and local government vessels used for public safety and
for vessels in distress where a delay would endanger life or property.
    In accordance with 33 CFR 117.35(e), the drawbridge must return to
its regular operating schedule immediately at the end of the designated
time period. This deviation from the operating regulations is
authorized under 33 CFR 117.35.

    Dated: September 30, 2011.
K.A. Taylor,
Rear Admiral, U. S. Coast Guard, Commander, Thirteenth Coast Guard
District.
[FR Doc. 2011-26536 Filed 10-13-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


study prepared by Bayer AG. 494 p. {OPPTS 870.3150}

45819615	Krotlinger, F.; Vohr, H. (2001) BSN 2060 Plaque-Forming-Cell
Assay in Mice (Feeding Study for About 4 Weeks): Lab Project Number: PH
31344: T3069279: 110935. Unpublished study prepared by Bayer AG. 93 p.

45819619	Eiben, R.; Bach, U.; Rinke, M. (2002) BSN 2060 Two-Generation
Study in Wistar Rats: Lab Project Number: PH 31775: T507099: G200100.
Unpublished study prepared by Bayer AG. 976 p. {OPPTS 870.3800}

45819620	Ruf, J.; Sander, E. (2002) BSN 2060 Chronic Toxicity Study in
Beagle Dogs (53 Week Feeding Study): Lab Project Number: PH 31665: T
0069357: G200102. Unpublished study prepared by Bayer AG. 640 p. {OPPTS
870.4100}

45819621	Schladt, L.; Hartmann, E.; Popp, A. (2001) BSN 2060 Chronic
Toxicity Study in Wistar Rats (Dietary Administration Over 1 Year): Lab
Project Number: PH 31617: T8068185: G200104. Unpublished study prepared
by Bayer AG. 1032 p. {OPPTS 870.4100}

45819622	Pauluhn, J. (2001) BSN 2060 Subacute Inhalation Toxicity on
Rats (Exposure 5 x 6 Hours/Week for 4 Weeks): Lab Project Number: PH
31546: T5069343: G200121. Unpublished study prepared by Bayer AG. 423 p.

45819623	Ruff, J.; Ruhl-Fehlert, C. (2001) BSN 2060 Subchronic Toxicity
Study in Beagle Dogs (13 Week Feeding Study): Lab Project Number: PH
31585: T 2069016: G200127. Unpublished study prepared by Bayer AG. 338
p. {OPPTS 870.3150}

45819624	Schladt, L. (2001) BSN 2060 Carcinogenicity Study in Wistar
Rats (Dietary Administration Over 2 Years): Lab Project Number: PH
31628: T3067505: G200128. Unpublished study prepared by Bayer AG. 3396
p. {OPPTS 870.4200}

45819828	Sebesta, C. (2002) An Exploratory Study to Determine the Rate
and Route of Elimination of BSN 2060-Phenyl-UL-(Carbon 14) When
Administered Intravenously or Dermally to Male Rhesus Monkeys: Final
Report: Lab Project Number: QEAZ-160-02-97: G200207: QEAZ-160.
Unpublished study prepared by Charles River Laboratories. 101 p. {OPPTS
870.7600}

45854505	Krotlinger, F.; Sander, E. (1998) BSN 2060: Study for Subacute
Oral Toxicity in Rats (Feeding Study for 4 Weeks): Lab Project Number:
109631: 27940: T 1061590. Unpublished study prepared by Bayer Ag. 131 p.

45854507	Andrews, P.; Sander, E. (2000) BSN 2060: Study for Subacute
Oral Toxicity in Rats (Feeding Study for 4 Weeks): Lab Project Number:
PH 30530: T 4059037: 110804. Unpublished study prepared by Bayer Ag. 187
p.

45854511	Eiben, R.; Bach, U. (2001) BSN 2060: Two-Generation Study in
Wistar Rats: Lab Project Number: PH 31303: T1068962: 110918. Unpublished
study prepared by Bayer Ag. 1063 p. {OPPTS 870.3800}

Appendix C:	REVIEW OF HUMAN RESEARCH

No MRID - PHED Surrogate Exposure Guide

Page   PAGE  52  of 56

Page   PAGE  1  of 56


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 148 (Wednesday, August 3, 2022)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 47352-47354]
[FR Doc No: 2022-16622]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[Docket Number USCG-2022-0082]
RIN 1625-AA87

Security Zone; Naval Submarine Base New London, Groton, CT

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is modifying the security zone boundaries
surrounding Naval Submarine Base New London in Groton, CT. This rule
will amend the previous security zone to encompass the entire
operational area of the Naval Submarine Base.

