[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 101 (Friday, May 24, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 31619-31621]
[FR Doc No: 2013-12405]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-69608; File No. SR-NYSEMKT-2013-12]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE MKT LLC; Notice of Filing of
Amendment No. 1 and Order Granting Accelerated Approval of Proposed
Rule Change, as Modified by Amendment No. 1, Amending Rule 975NY In
Part and Adding a New Section To Address Errors That Involve Complex
Orders

May 20, 2013.

I. Introduction

    On February 1, 2013, NYSE MKT LLC (``NYSE MKT'' or the
``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission''), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ a
proposed rule change to amend the Exchange's Obvious Error Rule in part
and add a new section to address errors that involve Complex Orders.
The proposed rule change was published for comment in the Federal
Register on February 21, 2013.\3\ The Commission received no comment
letters on the proposal. On April 23, 2013, the Exchange filed
Amendment No. 1 to the proposed rule change.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ Securities Exchange Act Release No. 68926 (February 14,
2013), 78 FR 12123 (``Notice'').
    \4\ In Amendment No. 1, the Exchange proposed to modify Rule
975NY to provide that the proposed changes to Rule 975NY(b)(1)
extending to thirty minutes the time for which a Customer must
notify the Exchange that it participated in a transaction that may
be subject to adjustment or nullification pursuant to provisions of
the Obvious Error Rule shall not apply to Professional Customers, as
defined by Rule 900.2NY(18A), and to add a corresponding internal
reference to Rule 900.2NY(18A) that specifies that Professional
Customers will be treated in the same manner as a Broker/Dealer (or
non-Customer) for purposes of the Obvious Error Rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on
Amendment No. 1 from interested persons and is approving the proposed
rule change, as modified by Amendment No. 1, on an accelerated basis.

II. Description of Proposal

    The Exchange proposes several changes to its Obvious Error Rule,
Rule 975NY. First, the Exchange is proposing to change the portion of
the rule that addresses errors in series with zero or no bid.
Specifically, the Exchange proposes replacing reference to ``series
quoted no bid on the Exchange'' with ``series where the NBBO bid is
zero.'' The Exchange believes that this change ensures consistency with
other relevant parts of the rule.
    Second, the Exchange proposes to increase the amount of time in
which Market Makers are required to notify the Exchange in order to
have transactions reviewed under Rule 975NY. Under the proposal, the
time would increase from five minutes to ten minutes. The Exchange
represents that this additional time accommodates the potential need
for Market Makers to potentially call multiple exchanges to have
transactions reviewed.
    Third, the Exchange proposes to extend the time ATP Holders acting
as agent for a Customer \5\ have to notify the Exchange of a potential
error from twenty minutes to thirty minutes. Under the proposed rule,
however, the time extension would not apply to ATP Holders acting as
agent for Professional Customers.\6\ The Exchange states that because
Customers are far removed from the execution of the trade, it believes
that it is appropriate to give Customers more time for their requests
for review to pass from their broker-dealer to the Exchange. In
contrast, the Exchange notes that other market participants, such as
firms, non-member Market Makers, and Professional Customers, tend to
route their own order flow directly to the Exchange and are not as far
removed from the actual execution. The Exchange further explains that
it is fairly common for broker-dealers that receive a Customer order to
route that order to another broker-dealer that uses a router that
evaluates best execution factors to determine where to ultimate route
the order. In these situations, if a Customer chooses to request an
Obvious Error review, Customers may need more than 20 minutes for their
requests for review to reach the Exchange. The Exchange acknowledges
that extending the notification period can increase the uncertainty of
the standing of the trade, however, it believes that such uncertainty
will be limited to trades that are so outside the bounds of normal
trading that they might qualify for Obvious Error treatment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Under NYSEMKT Rule 900.2NY(18) ``Customer'' means an
individual or organization that is not a Broker/Dealer; when not
capitalized, ``customer'' refers to any individual or organization
whose order is being represented, including a Broker/Dealer.
    \6\ See Amendment No. 1, supra note 4. Under NYSEMKT Rule
900.2NY(18A) ``Professional Customer'' means individual or
organization that (i) is not a Broker/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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, the Exchange is proposing to add a new section to Rule
975NY to

address Complex Orders in the Obvious Error context, as its current
rule is silent on how such Complex Orders are handled. According to the
Exchange, Complex Orders are often used by market participants to enter
positions known as spreads that entail limited risk relative to an
outright naked sale of a put or call. The Exchange believes that the
best approach for dealing with Complex Orders in the Obvious Error
context is to preserve the spread whenever possible to mitigate the
risk of such trades. Therefore, in the situation where a Complex Order
trades with another Complex Order in the Complex Order Book, and one of
the legs qualifies for Obvious Error treatment under Rule 975NY, then
all legs of the Complex Order will be busted unless both parties
mutually agree to an adjustment price.
    The Exchange also believes that it is appropriate not to permit
Obvious Error treatment in situations where the only error in the trade
occurred in a no-bid series. Therefore, in situations where a Complex
Order trades with another Complex Order in the Complex Order Book where
one leg qualifies for the no-bid provision of Rule 975NY, the trade
will stand as executed, unless both parties to the trade mutually agree
otherwise. The Exchange believes that this provision will prevent
manipulation and a potential increase in nullified trades, particularly
because it prevents parties from being able to enter a spread price
slightly away from the market, thus increasing the chance that one of
the legs will qualify for no-bid treatment, and providing the party
entering the order with a window of time to evaluate the market and
decide if it would be to its benefit to nullify the trade.
    Finally, the Exchange is codifying its current practice for
handling situations in which a Complex Order trades with individual
orders or quotes in the Consolidated Book. Pursuant to the proposed
rule, each executed leg will be reviewed separately under Rule 975NY.
The Exchange notes that while it prefers to avoid the partial execution
of a Complex Order, pursuant to this provision, it is possible that
after a Complex Order trade, only one leg qualifies for Obvious Error
treatment, resulting in the residual position of a single leg. The
Exchange explains that is will not seek to nullify a valid execution in
the Consolidated Order Book of an ATP Holder who unknowingly interacted
with a leg of a Complex Order.

