[Federal Register: May 19, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 96)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 27975-27977]
[DOCID:fr19my10-20]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R09-OAR-2008-0740; FRL-9152-9]

Revisions to the California State Implementation Plan; Imperial
County Air Pollution Control District

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve revisions to the Imperial County
Air Pollution Control District (ICAPCD) portion of the California State
Implementation Plan (SIP). These revisions concern particulate matter
(PM) emissions from beef feedlots. We are approving a local rule that
regulates these emission sources under the Clean Air Act as amended in
1990 (CAA or the Act). We are taking comments on this proposal and plan
to follow with a final action.

DATES: Any comments must arrive by June 18, 2010.

ADDRESSES: Submit comments, identified by docket number EPA-R09-OAR-
2008-0740, by one of the following methods:
    1. Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow
the online instructions.
    2. E-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    3. Mail or deliver: Andrew Steckel (Air-4), U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA
94105-3901.
    Instructions: All comments will be included in the public docket
without change and may be made available online at http://
www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided,
unless the comment includes Confidential Business Information (CBI) or
other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Information that you consider CBI or otherwise protected should be
clearly identified as such and should not be submitted through  http://
www.regulations.gov or e-mail.  http://www.regulations.gov is an
``anonymous access'' system, and EPA will not know your identity or
contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment.
If you send e-mail directly to EPA, your e-mail address will be
automatically captured and included as part of the public comment. If
EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot
contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your
comment.
    Docket: The index to the docket for this action is available
electronically at http://www.regulations.gov and in hard copy at EPA
Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, California. While all
documents in the docket are listed in the index, some information may
be publicly available only at the hard copy location (e.g., copyrighted
material), and some may not be publicly available in either location
(e.g., CBI). To inspect the hard copy materials, please schedule an
appointment during normal business hours with the contact listed in the
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Andrew Steckel, EPA Region IX, (415)
947-4115<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, ``we'', ``us'' and
``our'' refer to EPA.

Table of Contents

I. The State's Submittal
    A. What rule did the State submit?
    B. Are there other versions of this rule?
    C. What is the purpose of the submitted rule revisions?
II. EPA's Evaluation and Action
    A. How is EPA evaluating the rule?
    B. Does the rule meet the evaluation criteria?

    C. EPA Recommendations to Further Improve the Rule
    D. Public Comment and Final Action
III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. The State's Submittal

A. What rule did the State submit?

    Table 1 lists the rule addressed by this proposal with the date
that it was adopted by the local air agency and submitted by the
California Air Resource Board.

                                            Table 1--Submitted Rules
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                Rule
                Local agency                             Rule title              Adopted     Submitted
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ICAPCD.....................................        420  Beef Feedlots.................     10/10/06     08/24/07
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On September 17, 2007, EPA found this rule submittal met the
completeness criteria in 40 CFR Part 51 Appendix V. These criteria must
be met before formal EPA review.

B. Are there other versions of this rule?

    On February 26, 2003, we approved and incorporated into the SIP a
previous version of Rule 420 (see 68 FR 8839). CARB has made no
subsequent submittals of the rule.

C. What is the purpose of the submitted rule revisions?

    PM contributes to effects that are harmful to human health and the
environment, including premature mortality, aggravation of respiratory
and cardiovascular disease, decreased lung function, visibility
impairment, and damage to vegetation and ecosystems. Section 110(a) of
the CAA requires States to submit regulations that control PM
emissions. ICAPCD's Rule 420 is designed to limit the emission of
particulate matter from beef feedlots using a Dust Control Plan based
on maintaining a target soil moisture content and manure removal and
management practices designed to prevent adverse public health
conditions.
    EPA's technical support document (TSD) has more information about
this rule.

II. EPA's Evaluation and Action

A. How is EPA evaluating the rule?

    Generally, SIP rules must be enforceable (see section 110(a) of the
Act) and must not relax existing requirements (see sections 110(l) and
193). In addition, SIP rules generally must implement Reasonably
Available Control Measures (RACM), including Reasonably Available
Control Technology (RACT), in moderate PM nonattainment areas, and Best
Available Control Measures (BACM), including Best Available Control
Technology (BACT), in serious PM nonattainment areas (see CAA sections
189(a)(1) and 189(b)(1)).
    On August 11, 2004, Imperial County was reclassified as a serious
PM nonattainment area (see 69 FR 48792 and 40 CFR part 81). On December
11, 2007, EPA found that Imperial County failed to meet the serious
area attainment deadline of December 31, 2001 and must now submit a
``5% Plan'' pursuant to Section 189(d) of the CAA by December 11, 2008
(please see 72 FR 70222). The Imperial County Board adopted a PM-10
``5% Plan'' in August 2009 and forwarded it to CARB for submittal;
CARB, however, has not submitted the plan to us.
    ICAPCD has produced two reports analyzing the significant source
categories that contribute to violations of the PM-10 standard and
require BACM: ``Draft Final Technical Memorandum Regulation VIII BACM
Analysis,'' October 2005; and, ``2009 Imperial County State
Implementation Plan for Particulate Matter Less Than 10 Microns in
Aerodynamic Diameter,'' August 11, 2009. On the basis of these
analyses, ICAPCD determined that PM-10 emissions from beef feedlots
were below the estimated ``de minimis'' or significant source
threshold. Consequently, we are not evaluating Rule 420 as a BACM rule;
instead, we will evaluate this rule for its enforceability and whether
or not it maintains or strengthens the SIP. Please see our guidance at
59 FR 41998 for determining significant source categories and requiring
BACM and our TSD for further discussion.
    We used the following guidance and policy documents to evaluate
specific enforceability and RACM or BACM requirements:
    1. ``Issues Relating to VOC Regulation Cutpoints, Deficiencies, and
Deviations; Clarification to Appendix D of November 24, 1987 Federal
Register Notice,'' (Blue Book), notice of availability published in the
May 25, 1988 Federal Register.
    2. ``Guidance Document for Correcting Common VOC & Other Rule
Deficiencies,'' EPA Region 9, August 21, 2001 (the Little Bluebook).
    3. ``State Implementation Plans; General Preamble for the
Implementation of Title I of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990,'' 57
FR 13498 (April 16, 1992); 57 FR 18070 (April 28, 1992).
    4. ``State Implementation Plans for Serious PM-10 Nonattainment
Areas, and Attainment Date Waivers for PM-10 Nonattainment Areas
Generally; Addendum to the General Preamble for the Implementation of
Title I of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990,'' 59 FR 41998 (August
16, 1994).
    5. ``PM-10 Guideline Document,'' EPA 452/R-93-008, April 1993.