DATES: This rule is effective September 2, 2022.

ADDRESSES: To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being
available in the docket, go to https://www.regulations.gov, type USCG-
2022-0082 in the search box and click ``Search.'' Next, in the Document
Type column, select ``Supporting & Related Material.''

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this rule,
call or email If you have questions about this proposed rulemaking,
call or email MST2 Mark Paget, Waterways Management Division, Sector
Long Island Sound; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email:
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Table of Abbreviations

CFR Code of Federal Regulations
COTP Captain of the Port Long Island Sound
DHS Department of Homeland Security
FR Federal Register
NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
NPRM Notice of proposed rulemaking

Sec.  Section
U.S.C. United States Code

II. Background Information and Regulatory History

    The Naval Submarine Base New London, Groton, CT, is the home to a
portion of the U.S. Navy's Fast Attack Nuclear Submarines. During a
recent security assessment of the base, it was determined that the
existing security zone does not adequately cover the entirety of naval
assets, piers, or planned pier extension projects. Therefore, Naval
Submarine Base New London requested to expand the existing security
zone to safeguard its waterfront facility and its naval vessels while
moored to prevent destruction, loss, or injury from sabotage or other
subversive acts, or other causes of a similar nature.
    In response, on April 27, 2022, the Coast Guard published a notice
of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) titled Security Zone, Naval Submarine
Base New London, Groton, CT (87 FR 24927). There we stated why we
issued the NPRM, and invited comments on our proposed regulatory action
related to this limited access area. During the comment period that
ended May 27, 2022, we received no comments.

III. Legal Authority and Need for Rule

    The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority in 46 U.S.C.
70034 (previously 33 U.S.C. 1231). The Captain of the Port Long Island
Sound (COTP) has determined that a security zone is necessary to
mitigate any moored naval vessels from destruction, loss, or injury
from sabotage or other subversive acts, or other causes of a similar
nature.

IV. Discussion of Comments, Changes, and the Rule

    As noted above, we received no comments on our NPRM published April
27, 2022.
    We were informed though by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration (NOAA) Marine Chart Division that the third coordinate
on the proposed security zone, 41[deg]22'50.3'' N, 072[deg]05'30.8'' W,
does not appear to be consistent with the rest of the security zone.
The Coast Guard reviewed NOAA's suggestion with Naval Submarine Base
New London and revised the third coordinate to 41[deg]23'26.42'' N,
72[deg]5'30.771'' W. This is the only change to the regulatory text of
this rule from the proposed rule in the NPRM.
    This rule modifies and expands the existing security zone cited in
33 CFR 165.154(a)(3) Safety and Security Zones: Captain of the Port
Long Island Sound Zone, that would allow the zone to completely
encompass the security barriers and allow room to expand piers as
required.

V. Regulatory Analyses

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

A. Regulatory Planning and Review

    Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the
costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if
regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize
net benefits. This rule has not been designated a ``significant
regulatory action,'' under Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, this
rule has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB).
    This regulatory action determination is based on the size,
location, and duration of the security zone. This rule will amend the
previous security zone to encompass the entire operational area of the
Naval Submarine Base. Vessel traffic will be able to safely transit
around or through the security zone with COTP or their designated
representative's permission which would impact a small designated area
of the Thames River.

B. Impact on Small Entities

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as
amended, requires Federal agencies to consider the potential impact of
regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term ``small
entities'' comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations
that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their
fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than
50,000. The Coast Guard received 0 comments from the Small Business
Administration on this rulemaking. The Coast Guard certifies under 5
U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities.
    While some owners or operators of vessels intending to transit the
security zone may be small entities, for the reasons stated in section
V.A above, this rule will not have a significant economic impact on any
vessel owner or operator.
    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small
entities in understanding this rule. If the rule would affect your
small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have
questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please
call or email the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section.
    Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal
employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal
regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory
Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory
Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and
rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to
comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR
(1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small
entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or
action of the Coast Guard.