III. Discussion and Commission Findings

    After careful review, the Commission finds that the proposed rule
change, as amended, is consistent with the requirements of the Act\7\
and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to a national
securities exchange.\8\ In particular, the Commission finds that the
proposed rule change, as amended, is consistent with Section 6(b)(5) of
the Act,\9\ which requires, among other things, that the Exchange's
rules be 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 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78f.
    \8\ In approving this proposed rule change, the Commission has
considered the proposed rule's impact on efficiency, competition,
and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).
    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange is replacing reference to ``series quoted no bid on
the Exchange'' with ``series where the NBBO bid is zero'' because it
believes that the NBBO provides greater accuracy in determining the
value of an option because it takes into account interest from
participants across all markets, not just those active on the Exchange.
The Exchange also believes that this change will promote just and
equitable principles of trade by adding more certainty and consistency
to the Exchange's Obvious Error rule. This consistency, according to
the Exchange, is important to help avoid investor confusion.
    The Exchange believes that the change to increase the time limit
for Market Makers to request review of transactions protects investors
and the public interest because it will ensure they are comfortable
meeting the deadline, thereby allowing Market Makers to continue to
aggressively provide liquidity in a transparent and nondiscriminatory
manner to all participants. Further, the Exchange notes that increasing
the time limit for ATP Holders acting as agent for Customers (but not
acting as agent for Professional Customers) to request review of
transactions should give those Customers that are not Professional
Customers sufficient time to request a review for trades, which is also
consistent with investor protection and furthering the public interest
as it allows those market participants furthest removed from the point
of execution time to evaluate each trade and have adequate time to
notify the Exchange of a potential error.
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule changes that address
the handling of Complex Orders under the Obvious Error rule are
designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to
promote just and equitable principles of trade, and, in general, to
protect investors and the public interest. The Exchange notes that
detailing the treatment of Complex Orders involved in Obvious Errors
provides investors with greater certainty. The Exchange also believes
that the best approach for dealing with Complex Orders in the context
of the Obvious Error rule is to preserve the spread whenever possible.
Second, the Exchange believes that preventing market participants from
busting trades solely the result of a leg(s) of a Complex Order
executing in a no-bid series furthers the protection of investors and
the public interest by preventing potential abuse. Finally, the
Exchange believes that the proposed rule change provides objective
guidelines for the determination of whether an obvious price error has
occurred, as it notes that the determination of whether an ``Obvious
Error'' has occurred should be based on specific and objective criteria
and subjective to specific and objective procedures.
    The Commission notes that, in approving past proposals relating to
Obvious Errors, it has emphasized the importance of specific and
objective criteria to determine how and when to nullify or adjust
trades involving Obvious Errors.\10\ The Commission believes the
changes that comprise this current proposal further this objective. For
the reasons noted above, the Commission finds that the proposed rule
change is consistent with Section 6(b)(5) of the Act,\11\ which
requires, among other things, that the Exchange's rules be 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 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See, e.g., Securities Exchange Release Nos. 54228 (July 27,
2006), 71 FR 44066 (August 3, 2006) (SR-CBOE-2006-14) and 58778
(October 14, 2008), 73 FR 62577 (October 21, 2008) (SR-CBOE-2008-90)
(both approving revisions to CBOE's Obvious Error Rules).
    \11\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Solicitation of Comments

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and
arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether Amendment No. 1
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-NYSEMKT-2013-12 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-NYSEMKT-2013-12.
This file number should be included on the subject line if email is
used. To help the Commission process and review your comments more
efficiently, please use only one method. The Commission will post all
comments on the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments,
all written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that
are filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating
to the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person,
other than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance
with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site
viewing and printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F
Street NE., Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the
hours of 10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of such filing also will be
available for inspection and copying at the principal office of the
Exchange. All comments received will be posted without change; the
Commission does not edit personal identifying information from
submissions. You should submit only information that you wish to make
publicly available. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-
NYSEMKT-2013-12 and should be submitted on or before June 14, 2013.

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

    As discussed above, Amendment No. 1 revised the proposed rule
change with respect to what types of entities would benefit from the
proposed time extension for ATP Holders acting as agent for Customers
to notify the Exchange of a potential error. The proposed rule change
increases such time from twenty minutes to thirty minutes. In Amendment
No. 1, the Exchange specifies that the extension would not apply to
Professional Customers. The Commission believes that the amendment
addresses potential concerns about whether the Exchange's justification
for this proposed change applies to Professional Customers. The
Exchange states that because Customers, a broadly defined term in the
Exchange's rules that includes Professional Customers, are typically
further removed from the trade execution and slower to receive
information about the status of their orders and executions, it is
appropriate to afford them more time to notify the Exchange of a
potential error. Professional Customers, however, are frequent traders
that are potentially more likely to closely follow their trade
execution than other types of Customers according to the Exchange. The
Exchange explained that Professional Customers tend to route their own
order flow directly to the Exchange and are not as far removed from the
actual execution. By revising the proposed rule change to specify that
the time extension would not apply to Professional Customers, the
Commission believes the Exchange has adequately addressed this
potential inconsistency between the proposed change and its
justification. Accordingly, the Commission also finds good cause,
pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act,\12\ for approving the proposed
rule change, as modified by Amendment No. 1, prior to the 30th day
after the date of publication of notice in the Federal Register.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

VI. Conclusion

    It is therefore ordered, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the
Act,\13\ that the proposed rule change (SR-NYSEMKT-2013-12), as
modified by Amendment No. 1, is hereby approved on an accelerated
basis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\14\
Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

[FR Doc. 2013-12405 Filed 5-23-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: January 12, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 7)]
[Notices]
[Page 1678-1680]
[DOCID:fr12ja10-98]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-61290; File No. SR-ISE-2009-109]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; International Securities Exchange,
LLC; Notice of Filing and Order Granting Accelerated Approval to a
Proposed Rule Change Relating to the Amounts That Direct Edge ECN, in
Its Capacity as an Introducing Broker for Non-ISE Members, Passes
Through to Such Non-ISE Members

January 5, 2010.
    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 December 31, 2009, the International Securities Exchange, LLC
(the ``Exchange'' or the ``ISE'') 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 self-regulatory organization. The Commission is publishing this
notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change from interested
persons, and is approving the proposal on an accelerated basis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \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 modify the amounts that Direct Edge ECN
(``DECN''), in its capacity as an introducing broker for non-ISE
Members, passes through to such non-ISE Members.
    The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's
Internet Web site at http://www.ise.com.