B. Does the rule meet the evaluation criteria?

    We believe this rule is consistent with the relevant policy and
guidance regarding enforceability and SIP relaxations. We found no
deficiencies within the rule. The dust control plan submittal and
implementation requirements are clear and enforceable. The testable
moisture content standard and manure management requirements are as
stringent as any existing California rule. The rule contains an
adequate test method for determining moisture content of the livestock
corrals according to the rule's requirements. For the reasons discussed
earlier and in our TSD, we are not evaluating Rule 420 as a BACM rule.
    The TSD has more information on our evaluation.

C. EPA Recommendations to Further Improve the Rule

    We have no recommendations for the next time the local agency
modifies the rule.

D. Public Comment and Final Action

    Because EPA believes Rule 420 fulfills all relevant requirements,
we are proposing to fully approve it as described in section 110(k)(3)
of the Act. We will accept comments from the public on this proposal
for the next 30 days. Unless we receive convincing new information
during the comment period, we intend to publish a final approval action
that will incorporate this rule into the Federally enforceable SIP.

III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve a
SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and
applicable Federal regulations. 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 Clean Air Act.
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 Order
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
     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 Clean Air Act; 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).
    In addition, this rule does not have Tribal implications as
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000),
because the SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in
the State, and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct
costs on Tribal governments or preempt Tribal law.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Intergovernmental
relations, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.

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

    Dated: April 30, 2010.
Jared Blumenfeld,
Regional Administrator, Region IX.
[FR Doc. 2010-11984 Filed 5-18-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 34 (Tuesday, February 21, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Pages 10597-10602]
[FR Doc No: 2023-03481]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-96921; File No. SR-NYSEARCA-2023-13]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE Arca, Inc.; Notice of Filing
and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Amend Rule 7.19-
E Pertaining to Pre-Trade Risk Controls

February 14, 2023.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) \1\ of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 (``Act'') \2\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\3\ notice is hereby given
that, on February 9, 2023, NYSE Arca, Inc. (``NYSE Arca'' or the
``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the
``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I, II,
and III 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 15 U.S.C. 78a.
    \3\ 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 Rule 7.19-E pertaining to pre-trade
risk controls to make additional pre-trade risk controls available to
Entering Firms. The proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's
website at www.nyse.com, at the principal office of the Exchange, and
at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

    In its filing with the Commission, the 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 those statements may be examined at
the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared
summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most
significant parts of such statements.