C. Collection of Information

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

D. Federalism and Indian Tribal Governments

    A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132,
Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on the States, on the
relationship between the National Government and the States, or on the
distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of
government. We have analyzed this rule under that Order and have
determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism
principles and preemption requirements described in Executive Order
13132.
    Also, 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.

E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538)
requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary
regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may
result in the expenditure by a

State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private
sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for inflation) or more in any one
year. Though this rule will not result in such an expenditure, we do
discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble.

F. Environment

    We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security
Directive 023-01, Rev. 1, associated implementing instructions, and
Environmental Planning COMDTINST 5090.1 (series), which guide the Coast
Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
(42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have determined that this action is one of
a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a
significant effect on the human environment. This rule involves a
security zone to limit access near Naval Submarine Base New London,
Groton, CT. It is categorically excluded from further review under
paragraph L60a of Appendix A, Table 1 of DHS Instruction Manual 023-01-
001-01, Rev. 1. A Record of Environmental Consideration supporting this
determination is available in the docket. For instructions on locating
the docket, see the ADDRESSES section of this preamble.

G. Protest Activities

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

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165

    Harbors, Marine Safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Security Measures, Waterways.

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

PART 165--REGULATED NAVIGATION AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS

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

    Authority:  46 U.S.C. 70034, 70051; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-
6, and 160.5; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No.
00170.1, Revision No. 01.2.

0
2. Revise Sec.  165.154(a)(3) to read as follows:

Sec.  165.154   Safety and Security Zones; Captain of the Port Long
Island Sound Zone Safety and Security Zones.

* * * * *
    (a) * * *
    (3) Naval Submarine Base New London, Groton, CT. All navigable
waters of the Thames River, from surface to bottom, West of Naval
Submarine Base New London, Groton, CT, enclosed by a line beginning at
a point on the shoreline at 41[deg]23'7.9'' N, 072[deg]05'13.7'' W;
then to 41[deg]23'7.9'' N, 072[deg]05'16.9'' W; then to
41[deg]23'26.42'' N, 72[deg]5'30.771'' W; then to 41[deg]23'42.9'' N,
072[deg]05'40.1'' W; then to 41[deg]23'46.7'' N, 072[deg]05'42.3'' W;
then to 41[deg]23'53.9'' N, 072[deg]05'44.5'' W; then to
41[deg]24'8.7'' N, 072[deg]05'44.5'' W; then to 41[deg]24'16.2'' N,
072[deg]05'43.4'' W; then to a point on the shoreline 41[deg]24'16.2''
N, 072[deg]05'36.4'' W; then along the shoreline to the point of
beginning (NAD 83).
* * * * *

    Dated: July 21, 2022.
E.J. Van Camp,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Long Island Sound.
[FR Doc. 2022-16622 Filed 8-2-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register: July 29, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 145)]
[Notices]
[Page 44832-44833]
[DOCID:fr29jy10-93]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-62562; File No. SR-Phlx-2010-98]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NASDAQ OMX PHLX, Inc.; Notice of
Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Relating to
the Rebates and Fees for Adding and Removing Liquidity in Select
Symbols