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 III below. The self-regulatory
organization 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
    DECN, a facility of ISE, operates two trading platforms, EDGX and
EDGA. On December 30, 2009, the ISE filed for immediate effectiveness a
proposed rule change to amend Direct Edge ECN's (``DECN'') fee schedule
for ISE Members \3\ to simplify its fee schedule by (i) eliminating the
Super Tier and Ultra Tier rebates; \4\ and (ii) amending

its fees and rebates.\5\ The changes made pursuant to SR-ISE-2009-108
became operative on January 1, 2010.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ References to ISE Members in this filing refer to DECN
Subscribers who are ISE Members.
    \4\ On July 1, 2009, the Exchange adopted a new Ultra Tier
Rebate whereby ISE Members were provided a $0.0032 rebate per share
for securities priced at or above $1.00 when ISE Members add
liquidity on EDGX if the attributed MPID satisfies one of the
following criteria on a daily basis, measured monthly: (i) Adding
100,000,000 shares or more on EDGX; or (ii) adding 50,000,000 shares
or more of liquidity on EDGX, so long as added liquidity on EDGX is
at least 20,000,000 shares greater than the previous calendar month.
The rebate described above is referred to as an ``Ultra Tier
Rebate'' on the DECN fee schedule. See Securities and Exchange Act
Release No. 60232 (July 2, 2009), 74 FR 33309 (July 10, 2009)(SR-
ISE-2009-43).
    On October 1, 2009, the Exchange amended the criteria for
meeting this tier by allowing ISE Members to receive a $0.0032
rebate per share for securities priced at or above $1.00 when ISE
Members add liquidity on EDGX if the attributed MPID posts 1% of the
total consolidated volume (``TCV'') in average daily volume
(``ADV''). TCV is defined as volume reported by all exchanges and
trade reporting facilities to the consolidated transaction reporting
plans for Tape A, B, and C securities. See Securities Exchange Act
Release No. 60769 (October 2, 2009) 74 FR 51903 (October 8,
2009)(SR-ISE-2009-68).
    On May 1, 2009, the Exchange amended the Super Tier rebate,
which provides a $0.0030 rebate per share for liquidity added on
EDGX if the attributed MPID satisfies any of the following three
criteria on a daily basis, measured monthly: (i) Adding 40,000,000
shares or more on either EDGX, EDGA, or EDGX and EDGA combined; (ii)
adding 20,000,000 shares or more on either EDGX, EDGA, or EDGX and
EDGA combined and routing 20,000,000 shares or more through EDGA; or
(iii) adding 10,000,000 shares or more of liquidity to EDGX, so long
as added liquidity on EDGX is at least 5,000,000 shares greater than
the previous calendar month. See Securities Exchange Act Release No.
59887 (May 7, 2009), 74 FR 22792 (May 14, 2009)(SR-ISE-2009-24).
    To adjust DECN's pricing model to be more consistent with other
exchanges (even though DECN is not an exchange), in SR-ISE-2009-108,
the Exchange proposed to de-link the pricing structures of DECN to
eliminate pricing offers that are contingent on activity across both
platforms. Secondly, in that filing, the Exchange proposed to
simplify its fee schedule, which will provide Members with greater
consistency and transparency during the period that the EDGA and
EDGX Exchanges are preparing to launch, when volume will be
transitioning from DECN to the EDGA and EDGX Exchanges (assuming
their respective Form 1 applications are approved by the
Commission). Finally, the Exchange believes that the proposed rate
changes will help to maintain the competitive position of DECN. On
May 7, 2009, each of EDGA Exchange, Inc. and EDGX Exchange, Inc.
(the ``EDGA and EDGX Exchanges'') filed their respective Form 1
applications to register as a national securities exchange (``Form
1'') pursuant to Section 6 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
On July 30, 2009, the Exchanges filed Amendment No. 1 to the Form 1
Application. On September 17, 2009, the Form 1 was published in the
Federal Register for notice and comment. See Securities Exchange Act
Release No. 60651 (September 11, 2009), 74 FR 47827 (September 17,
2009).
    To effectuate the foregoing, in SR-ISE-2009-108, the Exchange
deleted the Super Tier and Ultra Tier rebates discussed above.
    \5\ In SR-ISE-2009-108, the Exchange amended its fee schedule
for adding liquidity on EDGX from free to 0.15% of the dollar value
of the transaction for securities priced less than $1. For removing
liquidity on EDGX, the Exchange amended its fee schedule for the
removal fee from 0.20% of the dollar value of the transaction to
0.30% of the dollar value of the transaction.
    DECN does not charge port charges to Members executing 200,000
shares or more of combined liquidity on EDGX and/or EDGA on a
monthly basis, per port. Any port (or number of ports) in excess of
this, however, was charged $50 per port, per month. In SR-ISE-2009-
108, the Exchange eliminated this contingency and provided that all
port charges are free irrespective of how much volume the Member
executes.
    Previously, the Exchange provided that the removal rate on EDGA,
which was a rebate of $0.0002 per share, was contingent on the
attributed MPID adding or routing a minimum average daily share
volume, measured monthly, of 50,000 shares on EDGA. In SR-ISE-2009-
108, the Exchange provided that hidden order executions (Flag H)
also count toward this volume. As a result, any attributed MPID not
meeting this minimum will be charged $0.0030 per share for removing
liquidity from EDGA. In addition, the Exchange eliminated this
contingency (in footnote 1 of the fee schedule) as it applies to
EDGX or EDGA/EDGX combined volume. As mentioned above, the Exchange
de-linked the pricing structures of DECN (EDGA/EDGX) to eliminate
pricing offers that are contingent on activity across both
platforms.
    For adding liquidity on EDGA, Members were charged $0.0002 per
share to add liquidity on EDGA unless the attributed MPID added a
minimum average daily share volume, measured monthly, of at least
50,000,000 shares on EDGA. Any attributed MPID meeting this minimum
would not be charged to add liquidity on EDGA. In SR-ISE-2009-108,
the Exchange deleted the above paragraph in footnote 1 as the
current charge of $0.0002 per share to add liquidity on EDGA is no
longer dependent on Members adding a minimum average daily share
volume, measured monthly, of at least 50,000,000 shares on EDGA. In
addition, any attributed MPID meeting this minimum will also be
charged $0.0002 per share to add liquidity on EDGA. Therefore, the
text in footnote 1 has been deleted to reflect this change.
    Members could qualify for a rebate of $0.0032 per share for all
liquidity posted on EDGX if they: (i) Added or route at least
10,000,000 shares of average daily volume prior to 9:30 a.m. or
after 4 p.m. (includes all flags except 6); and (ii) added a minimum
of 75,000,000 shares of average daily volume on EDGX in total,
including during both market hours and pre- and post-trading hours.
In SR-ISE-2009-108, for EDGX, the Exchange amended this as follows:
for Members adding volume in securities priced $1 and over, they
will receive a rebate of $0.0031 per share for all liquidity posted
on EDGX if they: (i) add or route at least 5,000,000 shares of
average daily volume prior to 9:30 a.m. or after 4 p.m. (includes
all flags except 6); and (ii) add a minimum of 50,000,000 shares of
average daily volume on EDGX in total, including during both market
hours and pre- and post-trading hours (emphasis added). The new
thresholds allow more Members to receive this rebate and is designed
to reward members who add or route significant order flow to EDGX
both during market hours and pre- and post-trading hours. It is also
designed to increase liquidity during pre- and post-trading hours.
For all Members, including Members not meeting the above thresholds,
the Exchange now proposes to rebate $0.0029 per share for adding
liquidity (to EDGX) in securities on all Tapes. This replaced the
Super Tier and Ultra Tier structure that had been in place and is
described above. Conforming amendments were made to flags B, V, Y, 3
& 4 (``add liquidity'' flags) to reflect this fee change.
    For removing liquidity, the Exchange charged $0.0028 per share
for removing liquidity on EDGX for securities on all Tapes. In SR-
ISE-2009-108, the Exchange amended the fee schedule to charge
$0.0029 per share for removing liquidity on EDGX. The Exchange
believes that this fee structure will enable it to compete
effectively with other market centers. Conforming amendments were
made to the N, W, and 6 flags (``remove liquidity'' flags) to
reflect this fee change.
    Finally, in SR-ISE-2009-108, the Exchange amended the fee for
EDGA orders routed to EDGX. Previously, the Exchange charged $0.0028
per share and this event yielded flag ``I''. In SR-ISE-2009-108, the
Exchange increased this fee to $0.0029 per share on the EDGA
platform. The Exchange believes that this rate change will enable it
to maintain a competitive position with regards to other away market
centers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In its capacity as a member of ISE, DECN currently serves as an
introducing broker for the non-ISE Member subscribers of DECN to access
EDGX and EDGA. DECN, as an ISE Member and introducing broker, receives
rebates and is assessed charges from DECN for transactions it executes
on EDGX or EDGA in its capacity as introducing broker for non-ISE
Members. Since the amounts of such rebates and charges were changed
pursuant to SR-ISE-2009-108, DECN wishes to make corresponding changes
to the amounts it passes through to non-ISE Member subscribers of DECN
for which it acts as introducing broker. As a result, the per share
amounts that non-ISE Member subscribers receive and are charged will be
the same as the amounts that ISE Members receive and are charged.
    ISE is seeking accelerated approval of this proposed rule change,
as well as an effective date of January 1, 2010. ISE represents that
this proposal will ensure that both ISE Members and non-ISE Members (by
virtue of the pass-through described above) will in effect receive and
be charged equivalent amounts and that the imposition of such amounts
will begin on the same January 1, 2010 start date.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with the objectives of Section 6 of the Act,\6\ in general, and
furthers the objectives of Section 6(b)(4),\7\ in particular, in that
it is designed to provide for the equitable allocation of reasonable
dues, fees and other charges among its members and other persons using
its facilities. In particular, this proposal will ensure that dues,
fees and other charges imposed on ISE Members are equitably allocated
to both ISE Members and non-ISE Members (by virtue of the pass-through
described above).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78f.
    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The proposed rule change does not 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