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to amend Rule 7.19-E pertaining to pre-trade
risk controls to make additional pre-trade risk controls available to
Entering Firms. The Exchange originally filed on December 8, 2022 to
make this change immediately effective and that filing was published
for comment in the Federal Register on December 20, 2022.\4\ In light
of a comment letter dated January 5, 2023,\5\ the Exchange withdrew the
original filing and now submits this revised filing to address several
of the points raised in the comment letter.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 96499 (December 14,
2022), 87 FR 77907 (December 20, 2022) (SR-NYSEArca-2022-80).
    \5\ See Letter to Vanessa Countryman, Secretary, Securities and
Exchange Commission, from Gerard P. O'Connor, Vice President and
General Counsel of Hyannis Port Research, Inc. (``HPR Letter'')
dated January 5, 2023, available at https://www.sec.gov/comments/sr-nyseamer-2022-53/srnyseamer202253-20154615-322842.pdf. HPR is a
provider of (among other things) non-exchange based risk controls
solutions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Background and Purpose
    In 2020, in order to assist ETP Holders' efforts to manage their
risk, the Exchange amended its rules to add Rule 7.19-E (Pre-Trade Risk
Controls),\6\ which established a set of optional pre-trade risk
controls by which Entering Firms and their designated Clearing Firms
\7\ could set credit limits and other pre-trade risk controls for an
Entering Firm's trading on the Exchange and authorize the Exchange to
take action if those credit limits or other pre-trade risk controls are
exceeded. Specifically, the Exchange added a Gross Credit Risk Limit, a
Single Order Maximum Notional Value Risk Limit, and a Single Order
Maximum Quantity Risk Limit \8\ (collectively, the ``2020 Risk
Controls'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 88904 (May 19,
2020), 85 FR 31560 (May 26, 2020) (SR-NYSEArca-2020-43).
    \7\ The terms ``Entering Firm'' and ``Clearing Firm'' are
defined in Rule 7.19-E.
    \8\ The terms ``Gross Credit Risk Limit,'' ``Single Order
Maximum Notional Value Risk Limit, and ``Single Order Maximum
Quantity Risk Limit'' are defined in Rule 7.19-E.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange now proposes to expand the list of the optional pre-
trade risk controls available to Entering Firms by adding several
additional pre-trade risk controls that would provide Entering Firms
with enhanced abilities to manage their risk with respect to orders on
the Exchange. As detailed below, each of the proposed additional risk
controls is modeled on risk settings that are already available on the
Cboe,\9\ Nasdaq,\10\ MEMX,\11\ and MIAX Pearl \12\ equities exchanges.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 80611 (May 5,
2017), 82 FR 22045 (May 11, 2017) (SR-BatsBZX-2017-24) (adopting
Rule 11.13, Interpretation and Policies .01); 80612 (May 5, 2017),
82 FR 22024 (May 11, 2017) (SR-BatsBYX-2017-07) (same); 80608 (May
5, 2017), 82 FR 22030 (May 11, 2017) (SR-BatsEDGA-2017-07) (adopting
Rule 11.10, Interpretation and Policies .01); 80607 (May 5, 2017),
82 FR 22027 (May 11, 2017) (SR-BatsEDGX-2017-16) (same).
    \10\ See, e.g., Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 82479
(January 10, 2018), 83 FR 2471 (January 17, 2018) (SR-Nasdaq-2018-
002) (adopting IM-6200-1); 90577 (December 7, 2020), 85 FR 80202
(December 11, 2020) (SR-Nasdaq-2020-79) (moving IM-6200-1 into
Equity 6, Section 5). See also Securities Exchange Act Release Nos.
82545 (January 19, 2018), 83 FR 3834 (January 26, 2018) (SR-BX-2018-
001) (adopting Rule 4765 and commentary thereto); 91830 (May 10,
2021), 86 FR 26567 (May 14, 2021) (SR-BX-2021-012) (moving Rule 4765
and commentary into Equity 6, Section 5).
    \11\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 89581 (August 17,
2020), 85 FR 51799 (August 21, 2020) (SR-MEMX-2020-04) (adopting
Rule 11.10, Interpretation and Policies .01).
    \12\ See Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 89563 (August 14,
2020), 85 FR 51510 (August 20, 2020) (SR-PEARL-2020-03) (adopting
Rule 2618(a)(1)(A)-(D)); 96205 (November 1, 2022), 87 FR 67080
(November 7, 2022) (SR-PEARL-2022-43) (adopting subsections (E)-(H)
to Rule 2618(a)(1)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Like the 2020 Risk Controls, use of the pre-trade risk controls
proposed herein is optional, but all orders on the Exchange would pass
through these risk checks. As such, an Entering Firm that does not
choose to set limits pursuant to the new proposed pre-trade risk
controls would not achieve any latency advantage with respect to its
trading activity on the Exchange.
    The HPR Letter questions why the Exchange proposes to make all
orders on the Exchange pass through its risk checks, even if a
particular firm trading on the Exchange opts not to employ the
Exchange's pre-trade risk controls. The Exchange has chosen to
implement its risk checks ``symmetrically'' to all orders because that
is the functionality that clients have specifically requested, and it
is also the recognized best practice in this area. In a September 2021
white paper entitled ``Market Lens: Exchange Best Practices for
Reducing Operational Risk at Broker-Dealers,'' \13\ Citadel Securities
requested that exchanges assist firms in mitigating operational trading
risk by instituting exchange-based risk controls, but expressly
cautioned exchanges against segmenting orders into those that would
pass through risk checks versus those that would not. Citadel noted
that such segmentation of orders would ``produce incentives for all
firms to avoid using any controls, for fear of suffering a competitive
disadvantage.'' \14\ Instead, Citadel recommended that exchanges
``ensure orders follow the same order processing logic regardless of
which options or features are enabled,'' \15\ in order to eliminate any
competitive advantage or disadvantages for clients.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ See Citadel Securities, ``Market Lens: Exchange Best
Practices for Reducing Operational Risk at Broker-Dealers''
(``Citadel white paper'') dated September 2021, available at https://www.citadelsecurities.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2021/09/Citadel_Securities_Market-Lens_Sept_2021_Exchange-Best-Practices-for-Reducing-Operational-Risk.pdf. As Citadel put it (at page 5):
    Insufficiently well-designed and tested controls can create what
amount to penalties, driven by the time and computational power
required to perform various stages of checks, if applied only to
participants who opt-in to their use. This could produce incentives
for all firms to avoid using any controls, for fear of suffering a
competitive disadvantage. One way to address this, while maintaining
choice for member firms, is to ensure orders follow the same order
processing logic regardless of which options or features are
enabled--similar to how all colocated servers in an equalized data
center incur the same cabling distance to the matching engine,
regardless of their physical proximity to it. Additionally,
exchanges should vigorously test controls to ensure no latency
penalty exists in practice. Exchanges should actively publicize the
net-neutral risk controls.
    \14\ Id. at 5.
    \15\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This is the model that the Exchange used in building the 2020 Risk
Controls that the Commission approved in 2020,\16\ and is the same
model that the