July 23, 2010.
    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 July 15, 2010, NASDAQ OMX PHLX, Inc. (``Phlx'' or ``Exchange'')
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``SEC'' or
``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I, II,
and III below, which Items have been prepared by the Exchange. The
Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the
proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange proposes to amend the Exchange's Fee Schedule to both
add and remove certain options from the Exchange's current Rebates and
Fees for Adding and Removing Liquidity in Select Symbols in Section I
of the Fee Schedule.
    While changes to the Fee Schedule pursuant to this proposal are
effective upon filing, the Exchange has designated these changes to be
operative for transactions settling on or after August 2, 2010.
    The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's
Web site at http://nasdaqtrader.com/micro.aspx?id=PHLXfilings, at the
principal office of the Exchange, on the Commission's Web site at
http://www.sec.gov, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to increase liquidity and to attract order
flow by increasing the number of options to be included in the
Exchange's current Rebates and Fees for Adding and Removing Liquidity
in Select Symbols as well as removing three options. Currently, the
Exchange has 81 symbols \3\ (``Select Symbols'') to which this applies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ These 81 currently include: AA, AAPL, ABK, ABX, AIG, ALL,
AMD, AMR, AMZN, ARIA, AXP, BAC, BRCD, C, CAT, CIEN, CIGX, CSCO,
DELL, DIA, DNDN, DRYS, EBAY, EK, F, FAS, FAZ, GDX, GE, GLD, GLW, GS,
HAL, IBM, INTC, IWM, IYR, JPM, LVS, MGM, MOT, MSFT, MU, NEM, NOK,
NVDA, ONNN, ORCL, PALM, PFE, POT, QCOM, QID, QQQQ, RIG, RIMM, RMBS,
SBUX, SDS, SIRI, SKF, SLV, SMH, SNDK, SPY, T, TBT, TZA, UAUA, UNG,
USO, UYG, V, VALE, VZ, WYNN, X, XHB, XLF, XRX and YHOO (``Select
Symbols'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Specifically, the Exchange proposes to add the following four
options to the Select Symbols: (i) BP p.l.c. Common Stock (``BP''),
(ii) Baidu, Inc. (``BIDU''), (iii) IShares FTSE/Xinhua China 25 Index
(``FXI''), and (iv) Exxon Mobil Corp. (``XOM''), collectively (``the
options''). These additional 4 symbols would be subject to the Rebates
and Fees for Adding and Removing Liquidity in Select Symbols.
Additionally, the Exchange proposes to remove the following three
options from the Select Symbols: (i) ARIAD Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
(``ARIA''), (ii) Star Scientific, Inc. (``CIGX'') and (iii) Palm, Inc.
(``PALM'').
    The Exchange currently assesses a per-contract transaction charge
in various Select Symbols on six different categories of market
participants that submit orders and/or quotes that ``take,'' liquidity
from the Exchange: (i) Specialists, Registered Options Traders
(``ROTs''),\4\ Streaming Quote Traders (``SQTs'') \5\ and Remote
Streaming Quote Traders (``RSQTs''); \6\ (ii) customers; \7\ (iii)
specialists, SQTs and RSQTs that receive Directed Orders (``Directed
Participants'' \8\ or ``Directed Specialists, RSQTs, or SQTs'' \9\);
(iv) Firms; (v)

broker-dealers; and (vi) Professionals.\10\ The current per-contract
transaction charge depends on the category of market participant
submitting orders and/or quotes that ``take,'' liquidity from the
Exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ A ROT includes a SQT, a RSQT and a Non-SQT, which by
definition is neither a SQT or a RSQT. See Exchange Rule 1014 (b)(i)
and (ii).
    \5\ An SQT is an Exchange Registered Options Trader (``ROT'')
who has received permission from the Exchange to generate and submit
option quotations electronically through an electronic interface
with AUTOM via an Exchange approved proprietary electronic quoting
device in eligible options to which such SQT is assigned. See
Exchange Rule 1014(b)(ii)(A).
    \6\ An RSQT is an ROT that is a member or member organization
with no physical trading floor presence who has received permission
from the Exchange to generate and submit option quotations
electronically through AUTOM in eligible options to which such RSQT
has been assigned. An RSQT may only submit such quotations
electronically from off the floor of the Exchange. See Exchange Rule
1014(b)(ii)(B).
    \7\ This applies to all customer orders, directed and non-
directed.
    \8\ For purposes of the fees and rebates related to adding and
removing liquidity, a Directed Participant is a Specialist, SQT, or
RSQT that executes a customer order that is directed to them by an
Order Flow Provider and is executed electronically on PHLX XL II.
    \9\ See Exchange Rule 1080(l), ``* * * The term `Directed
Specialist, RSQT, or SQT' means a specialist, RSQT, or SQT that
receives a Directed Order.'' A Directed Participant has a higher
quoting requirement as compared with a specialist, SQT or RSQT who
is not acting as a Directed Participant. See Exchange Rule 1014.
    \10\ The Exchange defines a ``professional'' as any person or
entity that (i) is not a broker or dealer in securities, and (ii)
places more than 390 orders in listed options per day on average
during a calendar month for its own beneficial account(s)
(hereinafter ``Professional''). See Exchange Rule 1000(b)(14).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange also currently provides certain per-contract rebates
for orders or quotations that add liquidity in the Select Symbols. The
amount of the rebate depends on the category of participant whose order
or quote was executed as part of the Phlx Best Bid and Offer. Finally,
the Exchange assesses a $0.05 per contract fee for adding liquidity in
the select Symbols for Firms and Broker-Dealers.
    While changes to the Fee Schedule pursuant to this proposal are
effective upon filing, the Exchange has designated these changes to be
operative for transactions settling on or after August 2, 2010.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that its proposal to amend its Fee Schedule
is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act \11\ in general, and
furthers the objectives of Section 6(b)(4) of the Act \12\ in
particular, in that it is an equitable allocation of reasonable fees
and other charges among Exchange members. The Exchange believes that
the addition and removal of certain options from the Rebates and Fees
for Adding and Removing Liquidity in Select Symbols is both equitable
and reasonable, because the Select Symbols apply to all categories of
participants in the same manner. The Rebates and Fees for Adding and
Removing Liquidity in Select Symbols, which are currently applicable to
each market participant, will continue to apply to the Select Symbols.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \12\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act.