    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. 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 No. SR-ISE-2009-109 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-ISE-2009-109. 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, 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 ISE. 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-ISE-2009-109 and should be submitted on or before
February 2, 2010.

IV. Commission's Findings and Order Granting Accelerated Approval of
Proposed Rule Change

    The Commission finds that the proposed rule change is consistent
with the requirements of the Act and the rules and regulations
thereunder applicable to a national securities exchange.\8\
Specifically, the Commission finds that the proposed rule change is
consistent with Section 6(b)(4) \9\ of the Act, which requires that the
rules of a national securities exchange provide for the equitable
allocation of reasonable dues, fees, and other charges among members
and issuers and other persons using its facilities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ In approving this proposal, the Commission has considered
its impact on efficiency, competition, and capital formation. 15
U.S.C. 78c(f).
    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As described more fully above, ISE recently amended DECN's fee
schedule for ISE Members pursuant to SR-ISE-2009-108 (the ``Member Fee
Filing''). The fee changes made pursuant to the Member Fee Filing
became operative on January 1, 2010. DECN receives rebates and is
charged fees for transactions it executes on EGDX or EDGA in its
capacity as an introducing broker for its non-ISE member subscribers.
    The current proposal, which will apply retroactively to January 1,
2010, will allow DECN to pass through the revised rebates and fees to
the non-ISE member subscribers for which it acts as an introducing
broker. The Commission finds that the proposal is consistent with the
Act because it will provide rebates and charge fees to non-ISE member
subscribers that are equivalent to those established for ISE member
subscribers in the Member Fee Filing.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    ISE has requested that the Commission find good cause for approving
the proposed rule change prior to the thirtieth day after publication
of notice of filing thereof in the Federal Register. As discussed
above, the proposal will allow DECN to pass through to non-ISE member
subscribers the revised rebate and fees established for ISE member
subscribers in the Member Fee Filing, resulting in equivalent rebates
and fees for ISE member and non-member subscribers. In addition,
because the proposal will apply the revised rebates and fees
retroactively to January 1, 2010, the revised rebates and fees will
have the same effective date, thereby promoting consistency in the
DECN's fee schedule. Accordingly, the Commission finds good cause,
pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act, for approving the proposed
rule change prior to the thirtieth day after the date of publication of
notice of filing thereof in the Federal Register.

V. Conclusion

    It is therefore ordered, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the
Act,\11\ that the proposed rule change (SR-ISE-2009-109) be, and hereby
is, approved on an accelerated basis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-297 Filed 1-11-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 229 (Monday, November 30, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Page 74822]
[FR Doc No: 2015-30481]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Sunshine Act Meeting

    Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the
Government in the Sunshine Act, Pub. L. 94-409, that the Securities and
Exchange Commission will hold a Closed Meeting on Thursday, December 3,
2015 at 2:00 p.m.
    Commissioners, Counsel to the Commissioners, the Secretary to the
Commission, and recording secretaries will attend the Closed Meeting.
Certain staff members who have an interest in the matters also may be
present.
    The General Counsel of the Commission, or her designee, has
certified that, in her opinion, one or more of the exemptions set forth
in 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(3), (5), (7), 9(B) and (10) and 17 CFR
200.402(a)(3), (5), (7), 9(ii) and (10), permit consideration of the
scheduled matter at the Closed Meeting.
    Commissioner Aguilar, as duty officer, voted to consider the items
listed for the Closed Meeting in closed session.
    The subject matter of the Closed Meeting will be:

Institution and settlement of injunctive actions;
Institution and settlement of administrative proceedings;
Adjudicatory matters;
Resolution of litigation claims; and
Other matters relating to enforcement proceedings.
    At times, changes in Commission priorities require alterations in
the scheduling of meeting items.
    For further information and to ascertain what, if any, matters have
been added, deleted or postponed, please contact the Office of the
Secretary at<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: November 25, 2015.
Brent J. Fields,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2015-30481 Filed 11-25-15; 4:15 pm]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 196 (Thursday, October 8, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 63546-63547]
[FR Doc No: 2020-22295]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. EL20-73-000]

The Hoopa Valley Tribe and the Hoopa Valley Public Utilities
District; Notice of Petition for Declaratory Order

    Take notice that on September 28, 2020, pursuant to Rule 207(a)(2)
of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's (Commission) Rules of
Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.207 (2019), The Hoopa Valley Tribe
(HVT) and its wholly-owned entity The Hoopa Valley Public Utilities
District (HVPUD) (Petitioner) hereby submits a petition for declaratory
order (Petition) requesting that the Commission issue a declaratory
order finding that HVT and HVPUD are public utilities that are exempt
under section 201(f) of Part II of the Federal Power Act,\1\ as more
fully explained in the petition.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 16 U.S.C. 824(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to
be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the
proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of
intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices,
motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date.
Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of
that document on the Petitioner.
    In addition to publishing the full text of this document in the
Federal Register, the Commission provides all interested persons an
opportunity to view and/or print the contents of this document via the
internet through the

Commission's Home Page (http://ferc.gov) using the ``eLibrary'' link.
Enter the docket number excluding the last three digits in the docket
number field to access the document. At this time, the Commission has
suspended access to the Commission's Public Reference Room, due to the
proclamation declaring a National Emergency concerning the Novel
Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19), issued by the President on March 13,
2020. For assistance, contact the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call toll-free,<PHONE_NUMBER> or TYY,
(202) 502-8659.
    The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings of comments,
protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link
at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically may mail
similar pleadings to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888
First Street, NE, Washington, DC 20426. Hand delivered submissions in
docketed proceedings should be delivered to Health and Human Services,
12225 Wilkins Avenue, Rockville, Maryland 20852.
    Comment Date: 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on October 28, 2020.

    Dated: October 2, 2020.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2020-22295 Filed 10-7-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 247 (Wednesday, December 26, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Page 76160]
[FR Doc No: 2012-31151]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[File No. 500-1]

New Generation Biofuels Holdings, Inc.; Order of Suspension of
Trading

December 21, 2012.
    It appears to the Securities and Exchange Commission that there is
a lack of current and accurate information concerning the securities of
New Generation Biofuels Holdings, Inc. because it has not filed any
periodic reports since the period ended June 30, 2011.
    The Commission is of the opinion that the public interest and the
protection of investors require a suspension of trading in the
securities of the above-listed company.
    Therefore, it is ordered, pursuant to Section 12(k) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, that trading in the securities of the
above-listed company is suspended for the period from 9:30 a.m. EST, on
December 21, 2012 through 11:59 p.m. EST, on January 7, 2013.

By the Commission.
Jill M. Peterson,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-31151 Filed 12-21-12; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: April 1, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 63)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 17292-17293]
[DOCID:fr01ap08-16]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 63

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0155; FRL-8547-3]
RIN 2060-AO52

National Perchloroethylene Air Emission Standards for Dry
Cleaning Facilities

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to amend the national perchloroethylene air
emission standards for dry cleaning facilities promulgated on July 27,
2006 (71 FR 42724), under the authority of section 112 of the Clean Air
Act. These amendments to the national perchloroethylene air emission
standards for dry cleaning facilities would correct applicability cross
references that were not correctly amended between the most recent
proposed and final rule revisions, and would clarify that condenser
performance monitoring may be done by either of two prescribed methods
(pressure or temperature), regardless of whether an installed pressure
gauge is present. Without these amendments, new area sources could
erroneously be required to perform monitoring that was proposed for
only major sources, and installed condenser performance gauge readings
could be required of sources when a prescribed temperature method is
just as valid for compliance purposes. In the ``Rules and Regulations''
section of this Federal Register, we are issuing these corrections as a
direct final rule with this parallel proposed rule. If we receive no
adverse comment, we will not take further action on this proposed rule.

DATES: Written comments must be received on or before May 16, 2008.
    Public Hearing: If anyone contacts EPA requesting to speak at a
public hearing concerning this rulemaking by April 11, 2008, we will
hold a public hearing on April 16, 2008.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-
OAR-2005-0155 by one of the following methods:
    (1) http//www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions for
submitting comments.
    (2) E-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>and<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (3) Facsimile:<PHONE_NUMBER> and<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (4) Mail: U.S. Postal Service, send comments to: Air and Radiation
Docket, Environmental Protection Agency, Mailcode: 6102T, 1200
Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460. Please include a total of
two copies.
    (5) Hand Delivery: Deliver in person, or by courier deliveries to:
EPA Docket Center, Public Reading Room, EPA West, Room 3334, 1301
Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460. Such deliveries are only
accepted during the Docket's normal hours of operation, and special
arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed information.
    We request that a separate copy also be sent to the contact person
listed below (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).
    Public Hearing: If you are interested in attending the public
hearing, contact Ms. Joan Rogers at<PHONE_NUMBER> to verify that a
hearing will be held. If a public hearing is held, it will be held at
10 a.m. at EPA's Campus located at 109 T.W. Alexander Drive in Research
Triangle Park, NC, or an alternate site nearby. If no one contacts EPA
requesting to speak at a public hearing concerning this rule by April
11, 2008 this meeting will be cancelled without further notice.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Warren Johnson, Sector Policies
and Programs Division, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
(E143-03), Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park,
North Carolina 27711, telephone number<PHONE_NUMBER>, electronic mail
address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The information presented in this document
is organized as follows:

I. Why is EPA issuing the proposed rule?
II. Does this action apply to me?
III. Where can I get a copy of this document?
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. Why Is EPA Issuing the Proposed Rule?