Exchange proposes would apply to the additional pre-trade risk checks
proposed here. There is nothing unique about this approach.
Functionality on the Exchange's trading systems is often applied
uniformly to all orders, regardless of whether a particular client has
opted to use that functionality for a particular order. For example,
the Exchange's limit order price protection applies generally to
trading on the Exchange and orders with limit prices are not processed
more slowly than those without. Similarly, the Exchange's trading
systems check all orders for a variety of details and modifiers (e.g.,
duplicative client order check, order capacity check, and self-trade
prevention).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 88776 (April 29,
2020), 85 FR 26768 (May 5, 2020) (SR-NYSE-2020-17) (order approving
pre-trade risk controls on the Exchange's affiliate exchange, the
New York Stock Exchange LLC). The Commission concluded that ``the
proposed rule change is reasonably designed to provide members with
optional tools to manage their credit risk.'' Id. at 26770.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange understands that the risk checks of other exchanges,
on which the proposed rule is modeled, also apply symmetrically to all
orders.\17\ The Exchange also notes that the Citadel white paper cited
above was written ``in collaboration with several major exchanges,
including NYSE, Nasdaq, MIAX, MEMX, and BOX,'' suggesting that some or
all of those exchanges may also employ the symmetrical application of
risk checks that the Citadel white paper recommends.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ See, e.g., MEMX Risk FAQ, dated October 13, 2020, available
at https://info.memxtrading.com/us-equities-faq/#Bookmark21 (``The
risk checks are applied in a consistent manner to all participant
orders in order to mitigate risk without incurring latency
disadvantage.''); MIAX Pearl Equities Exchange User Manual, updated
October 2022, available at https://www.miaxequities.com/sites/default/files/website_file-files/MIAX_Pearl_Equities_User_Manual_October_2022.pdf, at 29 (stating
that all but two of the exchange's 14 risk checks ``are latency
equalized i.e., there is no latency penalty for a member when opting
into and leveraging a risk protection available on the exchange when
entering an order as compared to a member not opting into the risk
protection when entering an order'').
    \18\ See Citadel white paper, supra note 13, at 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange stated in its original filing for the current proposal
that it expects that any latency added by the proposed additional pre-
trade risk controls would be de minimis. Specifically, the Exchange
expects that the latency added by the combination of the 2020 Risk
Checks plus the proposed additional pre-trade risk controls would be
significantly less than one microsecond. Nevertheless, seizing on the
phrase ``de minimis,'' HPR argues that the Commission's 2016
interpretation regarding automated quotations under Regulation NMS \19\
applies here and should require the Exchange to justify this de minimis
latency change in a number of ways.\20\ But that Commission
interpretation pertains to ``intentional access delays,'' like speed
bumps--not to the issues here. The Exchange's pre-trade risk controls
are not an intentional access delay,\21\ but a functional enhancement
to the Exchange's trading systems, and, like any change to a trading
system's function or performance, may impact the overall speed of
trading on the Exchange in ways that can increase or decrease overall
latency. It is within the Exchange's prerogative as a market center in
the current hotly competitive environment to assess whether and when to
make functional enhancements to its trading systems. What is key under
the Exchange Act is that any anticipated latency effects of such
enhancements are applied uniformly, to all orders of all market
participants, in a non-discriminatory way--as the risk controls
proposed here would be. If market participants find that the latency
cost of such enhancements is not justified by the additional
functionality they offer, such market participants will vote with their
feet and send their order flow elsewhere.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ See also Securities Exchange Act Release No. 78102 (June
17, 2016), 81 FR 40785 (June 23, 2016) (File No. S7-03-16)
(Commission Interpretation Regarding Automated Quotations Under
Regulation NMS), available at https://www.sec.gov/rules/interp/2016/34-78102.pdf.
    \20\ HPR Letter, supra note 5, at 5-6.
    \21\ Indeed, the Commission did not treat any of the other
exchanges' filings for pre-trade risk controls listed above in notes
9-12 as ``intentional access delays.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With one exception, the additional risk checks proposed here would
be a functional enhancement to the Exchange's Pillar gateway \22\ and
the risk checks would be applied to all orders on the Exchange. While
the Exchange strongly believes that symmetrical application of all pre-
trade risk controls is the appropriate approach (as explained above),
providing customers an opt-out ability would require the Exchange to
provide new order entry ports that would bypass the evaluation of such
pre-trade risk protections. Providing such new ports would burden
customers with additional costs to purchase such ports and to migrate
their order flow to such ports. The Exchange does not believe that the
added expense of creating such new ports (on the part of the Exchange)
or of purchasing and migrating to them (on the part of customers) is
justified in light of the de minimis latency imposed by the pre-trade
risk controls at issue.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ The one exception is the proposed pre-trade risk control in
paragraph (b)(2)(B), discussed below, which would permit an Entering
Firm to set dollar-based or percentage-based controls as to the
price of an order that are equal to or more restrictive than the
levels set out in Rule 7.31-E(a)(2)(B) regarding Limit Order Price
Protection. This risk check, like the Exchange's Limit Order Price
Protection, is implemented in the matching engine.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed new pre-trade risk controls proposed herein would be
available to be set by Entering Firms only. Clearing Firms designated
by an Entering Firm would continue to be able to view all pre-trade
risk controls set by the Entering Firm and to set the 2020 Risk
Controls on the Entering Firm's behalf.
Proposed Amendment to Rule 7.19-E
    To accomplish this rule change, the Exchange proposes to amend
paragraph (a) to include a new paragraph (a)(3) that would define the
term ``Pre-Trade Risk Controls'' as all of the risk controls listed in
proposed paragraph (b), inclusive of the 2020 Risk Controls and the
proposed new risk controls.
    In proposed paragraph (b), the Exchange proposes to list all Pre-
Trade Risk Controls available to Entering Firms, which would include
the existing 2020 Risk Controls and the proposed new controls. The
Exchange proposes to move the definition of Gross Credit Risk Limit
from current paragraph (a)(5) to proposed paragraph (b)(1), with no
substantive change. Next, the Exchange proposes to add paragraph
(b)(2), which would list all available ``Single Order Risk Controls.''
The Exchange proposes to move the definitions of Single Order Maximum
Notional Value Risk Limit and Single Order Maximum Quantity Risk Limit
from current paragraphs (a)(3) and (a)(4) to proposed paragraph
(b)(2)(A), with no substantive change. Next, the Exchange proposes to
add paragraphs (b)(2)(B) through (b)(2)(F) to enumerate the proposed
new Single Order Risk Controls, as follows:

    (B) controls related to the price of an order (including
percentage-based and dollar-based controls);
    (C) controls related to the order types or modifiers that can be
utilized;
    (D) controls to restrict the types of securities transacted
(including but not limited to restricted securities);
    (E) controls to prohibit duplicative orders; and
    (F) controls related to the size of an order as compared to the
average daily volume of the security (including the ability to
specify the minimum average daily volume for the securities for
which such controls will be activated).

    Each of the Single Order Risk Controls in proposed paragraph (b)(2)
is substantively identical to risk settings available on the Cboe,
Nasdaq, MEMX,