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

    No written comments were either solicited or received.

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

    The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act \13\ and paragraph (f)(2) of Rule 19b-4 \14\
thereunder. At any time within 60 days of the filing of such proposed
rule change, the Commission may summarily abrogate 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii).
    \14\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-Phlx-2010-98 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-Phlx-2010-98. This file
number should be included on the subject line if e-mail 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
a.m. and 3 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-Phlx-2010-98 and should be
submitted on or before August 19, 2010.

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

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

Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-18672 Filed 7-28-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8010-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 8 (Thursday, January 12, 2017)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 3639-3641]
[FR Doc No: 2017-00161]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R04-OAR-2015-0252; FRL-9957-90-Region 4]

Air Plan Approval; TN Infrastructure Requirements for the 2010
NO2 NAAQS

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is taking final
action on portions of the State Implementation Plan (SIP) submission,
submitted by the State of Tennessee, through the Tennessee Department
of Environment and Conservation (TDEC), on March 13, 2014, to
demonstrate that the State meets the infrastructure requirements of the
Clean Air Act (CAA or Act) for the 2010 nitrogen dioxide
(NO2) national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS). The CAA
requires that each state adopt and submit a SIP for the implementation,
maintenance and enforcement of each NAAQS promulgated by EPA, which is
commonly referred to as an ``infrastructure'' SIP submission. TDEC
certified that the Tennessee SIP contains provisions that ensure the
2010 NO2 NAAQS is implemented, enforced, and maintained in
Tennessee. EPA has determined that portions of Tennessee's
infrastructure SIP submission, provided to EPA on March 13, 2014,
satisfies the certain required infrastructure elements for the 2010
NO2 NAAQS.

DATES: This rule will be effective February 13, 2017.

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket
Identification No. EPA-R04-OAR-2015-0252. All documents in the docket
are listed on the www.regulations.gov Web site. Although listed in the
index, some information is not publicly available, i.e., Confidential
Business Information or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted
material, is not placed on the Internet and will be publicly

available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials
are available either electronically through www.regulations.gov or in
hard copy at the Air Regulatory Management Section, Air Planning and
Implementation Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management Division,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW.,
Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. EPA requests that if at all possible, you
contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section to schedule your inspection. The Regional Office's official
hours of business are Monday through Friday 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.,
excluding federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Richard Wong, Air Regulatory
Management Section, Air Planning and Implementation Branch, Air,
Pesticides and Toxics Management Division, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW., Atlanta, Georgia
30303-8960. Mr. Wong can be reached via electronic mail at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or via telephone at<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background and Overview