    In the ``Rules and Regulations'' section of this Federal Register,
we are issuing these corrections as a direct final rule with this
parallel proposed rule. If we receive no adverse comment, we will not
take further action on this proposed rule. On September 22, 1993, EPA
promulgated National Perchloroethylene Air Emission Standards for Dry
Cleaning Facilities (58

FR 49376). These standards are codified at 40 CFR part 63, subpart M.
On December 21, 2005, EPA proposed revisions to the National
Perchloroethylene Air Emission Standards for Dry Cleaning Facilities
(70 FR 75884) and on July 27, 2006, EPA promulgated final revisions to
the National Perchloroethylene Air Emission Standards for Dry Cleaning
Facilities (71 FR 42724). This document proposes to make certain
technical and editorial corrections to these final revisions. We have
published a direct final rule correcting the area source NESHAP in the
``Rules and Regulations'' section of this Federal Register because we
view this as a non-controversial action and anticipate no adverse
comment. We have explained our reasons for this action in the preamble
to the direct final rule.
    If we receive no adverse comment, we will take no further action on
this proposed rule. If we receive adverse comment, we will publish a
timely withdrawal in the Federal Register informing the public that
some or all of the amendments in this rule will not take effect. We
will address all public comments received on this proposed rule in a
subsequent final rule, and we will not institute a second comment
period on this proposed rule. Any parties interested in commenting on
the proposed rule must do so at this time.
    For further information about commenting on the rule, see the
ADDRESSES section of this document.

II. Does This Action Apply to Me?

    The categories and entities potentially regulated by the final rule
are industrial and commercial perchloroethylene (PCE) dry cleaners.
This proposal would affect the following categories of sources:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                 NAICS \1\
                   Category                         code          Examples of potentially regulated entities
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Coin-operated Laundries and Dry Cleaners.....       812310   Dry-to-dry machines.
                                                             Transfer machines.
 Dry Cleaning and Laundry Services (except           812320   Dry-to-dry machines.
 coin-operated).                                             Transfer machines.
 Industrial Launderers........................       812332   Dry-to-dry machines.
                                                             Transfer machines.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ North American Industry Classification System.

    This table is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a
guide for readers regarding entities likely to be regulated by the
final rule. To determine whether your facility is regulated by the
final rule, you should examine the applicability criteria in 40 CFR
63.320. If you have any questions regarding the applicability of the
final rule to a particular entity, contact the person listed in the
preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

III. Where Can I Get a Copy of This Document?

    In addition to being available in the docket, an electronic copy of
this proposed action will also be available on the Worldwide Web (WWW)
through the Technology Transfer Network (TTN). Following signature, a
copy of this proposed action will be posted on the TTN's policy and
guidance page for newly proposed or promulgated rules at the following
address: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg/. The TTN provides information
and technology exchange in various areas of air pollution control.

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    For the discussion of administrative requirements for this proposed
rule, see the direct final rule action in the ``Rules and Regulations''
section of today's Federal Register.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 63

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Hazardous
substances, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: March 20, 2008.
Stephen L. Johnson,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. E8-6548 Filed 3-31-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 242 (Tuesday, December 19, 2023)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 87670-87671]
[FR Doc No: 2023-27857]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

21 CFR Part 573

[Docket No. FDA-2020-F-0151]

Food Additives Permitted in Feed and Drinking Water of Animals;
Calcium Formate

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA, we, or the Agency) is
amending the regulations for food additives permitted in feed and
drinking water of animals to provide for the safe use of calcium
formate as a feed acidifying agent, to lower the pH, in complete swine
and poultry feeds at levels not to exceed 1.2 percent of the complete
feed. This action is in response to a food additive petition filed by
LANXESS Corp.

DATES: This rule is effective December 19, 2023. See section V for
further information on the filing of objections. Either electronic or
written objections and requests for a hearing on the final rule must be
submitted by January 18, 2024.

ADDRESSES: You may submit objections and requests for a hearing as
follows. Please note that late, untimely filed objections will not be
considered. The https://www.regulations.gov electronic filing system
will accept comments until 11:59 p.m. Eastern Time at the end of
January 18, 2024. Objections received by mail/hand delivery/courier
(for written/paper submissions) will be considered timely if they are
received on or before that date.

Electronic Submissions

    Submit electronic objections in the following way:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the instructions for submitting objections. Objections submitted
electronically, including attachments, to https://www.regulations.gov
will be posted to the docket unchanged. Because your objection will be
made public, you are solely responsible for ensuring that your
objection does not include any confidential information that you or a
third party may not wish to be posted, such as medical information,
your or anyone else's Social Security number, or confidential business
information, such as a manufacturing process. Please note that if you
include your name, contact information, or other information that
identifies you in the body of your objection, that information will be
posted on https://www.regulations.gov.
     If you want to submit an objection with confidential
information that you do not wish to be made available to the public,
submit the objection as a written/paper submission and in the manner
detailed (see ``Written/Paper Submissions'' and ``Instructions'').

Written/Paper Submissions

    Submit written/paper submissions as follows:
     Mail/Hand Delivery/Courier (for written/paper
submissions): Dockets Management Staff (HFA-305), Food and Drug
Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.
     For written/paper objections submitted to the Dockets
Management Staff, FDA will post your objection, as well as any
attachments, except for information submitted, marked and identified,
as confidential, if submitted as detailed in ``Instructions.''
    Instructions: All submissions received must include the Docket No.
FDA-2020-F-0151 for ``Food Additives Permitted in Feed and Drinking
Water of Animals; Calcium Formate.'' Received objections, those filed
in a timely manner (see ADDRESSES), will be placed in the docket and,
except for those submitted as ``Confidential Submissions,'' publicly
viewable at https://www.regulations.gov or at the Dockets Management
Staff between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Confidential Submissions--To submit an objection with
confidential information that you do not wish to be made publicly
available, submit your objections only as a written/paper submission.
You should submit two copies in total. One copy will include the
information you claim to be confidential with a heading or cover note
that states ``THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION.'' The
Agency will review this copy, including the claimed confidential
information, in its consideration of objections. The second copy, which
will have the claimed confidential information redacted/blacked out,
will be available for public viewing and posted on https://www.regulations.gov. Submit both copies to the Dockets Management
Staff. If you do not wish your name and contact information to be made
publicly available, you can provide this information on the cover sheet
and not in the body of your objections and you must identify this
information as ``confidential.'' Any information marked as
``confidential'' will not be disclosed except in accordance with 21 CFR
10.20 and other applicable disclosure law. For more information about
FDA's posting of comments to public dockets, see 80 FR 56469, September
18, 2015, or access the information at: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2015-09-18/pdf/2015-23389.pdf.
    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or
the electronic and written/paper comments received, go to https://www.regulations.gov and insert the docket number, found in brackets in
the heading of this document, into the ``Search'' box and follow the
prompts and/or go to the Dockets Management Staff, 5630 Fishers Lane,
Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Wasima Wahid, Center for Veterinary
Medicine (HFV-221), Food and Drug Administration, 7500 Standish Pl.,
Rockville, MD 20855,<PHONE_NUMBER>, [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    In a document published in the Federal Register of February 11,
2020 (85 FR 7682), FDA announced that we had filed a food additive
petition (animal use) (FAP 2310) submitted by LANXESS Corp., 111 RIDC
Park West Dr., Pittsburgh, PA 15275. The petition proposed that the
regulations for food additives permitted in feed and drinking water of
animals be amended to provide for the safe use of calcium formate as a
feed acidifying agent, to lower the pH, in complete feeds for swine or
poultry.