and MIAX Pearl \23\ equities exchanges. As such, the proposed new Pre-
Trade Risk Controls are familiar to market participants and are not
novel.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ See supra notes 9-12.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange proposes to move current paragraph (b)(2) to proposed
paragraph (c) and to re-name that paragraph ``Pre-Trade Risk Controls
Available to Clearing Firms.'' The Exchange proposes to renumber
current paragraphs (b)(2)(A), (b)(2)(B), and (b)(2)(C) as paragraphs
(c)(1), (c)(2), and (c)(3) accordingly. The Exchange proposes to smooth
the grammar in proposed paragraph (c)(1) by moving the ``or both''
language from the end of the sentence to the beginning, to clarify that
an Entering Firm that does not self-clear may designate its Clearing
Firm to take either or both of the following actions: viewing or
setting Pre-Trade Risk Controls on the Entering Firm's behalf. Finally,
in proposed paragraph (c)(1)(B), the Exchange proposes to specify that
Clearing Firms so-designated may only set the 2020 Risk Controls on an
Entering Firm's behalf; the proposed new risk controls set out in
proposed paragraph (b)(2)(B) through (b)(2)(F) are available to be set
by Entering Firms only. The Exchange does not propose any changes to
proposed paragraph (c)(2), and with respect to proposed paragraph
(c)(3), proposes only to update internal cross-references.
    The Exchange proposes to move current paragraph (b)(3) regarding
``Setting and Adjusting Pre-Trade Risk Controls'' to proposed paragraph
(d), and to renumber current paragraphs (b)(3)(A) and (b)(3)(B) as
proposed paragraphs (d)(1) and (d)(2) accordingly. The Exchange
proposes to amend the text of proposed paragraph (d)(2) to state that
in addition to Pre-Trade Risk Controls being available to be set at the
MPID level or at one or more sub-IDs associated with that MPID, or
both, Pre-Trade Risk Controls related to the short selling of
securities, transacting in restricted securities, and the size of an
order compared to the average daily volume of a security must be set
per symbol.
    The Exchange proposes to move current paragraph (b)(4) regarding
``Notifications'' to paragraph (e), with no changes.
    The Exchange proposes to move current paragraph (c) regarding
``Automated Breach Actions'' to proposed paragraph (f) and to renumber
current paragraphs (c)(1), (c)(2), (c)(3), and (c)(4) as paragraphs
(f)(1), (f)(2), (f)(3), and (f)(4) accordingly. The Exchange proposes
no changes to the text of proposed paragraphs (f)(1), (f)(3), or
(f)(4), other than to update an internal cross-reference. With respect
to proposed paragraph (f)(2) regarding ``Breach Action for Single Order
Risk Limits,'' the Exchange proposes to change the word ``Limits'' in
the heading to ``Controls.'' The Exchange further proposes to amend the
text of current paragraph (c)(2) to specify in paragraph (f)(2)(A) that
if an order would breach a price control under paragraph (b)(2)(B), it
would be rejected or canceled as specified in Rule 7.31-E(a)(2)(B) (the
``Limit Order Price Protection Rule''), while providing in paragraph
(f)(2)(B) that an order that breaches the designated limit of any other
Single Order Risk Control would be rejected.
    The Exchange proposes to move current paragraph (d) regarding
``Reinstatement of Entering Firm After Automated Breach Action'' to
proposed paragraph (g), with no changes.
    The Exchange proposes to move current paragraph (e) regarding
``Kill Switch Actions'' to proposed paragraph (h) with no changes,
other than to update an internal cross-reference.
    The Exchange proposes no changes to Commentary .01 to the Rule. The
Exchange proposes to add Commentary .02 to specify the interplay
between the Exchange's Limit Order Price Protection Rule and the price
controls that may be set by an Entering Firm pursuant to proposed
paragraph (b)(2)(B). Proposed Commentary .02 specifies that pursuant to
paragraph (b)(2)(B), an Entering Firm may always set dollar-based or
percentage-based controls as to the price of an order that are equal to
or more restrictive than the levels set out in Rule 7.31-E(a)(2)(B)
regarding Limit Order Price Protection (e.g., the greater of $0.15 or
10% (for securities with a reference price up to and including $25.00),
5% (for securities with a reference price of greater than $25.00 and up
to and including $50.00), or 3% (for securities with a reference price
greater than $50.00) away from the NBB or NBO). However, an Entering
Firm may set price controls under paragraph (b)(2)(B) that are less
restrictive than the levels in the Limit Order Price Protection Rule
only (i) outside of Core Trading Hours or (ii) with respect to LOC
Orders.
Continuing Obligations of ETP Holders Under Rule 15c3-5
    The proposed Pre-Trade Risk Controls described here are meant to
supplement, and not replace, the ETP Holders' own internal systems,
monitoring, and procedures related to risk management. The Exchange
does not guarantee that these controls will be sufficiently
comprehensive to meet all of an ETP Holder's needs, the controls are
not designed to be the sole means of risk management, and using these
controls will not necessarily meet an ETP Holder's obligations required
by Exchange or federal rules (including, without limitation, the Rule
15c3-5 under the Act \24\ (``Rule 15c3-5'')). Use of the Exchange's
Pre-Trade Risk Controls will not automatically constitute compliance
with Exchange or federal rules and responsibility for compliance with
all Exchange and SEC rules remains with the ETP Holder.\25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ See 17 CFR 240.15c3-5.
    \25\ See also Commentary .01 to Rule 7.19-E, which provides that
``[t]he pre-trade risk controls described in this Rule are meant to
supplement, and not replace, the ETP Holder's own internal systems,
monitoring and procedures related to risk management and are not
designed for compliance with Rule 15c3-5 under the Exchange Act.
Responsibility for compliance with all Exchange and SEC rules
remains with the ETP Holder.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Timing and Implementation
    The Exchange anticipates completing the technological changes
necessary to implement the proposed rule change in the first quarter of
2023, but in any event no later than April 30, 2023. The Exchange
anticipates announcing the availability of the Pre-Trade Risk Controls
introduced in this filing by Trader Update in the first quarter of
2023.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with Section 6(b) of the Act,\26\ in general, and furthers the
objectives of Section 6(b)(5) of the Act,\27\ in particular, because 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,
and because it is not designed to permit unfair discrimination between
customers, issuers, brokers, or dealers.\28\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \27\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
    \28\ HPR argues that the Exchange should be compelled to submit
this proposal as a fee filing pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of
the Exchange Act. See HPR Letter, supra note 5, at 6-8. But that
provision only applies to rule filings ``establishing or charging a
due, fee, or other charge imposed by the [SRO]. . . .'' Because the
Exchange does not propose to charge any fees for the proposed
services here, Section 19(b)(3)(A)(ii) is inapplicable. Notably, the
Commission did not treat any of the other exchanges' filings for
pre-trade risk controls listed above in notes 9-12 as fee filings.