    On February 9, 2010 (75 FR 6474), EPA published a new 1-hour
primary NAAQS for NO2 at a level of 100 parts per billion
(ppb), based on a 3-year average of the 98th percentile of the yearly
distribution of 1-hour daily maximum concentrations. Pursuant to
section 110(a)(1) of the CAA, states are required to submit SIPs
meeting the requirements of section 110(a)(2) within three years after
promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS or within such shorter period as
EPA may prescribe. Section 110(a)(2) requires states to address basic
SIP requirements, including emissions inventories, monitoring, and
modeling to assure attainment and maintenance of the NAAQS. States were
required to submit such SIPs for the 2010 1-hour NO2 NAAQS
to EPA no later than January 22, 2013.
    In a proposed rulemaking published on July 14, 2016, EPA proposed
to approve Tennessee's infrastructure SIP submission for the applicable
requirements of the 2010 1-hour NO2 NAAQS, with the
exception of the PSD permitting requirements for major sources of
sections 110(a)(2)(C), prong 3 of D(i), and (J), and the interstate
transport provisions of prongs 1, 2, and 4 of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i).
On March 18, 2015, EPA approved Tennessee's March 13, 2014,
infrastructure SIP submission regarding the PSD permitting requirements
for major sources of sections 110(a)(2)(C), prong 3 of D(i), and (J)
for the 2010 1-hour NO2 NAAQS. See 80 FR 14019. Therefore,
EPA is not taking any action today pertaining to these requirements.
With respect to the interstate transport requirements of section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) (prongs 1 and 2), EPA does not yet have a submission
before the Agency for action. Additionally, EPA will address prong 4
element of Tennessee's March 13, 2014, SIP submission for the 2010 1-
hour NO2 NAAQS through a separate rulemaking. The details of
Tennessee's submission and the rationale for EPA's action are explained
in the proposed rulemaking.

II. Response to Comment

    Comments on the proposed rulemaking were due on or before July 28,
2016. EPA received one comment, which is summarized below, on the
proposed action.
    Comment: The Commenter stated that EPA must disapprove element
110(a)(2)(C) unless Tennessee's SIP provides that no new minor source
or minor modification of a major source can cause or contribute to a
violation of any NAAQS.
    Response: EPA agrees that section 110(a)(2)(C) and the minor new
source regulations at 40 CFR 51.160 through 51.164 require SIPs to
includes procedures to prevent the construction of new minor sources
and minor modifications of major sources if the new or modified source
will interfere with attainment or maintenance of a NAAQS. EPA explained
its approach to reviewing the minor source element of 110(a)(2)(C) in
its proposed rulemaking for this action: ``EPA evaluates whether the
state has an EPA-approved minor new source review program and whether
the program addresses the pollutants relevant to that NAAQS. In the
context of acting on an infrastructure SIP submission, however, EPA
does not think it is necessary to conduct a review of each and every
provision of a state's existing minor source program (i.e., already in
the existing SIP) for compliance with the requirements of the CAA and
EPA's regulations that pertain to such programs.'' See 81 FR 45441
(July 14, 2016). In its 2010 1-hour NO2 NAAQS infrastructure
SIP submission, Tennessee certified that its SIP contains provisions to
address the 110(a)(2)(C) requirements regarding new minor sources and
modifications, and, as noted in EPA's proposed rulemaking, the
following SIP-approved rules address the minor source element of
section 110(a)(2)(C): Tennessee Air Pollution Control Regulations 1200-
03-09-.01, Construction Permits, and 1200-03-09-.03, General
Provisions. These SIP-approved rules address NAAQS pollutants including
NO2. While the Commenter did not specifically object to any
aspect of Tennessee's SIP submission with respect section 110(a)(2)(C),
EPA notes that Tennessee's SIP addresses this non-interference
component for the minor new source/minor modification permitting
element. Specifically relevant to this comment, these SIP-approved
rules include provisions to prohibit the issuance of construction
permits if the source at issue would result in a violation of any air
quality standard. See Regulation 1200-03-09-.01(1)(e).

III. Final Action

    With the exception of the preconstruction PSD permitting
requirements for major sources of section 110(a)(2)(C), prong 3 of
(D)(i), and (J), and the interstate transport provisions pertaining to
visibility of prong 4 of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i), EPA is taking final
action to approve that Tennessee's March 13, 2014, SIP submission for
the 2010 1-hour NO2 NAAQS because the submission is
consistent with section 110 of the CAA.