II. Conclusion

    FDA concludes that the data establish the safety and utility of
calcium formate as a feed acidifying agent, to lower the pH, in
complete feeds for swine or poultry, and that the food additive
regulations should be amended as set forth in this document.

III. Public Disclosure

    In accordance with Sec.  571.1(h) (21 CFR 571.1(h)), the petition
and documents we considered and relied upon in reaching our decision to
approve the petition will be made available for public disclosure (see
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT). As provided in Sec.  571.1(h), we
will delete from the documents any materials that are not available for
public disclosure.

IV. Analysis of Environmental Impact

    We have determined under 21 CFR 25.32(r) that this action is of a
type that does not individually or cumulatively have a significant
effect on the human environment. Therefore, neither an environmental
assessment nor an environmental impact statement is required.

V. Objections and Hearing Requests

    If you will be adversely affected by one or more provisions of this
regulation, you may file with the Dockets Management Staff (see
ADDRESSES) either electronic or written objections. You must separately
number each objection, and within each numbered objection you must
specify with particularity the provision(s) to which you object, and
the grounds for your objection. Within each numbered objection, you
must specifically state whether you are requesting a hearing on the
particular provision that you specify in that numbered objection. If
you do not request a hearing for any particular objection, you waive
the right to a hearing on that objection. If you request a hearing,
your objection must include a detailed description and analysis of the
specific factual information you intend to present in support of the
objection in the event that a hearing is held. If you do not include
such a description and analysis for any particular objection, you waive
the right to a hearing on the objection.

List of Subjects in 21 CFR Part 573

    Animal feeds, Food additives.

    Therefore, under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act and under
authority delegated to the Commissioner of Food and Drugs, 21 CFR part
573 is amended as follows:

PART 573--FOOD ADDITIVES PERMITTED IN FEED AND DRINKING WATER OF
ANIMALS

0
1. The authority citation for part 573 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  21 U.S.C. 321, 342, 348.

0
2. Add Sec.  573.230 to subpart B to read as follows:

Sec.  573.230  Calcium formate.

    The food additive calcium formate may be safely used in the
manufacture of complete swine and poultry feeds in accordance with the
following prescribed conditions:
    (a) The additive is manufactured by the reaction of butyraldehyde,
formaldehyde, calcium hydroxide, and formic acid in water followed by
purification and dried to produce a powder consisting of not less than
99.0 percent calcium formate (CAS 544-17-2). The additive meets the
following specifications:
    (1) The additive consists of minimum 30.5 percent calcium and
minimum 68.5 percent formate.
    (2) Trimethylolpropane (TMP) not to exceed 125 parts per million.
    (b) The additive is used or intended for use as a feed acidifying
agent, to lower the pH, in complete swine or poultry feeds at levels
not to exceed 1.2 percent of the complete feed.
    (c) To ensure safe use of the additive, formic acid and formate
salts from all added sources cannot exceed 1.2 percent of complete feed
when multiple sources of formic acid and its salts are used in
combination.
    (d) To ensure safe use of the additive, in addition to the other
information required by the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, the
label and labeling shall contain:
    (1) The name of the additive.
    (2) Adequate directions for use including a statement that calcium
formate must be uniformly applied and thoroughly mixed into complete
feeds and that the complete feeds so treated shall be labeled as
containing calcium formate.
    (3) Cautions for use including this statement: Caution: Follow
label directions. Formic acid and formate salts from all added sources
cannot exceed 1.2 percent of complete feed when multiple sources of
formic acid and its salts are used in combination.
    (e) To ensure safe use of the additive, in addition to the other
information required by the act and paragraph (d) of this section, the
label and labeling shall contain:
    (1) Appropriate warnings and safety precautions concerning calcium
formate.
    (2) Statements identifying calcium formate as a possible severe
irritant.
    (3) Information about emergency aid in case of accidental exposure
as follows.
    (i) Statements reflecting requirements of applicable sections of
the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act, and the Occupational
Safety and Health Administration's (OSHA) human safety guidance
regulations.
    (ii) Contact address and telephone number for reporting adverse
reactions or to request a copy of the Safety Data Sheet (SDS).

    Dated: December 14, 2023.
Lauren K. Roth,
Associate Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2023-27857 Filed 12-18-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4164-01-P


disapproval of two elements of ADEQ's program, which have been vacated
from the PSD program (and is one case also from the NA-NSR program) by
the courts. We are also proposing a limited approval of ADEQ's
nonattainment NSR program for the Nogales and West Central Pinal
PM2.5 nonattainment areas and the West Pinal PM10
nonattainment area under section 189(e) of the Act. Finally, we are
proposing a limited approval and limited disapproval of two ADEQ rules
relating to test methods and procedures and performance tests, and
proposing to approve into the SIP an Arizona statutory provision
relating to local delegation of state authority.

III. Public Comment and Proposed Action

    Pursuant to section 110(k) of the CAA and for the reasons provided
above, EPA is proposing a limited approval and limited disapproval of
revisions to the ADEQ portion of the Arizona SIP that govern
preconstruction review and the issuance of preconstruction permits for
stationary sources, including the review and permitting of major
sources and major modifications under parts C and D of title I of the
CAA. Specifically, EPA is proposing a limited approval and limited
disapproval of the new and amended ADEQ regulations listed in Table 1,
above, as a revision to the ADEQ portion of the Arizona SIP. We are
also proposing to remove the existing statutes and rules listed in
Table 2 from the SIP, which are outdated and mostly being superseded by
our proposed action. In addition, we are also proposing to partially
disapprove two provisions of ADEQ's NSR program that have been vacated
by the courts. We are proposing a limited approval of ADEQ's
nonattainment NSR program in certain nonattainment areas under section
189 of the Act related to PM10 and PM2.5
precursors. Finally, we are proposing a limited approval and limited
disapproval of two ADEQ rules relating to test methods and procedures
and performance tests, and proposing to approve into the SIP an Arizona
statutory provision relating to local delegation of state authority.
    EPA is proposing this action because, although we find that the new
and amended rules meet most of the applicable requirements for such
permit programs and that the SIP revisions improve the existing SIP, we
have found certain deficiencies that prevent full approval, as
explained further in this preamble and in the TSD for this rulemaking.
The intended effect of our proposed limited approval and limited
disapproval action is to update the applicable SIP with current ADEQ