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

    Specifically, the Exchange believes that the proposed rule change
will remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open
market and a national market system because the proposed additional
Pre-Trade Risk Controls would provide Entering Firms with enhanced
abilities to manage their risk with respect to orders on the Exchange.
The proposed additional Pre-Trade Risk Controls are not novel; they are
based on existing risk settings already in place on the Cboe, Nasdaq,
MEMX, and MIAX Pearl equities exchanges \29\ and market participants
are already familiar with the types of protections that the proposed
risk controls afford. As such, the Exchange believes that the proposed
additional Pre-Trade Risk Controls would provide a means to address
potentially market-impacting events, helping to ensure the proper
functioning of the market.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ See supra notes 9-12.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, the Exchange believes that the proposed rule change
will protect investors and the public interest because the proposed
additional Pre-Trade Risk Controls are a form of impact mitigation that
will aid Entering Firms in minimizing their risk exposure and reduce
the potential for disruptive, market-wide events. The Exchange
understands that ETP Holders implement a number of different risk-based
controls, including those required by Rule 15c3-5. The controls
proposed here will serve as an additional tool for Entering Firms to
assist them in identifying any risk exposure. The Exchange believes the
proposed additional Pre-Trade Risk Controls will assist Entering Firms
in managing their financial exposure which, in turn, could enhance the
integrity of trading on the securities markets and help to assure the
stability of the financial system.
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change will remove
impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and
a national market system by permitting Entering Firms to set price
controls under paragraph (b)(2)(B) that are equal to or more
restrictive than the levels in the Exchange's Limit Order Price
Protection Rule, but preventing Entering Firms from setting price
controls that are less restrictive than those levels during Core
Trading Hours in most circumstances. The Exchange's Limit Order Price
Protection Rule protects from aberrant trades, thus improving
continuous trading and price discovery. The Exchange believes that
Entering Firms should not be able to circumvent the protections of that
rule by setting lower levels during Core Trading Hours, except with
respect to orders that participate in the Closing Auction (e.g., LOC
Orders).\30\ But under the proposed rule, Entering Firms seeking to
further manage their exposure to aberrant trades would be permitted to
set price controls at levels that are more restrictive than in the
Exchange's Limit Order Price Protection Rule. Additionally, because
price controls set by an Entering Firm under paragraph (b)(2)(B) would
function as a form of limit order price protection, the Exchange
believes that it would remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism
of a free and open market and a national market system for an order
that would breach such a price control to be rejected or canceled as
specified in the Limit Order Price Protection Rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \30\ LOC Orders are not subject to the Limit Order Price
Protection in Rule 7.31-E(a)(2)(B).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, the Exchange believes that the proposed rule change does
not unfairly discriminate among the Exchange's ETP Holders because use
of the proposed additional Pre-Trade Risk Controls is optional and is
not a prerequisite for participation on the Exchange. In addition,
because all orders on the Exchange would pass through the risk checks,
there would be no difference in the latency experienced by ETP Holders
who have opted to use the proposed additional Pre-Trade Risk Controls
versus those who have not opted to use them. The Exchange does not
believe it is unfairly discriminatory to have all orders on the
Exchange pass through the risk checks, even for ETP Holders that opt
not to use the Exchange's pre-trade risk controls. As described above,
the proposed risk checks are a functional enhancement to the Exchange's
trading systems that the Exchange proposes to apply uniformly to all
orders on the Exchange; by applying them uniformly, the Exchange would
avoid producing incentives for all firms to avoid using the risk
controls for fear of suffering a competitive disadvantage.
Additionally, any latency imposed by the pre-trade risk controls
proposed here is de minimis and would not have a material impact on the
order flow of ETP Holders that choose to employ non-exchange providers
(such as HPR) to provide them with risk control solutions.

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. In fact, the Exchange
believes that the proposal will have a positive effect on competition
because, by providing Entering Firms additional means to monitor and
control risk, the proposed rule will increase confidence in the proper
functioning of the markets. The Exchange believes the proposed
additional Pre-Trade Risk Controls will assist Entering Firms in
managing their financial exposure which, in turn, could enhance the
integrity of trading on the securities markets and help to assure the
stability of the financial system. As a result, the level of
competition should increase as public confidence in the markets is
solidified.
    In its letter, HPR contends that it is an unnecessary burden on
competition for the Exchange to have all orders--even the orders of ETP
Holders that choose not to use the proposed pre-trade risk controls--to
pass through the Exchange's checks because doing so will reduce
customer demand for HPR's risk control services. HPR argues that by
imposing latency from its risk checks on all orders, the Exchange has
created a ``latency tax'' that would encourage customers to use the
Exchange's risk controls instead of third-party risk solutions like
HPR's.\31\ These assertions are factually incorrect and obscure the
very real differences between the Exchange's pre-trade risk controls
and the services that HPR offers. The Exchange understands that HPR's
enterprise risk management solutions, like those of its competitors,
permit its clients to track aggregated risk across all markets and
provide consolidated risk management capabilities. In contrast,
exchange based-solutions such as the Exchange's only offer tools to
manage risk across the Exchanges and its affiliate exchanges (e.g., the
NYSE Group exchanges). The Exchange's proposed risk checks would not
and could not replace HPR's far broader offering. In addition, as the
Exchange made clear in its filing for the 2020 Risk Controls and
repeats here, the Exchange's pre-trade risk controls are not a complete
Rule 15c3-5 solution. The Exchange's risk controls are meant to
supplement, and not replace, an ETP Holder's own internal risk
management systems (which firms may outsource to providers like HPR),
and the Exchange's controls are not designed to be the sole means of
risk management that any firm

uses. Additionally, any latency imposed by the Pre-Trade Risk Controls
proposed here is de minimis and would not have a material impact on the
order flow of ETP Holders that choose to employ non-exchange providers
(such as HPR) to provide them with risk control solutions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \31\ See HPR Letter, supra note 5, at 4 (claiming the Exchange
has ``architected the proposed risk controls to give [itself] an
unfair and anti-competitive latency advantage over non-exchange
offerings provided by broker-dealers or vendors such as HPR.'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, the Exchange believes it would be an unfair burden on
competition for the Commission to suspend and ultimately disapprove the
pre-trade risk controls proposed here, where substantially identical
controls are already in place on numerous of the Exchange's competitor
exchanges.\32\ Since 2017, equities exchanges have been adding pre-
trade risk controls to their trading systems. It would be an
unjustifiable burden on competition and on the Exchange for the
Commission to permit all equities exchanges to offer such functionality
except for the Exchange and its affiliates mentioned in the HPR Letter.
Specifically, the Exchange would be at a significant competitive
disadvantage vis-[agrave]-vis other equities exchanges that already
offer the type of pre-trade risk controls proposed in this filing as
ETP Holders may choose to direct order flow away from the Exchange
until it is able to offer such competing pre-trade risk controls.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \32\ See supra notes 9-12.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange has filed the proposed rule change pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act \33\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder.\34\
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)(iii) of the Act \35\ and subparagraph (f)(6) of
Rule 19b-4 thereunder.\36\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \33\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(iii).
    \34\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
    \35\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(iii).
    \36\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). In addition, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii)
requires a self-regulatory organization 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 Exchange has satisfied this requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of such proposed rule
change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule
change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or
appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or
otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission
takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings under
Section 19(b)(2)(B) \37\ of the Act to determine whether the proposed
rule change should be approved or disapproved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \37\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2)(B).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to [email protected]. Please include
File Number SR-NYSEARCA-2023-13 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NYSEARCA-2023-13. 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 website (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 website viewing and printing in
the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC
20549 on official business days between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and
3:00 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available for inspection
and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All comments
received will be posted without change. Persons submitting comments are
cautioned that we do not redact or edit personal identifying
information from comment submissions. You should submit only
information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions
should refer to File Number SR-NYSEARCA-2023-13 and should be submitted
on or before March 14, 2023.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\38\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \38\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sherry R. Haywood,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2023-03481 Filed 2-17-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