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP
submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable
federal regulations. See 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in
reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this
action merely approves state law as meeting federal requirements and
does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state
law. For that reason, this action:
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to review
by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58
FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);
     does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described

in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the CAA; and
     does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    The SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or
in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a
tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the rule does
not have tribal implications as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65
FR 67249, November 9, 2000), nor will it impose substantial direct
costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.
    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. EPA will submit a report containing this action 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. A major rule cannot
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2).
    Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review
of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for
the appropriate circuit by March 13, 2017. Filing a petition for
reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect
the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor
does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may
be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or
action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to
enforce its requirements. See section 307(b)(2).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone,
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds.

    Dated: December 20, 2016.
 Heather McTeer Toney,
Regional Administrator, Region 4.

    For the reasons stated in the preamble, 40 CFR part 52 is amended
as follows:

PART 52--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS

0
1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

Subpart RR--Tennessee

0
2. Section 52.2220(e) is amended by adding a new entry ``110(a)(1) and
(2) Infrastructure Requirements for the 2010 1-hour NO2
NAAQS'' at the end of the table to read as follows:

Sec.  52.2220   Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (e) * * *

                                EPA-Approved Tennessee Non-Regulatory Provisions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Name of nonregulatory SIP     Applicable geographic or       State        EPA approval
          provision                nonattainment area     effective date        date             Explanation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
110(a)(1) and (2)              Tennessee................      03/13/2014  1/12/2017,        With the exception
 Infrastructure Requirements                                               [Insert           of sections:
 for the 2010 1-hour NO2                                                   citation of      110(a)(2)(C) and (J)
 NAAQS.                                                                    publication].     concerning PSD
                                                                                permitting
                                                                                requirements and;
                                                                                110(a)(2)(D)(i)
                                                                                (prongs 1 through
                                                                                4) concerning
                                                                                interstate
                                                                                transport
                                                                                requirements.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 2017-00161 Filed 1-11-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register: July 16, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 135)]
[Notices]
[Page 34603-34604]
[DOCID:fr16jy09-84]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-60272; File No. SR-NYSEArca-2009-64]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Notice of Filing and Immediate
Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change by NYSE Arca, Inc. That Extends
the Suspension of NYSE Arca's Stock Price Continued Listing Standard to
July 31, 2009

July 9, 2009.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Exchange Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby
given that on July 2, 2009, NYSE Arca, Inc. (``NYSE Arca'' or the
``Exchange'') 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
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, through Its wholly owned subsidiary NYSE Arca
Equities, Inc. (``NYSE Arca Equities''), proposes to amend its rules
governing NYSE Arca, LLC (also referred to as the ``NYSE Arca
Marketplace'') by extending through July 31, 2009, the suspension of
the application of its price criteria for capital and common stock set
forth in NYSE Arca Equities Rule 5.5(b)(2).\3\ The text of the proposed
rule change is available at the Exchange, the Commission's Public
Reference Room, and http://www.nyse.com.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The Commission notes that the suspension period under this
filing commenced at the time that the proposed rule change was filed
on July 2, 2009 and will continue through July 31, 2009.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