regulations and to set the stage for remedying deficiencies in these
regulations.
    If finalized as proposed, our limited disapproval action would
trigger an obligation on EPA to promulgate a Federal Implementation
Plan unless the State of Arizona corrects the deficiencies, and EPA
approves the related plan revisions, within two years of the final
action. Additionally, for those deficiencies that relate to the
Nonattainment NSR requirements under part D of title I of the Act, the
offset sanction in CAA section 179(b)(2) would apply in the ADEQ
nonattainment areas 18 months after the effective date of a final
limited disapproval, and the highway funding sanctions in CAA section
179(b)(1) would apply in these areas six months after the offset
sanction is imposed. Neither sanction will be imposed under the CAA if
Arizona submits and we approve, prior to the implementation of the
sanctions, SIP revisions that correct the deficiencies that we identify
in our final action. The EPA intends to work with ADEQ to correct the
deficiencies identified in this action in a timely manner.
    We will accept comments from the public on this proposed action for
the next 30 days.

IV. Incorporation by Reference

    In this rule, the EPA is proposing to include in a final EPA rule
regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance
with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, the EPA is proposing to incorporate by
reference the ADEQ rules and Arizona statutory provisions listed in
Table 1 of this preamble. The EPA has made, and will continue to make,
these documents generally available electronically through
www.regulations.gov and/or in hard copy at the appropriate EPA office
(see the ADDRESSES section of this preamble for more information).

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and Executive
Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review

    This proposed action is not a ``significant regulatory action''
under the terms of Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993)
and is therefore not subject to review under Executive Orders 12866 and
13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011).

B. Paperwork Reduction Act

    This action does not impose an information collection burden under
the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.
Burden is defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b).

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) generally requires an agency
to conduct a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to
notice and comment rulemaking requirements unless the agency certifies
that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities. Small entities include small
businesses, small not-for-profit enterprises, and small governmental
jurisdictions.
    This rule will not have a significant impact on a substantial
number of small entities because SIP approvals or disapprovals under
section 110 and subchapter I of the Clean Air Act do not create any new
requirements but simply approve or disapprove requirements that the
State is already imposing. Therefore, because EPA's proposed limited
approval/limited disapproval does not create any new requirements, I
certify that this action will not have a significant economic impact on
a substantial number of small entities.
    Moreover, due to the nature of the Federal-State relationship under
the Clean Air Act, preparation of flexibility analysis would constitute
Federal inquiry into the economic reasonableness of State action. The
Clean Air Act forbids EPA to base its actions concerning SIPs on such
grounds. Union Electric Co., v. U.S. EPA, 427 U.S. 246, 255-66 (1976);
42 U.S.C. 7410(a)(2).

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), 2
U.S.C. 1531-1538, requires Federal agencies, unless otherwise
prohibited by law, to assess the effects of their regulatory actions on
State, local, and tribal governments and the private sector. Federal
agencies must also develop a plan to provide notice to small
governments that might be significantly or uniquely affected by any
regulatory requirements. The plan must enable officials of affected
small governments to have meaningful and timely input in the
development of EPA regulatory proposals with significant Federal
intergovernmental mandates and must inform, educate, and advise small
governments on compliance with the regulatory requirements.
    This proposed rule does not include a Federal mandate that may
result in estimated costs of $100 million or more to either State,
local, or tribal governments in the aggregate, or to the private sector
in any one year. Thus, this rule is not subject to the requirements of
section 202 or 205 of UMRA. This Federal action proposes to approve and
disapprove pre-existing requirements under State or local law, and
imposes no new requirements.
    This proposed rule is also not subject to the requirements of
section 203 of UMRA because it contains no regulatory requirements that
might significantly or uniquely affect small governments. This proposed
rule does not impose regulatory requirements on any government entity.

E. Executive Order 13132, Federalism

    This action does not have federalism implications. It will not have
substantial direct effects on the states, on the relationship between
the national government and the states, or in the distribution of power
and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as
specified in Executive Order 13132. In the spirit of Executive Order
13132, and consistent with EPA policy to promote communications between
EPA and State and local governments, EPA specifically solicits comment
on this proposed action from State and local officials.

F. Executive Order 13175, Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments

    Under Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), EPA
may not issue a regulation that has tribal implications, that imposes
substantial direct compliance costs, and that is not required by
statute, unless the federal government provides the funds necessary to
pay the direct compliance costs incurred by tribal governments, or EPA
consults with tribal officials early in the process of developing the
proposed regulation and develops a tribal summary impact statement.
    This proposed rule does not have tribal implications, as specified
in Executive Order 13175. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to
this rule. EPA specifically solicits additional comment on this
proposed rule from tribal officials. 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 and
will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or
preempt tribal law as specified by Executive Order 13175.

G. Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children From Environmental
Health Risks and Safety Risks

    EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997)
as

applying only to those regulatory actions that concern health or safety
risks, such that the analysis required under section 5-501 of the
Executive Order has the potential to influence the regulation. This
rule is not subject to Executive Order 13045, because it proposes to
approve a State rule implementing a Federal standard.

H. Executive Order 13211, Actions That Significantly Affect Energy
Supply, Distribution, or Use

    This rule is not subject to Executive Order 13211, ``Actions
Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001) because it is not a
significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

    Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (NTTAA), Public Law 104-113, 12 (10) (15 U.S.C. 272 note)
directs EPA to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS) in its
regulatory activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with
applicable law or otherwise impractical. VCS are technical standards
(e.g., materials specifications, test methods, sampling procedures, and
business practices) that are developed or adopted by the VCS bodies.
The NTTAA directs EPA to provide Congress, through annual reports to
OMB, with explanations when the Agency decides not to use available and
applicable VCS. EPA believes that VCS are inapplicable to this action.
Today's action does not require the public to perform activities
conducive to the use of VCS.

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Population

    Executive Order (EO) 12898 (59 FR 7629 (Feb. 16, 1994)) establishes
federal executive policy on environmental justice. Its main provision
directs federal agencies, to the greatest extent practicable and
permitted by law, to make environmental justice part of their mission
by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high
and adverse human health or environmental effects of their programs,
policies, and activities on minority populations and low-income
populations in the United States.
    EPA has determined that this proposed rule will not have
disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental
effects on minority or low-income populations because it does not
change the level of environmental protection for any affected
populations.

    Dated: March 4, 2015.
Jared Blumenfeld,
Regional Administrator, Region IX.
[FR Doc. 2015-06143 Filed 3-17-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P