EPA REGISTRATION DIVISION COMPANY NOTICE OF FILING FOR PESTICIDE PETITIONS PUBLISHED IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER

EPA Registration Division contact: [insert name and telephone number with area code]

Ingredion Incorporated

[Insert petition number]

	EPA has received a pesticide petition (IN-11458) from Ingredion Incorporated, 5 Westbrook Corporate Center, Westchester, IL 60154, United States requesting, pursuant to section 408(d) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), 21 U.S.C. 346a(d), to amend 40 CFR part 180

  to establish an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance for

	Starch, 1-octenylbutanedioate, aluminum salt (CASRN: 9087-61-0) in or on raw agricultural commodities pre-harvest and as a seed treatment (40 CFR 180.920).  EPA has determined that the petition contains data or information regarding the elements set forth in section 408 (d)(2) of  FFDCA; however, EPA has not fully evaluated the sufficiency of the submitted data at this time or whether the data supports granting of the petition. Additional data may be needed before EPA rules on the petition.

A. Residue Chemistry

	1. Plant metabolism. NA Remove

	2. Analytical method. NA remove

	3. Magnitude of residues. NA Remove

B. Toxicological Profile

 Acute toxicity.
Acute Eye Irritation Study

The test substance, Starch, 1-octenylbutanedioate, aluminum salt (CASRN: 9087-61-0), batch # ECR-252-B was tested May 1984 for potential eye irritancy by Environmental Safety Laboratory, Unilever Research, Colworth House, Sharnbrook, Bedford, England.  The test method used was " Method of the United States Environmental Protection Agency (Primary Eye Irritation method, August, 1982".

The test substance powder (0.1ml volume of compacted powder) was added in a single dose to one eye in 6 rabbits. The degree of irritation was assessed and scored at the following intervals: 1 hour, 24 hours, 48 hours and 72 hours. The detailed results can be found in the report. In conclusion 0.1ml of this powder caused very slight transient irritation to the conjunctivae of the rabbit eye. Under the conditions of the study, the rabbit's cornea is unaffected by this product. As such Starch, 1-octenylbutanedioate, aluminum salt (CASRN: 9087-61-0) is unlikely to be an eye irritant hazard in humans.

Skin Sensitization Study
The test substance Starch, 1-octenylbutanedioate, aluminum salt (CASRN: 9087-61-0), was tested May, 1950 to determine the possibility of skin sensitization from exposure to Starch, 1-octenylbutanedioate, aluminum salt at Food Research Laboratories, Inc in Long Island City, New York.
The test method involved the intracutaneous injection of repeated doses of Starch, 1-octenylbutanedioate, aluminum salt into 10 adult albino guinea pigs and 3 albino rabbits. The animals were injected 3 times during the first week and then once weekly for the next 7 weeks. Total injections: 10 during an 8-week period. The animals were examined 24 hours following each injection. Observations continued 2 weeks after the final injection. Complete study details can be found in the study report. In conclusion, intermittent injections of Starch, 1-octenylbutanedioate, aluminum salt to guinea pigs and Rabbits over an 8-week period suggests that there wouldn't be skin sensitization resulting from contact with the product.

	2. Genotoxicty. NA Remove

	3. Reproductive and developmental toxicity. NA Remove

	4. Subchronic toxicity
Subchronic Toxicity Study  -  8 Week Feeding Study(Rat)

The test substance Starch, 1-octenylbutanedioate, aluminum salt (CASRN: 9087-61-0), which is named RX12K4 for the purpose of this study, was tested August, 1950 to determine the possible toxicity of Starch, 1-octenylbutanedioate, aluminum salt if ingested at relatively high levels. This was compared to the effects of ordinary (native) cornstarch (AK31) and starch sodium octenylsuccinate (RX12K1). The study took place at Food Research Laboratories, Inc in Long Island City, New York.

The study feeding levels were based on the article "Procedures for the Appraisal of the Toxicity of Chemicals in Foods" by Lehman, et al, Food Drug Cosmetic Law Quarterly, Sept. 1949, p. 412.  The product was fed at
 A low dosage level  -  which is approximately 10 times the level that would likely be found in a particular use
 In a diet containing at least 100 times as much of the ingredient as is proposed for use in food.
 On the basis that no toxic symptoms were observed by the 4[th] week, the level of RX12K4 was increased to 25 percent of the ration for the remainder of the study.

Additional details are found in the study report.

Four groups of Weanling albino rats consisting of 6 males and 6 females were used in the experiment. An 8 week growth study was conducted and the results looked at a comparative responses to Starch, 1-octenylbutanedioate, aluminum salt (RX12K-4), a single level of starch sodium octenylsuccinate (RX12K-1) and a single level of cornstarch (AK31)
 Results as per the study report:
1) The groups fed Starch, 1-octenylbutanedioate, aluminum salt (RX12K-4) at 1, 10, and 25 per cent levels in the ration ate and grew as well as did the control animals receiving standard cornstarch.
2) The group fed sample RX12K-1 grew at a slower rate than did the others and ate less food. However it utilized this food just as effectively in the conversion to body tissue as did the other groups.
3) Neither on the basis of growth, food consumption, efficiency of food utilization, hematological evidence, nor blood chemical values can it be concluded that either sample RX12K-1 nor RX12K-4 are toxic when ingested by the rat. Some unwillingness to consume RX12K-1 was evident.