1. Purpose
    From mid-2008 through the first quarter of 2009, the U.S. and
global equities markets experienced extreme volatility and a
precipitous decline in trading prices of many securities. In response
to these conditions, the Exchange suspended through June 30, 2009,
application of the $1.00 price requirement for capital and common stock
set forth in NYSE Arca Equities Rule 5.5(b)(2).\4\\\ A listed company
falls below compliance with NYSE Arca Equities Rule 5.5(b)(2) if the
average closing price of its stock falls below $1.00 over a consecutive
30 trading-day period (the Exchange's ``dollar price continued listing
standard''). This suspension provided temporary relief to companies in
response to the extreme volatility and a precipitous decline in trading
prices of many securities experienced in the U.S. and global equities
markets, which the Commission had acknowledged constituted a threat to
the fair and orderly functioning of the securities markets and could
lead to a crisis of confidence among investors regarding the viability
of companies whose stock prices have declined significantly.\5\\\ The
Exchange now proposes to extend its suspension of the dollar stock
price continued listing standard through July 31, 2009.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 59854 (May 1, 2009),
74 FR 21730 (May 8, 2009) (NYSEArca-2009-29).
    \5\ See, e.g., Securities Exchange Act Release No. 58588
(September 18, 2008), 73 FR 55174 (September 24, 2008) (``The
Commission is aware of the continued potential of sudden and
excessive fluctuations of securities prices and disruption in the
functioning of the securities markets that could threaten fair and
orderly markets. Given the importance of confidence in our financial
markets as a whole, we have also become concerned about sudden and
unexplained declines in the prices of securities. Such price
declines can give rise to questions about the underlying financial
condition of an issuer, which in turn can create a crisis of
confidence without a fundamental underlying basis. This crisis of
confidence can impair the liquidity and ultimate viability of an
issuer, with potentially broad market consequences.'').
    \6\ The NYSE has filed an immediately effective rule filing
extending its suspension of its dollar stock price continued listing
standard through July 31, 2009 (the ``NYSE Amendment''). See SR-
NYSE-2009-64 (filed July 2, 2009).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Under the proposed extended suspension of the Exchange's dollar
stock price continued listing standard, companies will not be notified
of new events of noncompliance with that standard during the suspension
period.\7\ Following the temporary rule suspension, any new events of
noncompliance with the Exchange's dollar price continued listing
standard will be determined based on a consecutive 30 trading-day
period commencing on August 1, 2009.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ One NYSE Arca listed company was below compliance with the
dollar stock price continued listing standard at the time of
commencement of the suspension. This company has since regained
compliance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed extended suspension of the Exchange's dollar price
continued listing standard will enable companies to remain listed in
the current difficult market conditions with the prospect of a future
recovery in their stock prices, potentially enabling them to comply
with the applicable listing requirements upon the standard's
reinstatement.\8\ During the period between now and July 31, 2009, the
Exchange will consider whether it is appropriate to propose further
revisions to these requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ A company would continue to be subject to delisting for
failure to comply with other listing requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with Section 6(b) \9\ of the Act, 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
foster cooperation and coordination with persons engaged in regulating,
clearing, settling, processing information with respect to, and
facilitating transactions in securities, 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 proposed rule change is designed to remove uncertainty regarding
the ability of certain companies to remain listed on NYSE Arca during
the current highly unusual market conditions, thereby protecting
investors, facilitating transactions in securities, and removing an
impediment to a free and open market.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \10\ 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
impose any burden on competition that is 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

    No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the
proposed rule change.

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

    Because the proposed rule change: (i) Does not significantly affect
the protection of investors or the public interest; (ii) does not
impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii) does not become
operative for 30 days after the date of the filing, or such shorter
time as the Commission may designate if consistent with the protection
of investors and the public interest, the proposed rule change has
become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \11\ and
Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \12\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). Pursuant to Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii)
under the Act, the Exchange is required to give the Commission
written notice of its 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 Commission has determined to waive this requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A proposed rule change filed pursuant to Rule 19b-4(f)(6) under the
Act \13\ normally does not become operative for 30 days after the date
of its filing. However, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii) \14\ 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 requested that the Commission waive the 30-day operative delay.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
    \14\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission believes that waiving the 30-day operative delay is
consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest
because it will allow the Exchange to extend, through July 31, 2009,
the temporary suspension of its $1.00 price continued listing
requirement for capital and common stock. The Commission notes that the
extension of the temporary suspension will continue to provide certain
companies with temporary relief from receiving a non-compliance or
delisting notification, or from being delisted, and will provide some
additional time to allow companies to regain compliance after the
market volatility and conditions experienced earlier this year and last
fall. The Commission notes that this action is temporary in nature.
Further, companies will continue to be subject to delisting for failure
to comply with other listing requirements during the suspension period.
For these reasons, the Commission designates that the proposed rule
change become operative immediately upon filing.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule
change, the Commission may summarily abrogate the 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.

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 Exchange 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 e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-NYSEArca-2009-64 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NYSEArca-2009-64. This
file number should be included on the subject line if e-mail 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 inspection
and copying in the Commission's Public Reference Room, on official
business days between the hours of 10 a.m. and 3 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-NYSEArca-2009-64 and should be submitted on or before
August 6, 2009.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Elizabeth M. Murphy,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E9-16808 Filed 7-15-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010-01-P