The study concluded that Starch, 1-octenylbutanedioate, aluminum salt is safe to use in contact with food wrappings as that was the purpose of the study. However, since the results show that is was not toxic when ingested by the rats and as such would not be considered toxic to ingest in the amounts discussed in the study report.

	5. Chronic toxicity. NA Remove

	6. Animal metabolism. NA Remove

	7. Metabolite toxicology. NA Remove
	8. Endocrine disruption. NA Remove
C. Aggregate Exposure

	1. Dietary exposure. NA Remove

	i. Food. NA Remove
	ii. Drinking water. NA Remove
	2. Non-dietary exposure. NA Remove

D. Cumulative Effects

	NA Remove

E. Safety Determination

	1. U.S. population. NA Remove

 Infants and children. NA Remove

F. International Tolerances

	NA Remove


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 118 (Tuesday, June 19, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 36589-36590]
[FR Doc No: 2012-14906]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-67202; File No. SR-ISE-2012-54]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; International Securities Exchange,
LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule
Change Relating to the Extension of the Price Improvement Mechanism
Pilot Program

June 14, 2012.
    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 June 11, 2012, the International Securities Exchange, LLC (the
``Exchange'' or the ``ISE'') filed with the Securities and Exchange
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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \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 is proposing to extend two pilot programs related to
its Price Improvement Mechanism (``PIM''). The text of the proposed
rule amendment is as follows, with proposed deletions in [brackets],
and proposed additions in italics:

Rule 723. Price Improvement Mechanism for Crossing Transactions

* * * * *

Supplementary Material to Rule 723

    .01-.02 No Change.
    .03 Initially, and for at least a Pilot Period expiring on July 18,
2013 [July 18, 2012], there will be no minimum size requirements for
orders to be eligible for the Price Improvement Mechanism. During the
Pilot Period, the Exchange will submit certain data, periodically as
required by the Commission, to provide supporting evidence that, among
other things, there is meaningful competition for all size orders
within the Price Improvement Mechanism, that there is significant price
improvement for all orders executed through the Price Improvement
Mechanism, and that there is an active and liquid market functioning on
the Exchange outside of the Price Improvement Mechanism. Any data which
is submitted to the Commission will be provided on a confidential
basis.
    .04 No Change.
    .05 Paragraphs (c)(5), (d)(5) and (d)(6) will be effective for a
Pilot Period expiring on July 18, 2013 [July 18, 2012]. During the
Pilot Period, the Exchange will submit certain data relating to the
frequency with which the exposure period is terminated by unrelated
orders. Any data which is submitted to the Commission will be provided
on a confidential basis.
    .06-.07 No Change.
* * * * *

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

    In its filing with the Commission, the 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 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
    The Exchange currently has two pilot programs related to its
PIM.\3\ The

current pilot period provided in paragraphs .03 and .05 of the
Supplementary Material to Rule 723 is set to expire on July 18,
2012.\4\ Paragraph .03 provides that there is no minimum size
requirement for orders to be eligible for the Price Improvement
Mechanism. Paragraph .05 concerns the termination of the exposure
period by unrelated orders. In accordance with the Approval Order, the
Exchange has continually submitted certain data in support of extending
the current pilot programs. The Exchange proposes to extend these pilot
programs in their present form, through July 18, 2013, to give the
Exchange and the Commission additional time to evaluate the effects of
these pilot programs before requesting permanent approval of the rules.
To aid the Commission in its evaluation of the PIM Functionality, ISE
will also continue to provide additional PIM-related data as requested
by the Commission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 50819 (December 8,
2004), 69 FR 75093 (December 15, 2004) (Approving the PIM pilot (the
``Approval Order'')); 52027 (July 13, 2005), 70 FR 41804 (July 20,
2005) Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule
Change Relating to a One-Year Pilot Extension for the Price
Improvement Mechanism); 54146 (July 14, 2006), 71 FR 41490 (July 21,
2006) (Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule
Change Relating to a One-Year Pilot Extension Until July 18, 2007
for the Price Improvement Mechanism); 56106 (July 19, 2007), 72 FR
40914 (July 25, 2007) (Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness
of Proposed Rule Change Relating to a One-Week Extension for the
Price Improvement Mechanism Pilot Program); and 56156 (July 27,
2007), 72 FR 43305 (August 3, 2007) (Notice of Filing and Immediate
Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Relating to an Extension for
the Price Improvement Mechanism Pilot Program); 58197 (July 18,
2008), 73 FR 43810 (July 28, 2008) (Notice of Filing and Immediate
Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Relating to the Extension of
the Price Improvement Mechanism Pilot Program); 60333 (July 17,
2009), 74 FR 36792 (July 24, 2009) (Notice of Filing and Immediate
Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Relating to the Extension of
the Price Improvement Mechanism Pilot Program); and 62513 (July 16,
2010), 75 FR 43221 (July 23, 2010) (Notice of Filing and Immediate
Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Relating to the Extension of
the Price Improvement Mechanism Pilot Program).
    \4\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 64931 (July 20,
2011), 76 FR 44642 (July 26, 2011) (Notice of Filing and Immediate
Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Relating to the Extension of
the Price Improvement Mechanism Pilot Program).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The basis under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the ``Exchange
Act'') for this proposed rule change is found in Section 6(b)(5), in
that the proposed rule change is designed to promote just and equitable
principles of trade, remove impediments to and perfect the mechanisms
of a free and open market and a national market system and, in general,
to protect investors and the public interest. In particular, the
Exchange believes the pilot programs are consistent with the Exchange
Act because they provide opportunity for price improvement for all
orders executed in the Exchange's Price Improvement Mechanism. The
Exchange further believes it is appropriate to extend the pilot periods
to provide the Exchange and Commission more data upon which to evaluate
the rules.

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 written comments from members or other interested parties.

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

    The Exchange has filed the proposed rule change pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act \5\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder.\6\
Because the proposed rule change does not: (i) Significantly affect the
protection of investors or the public interest; (ii) impose any
significant burden on competition; and (iii) by its terms, become
operative prior to 30 days from the date on which it was filed, 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 upon filing with the Commission pursuant to
Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \7\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii)
thereunder.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(iii).
    \6\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \8\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii). In addition, Rule 19b-
4(f)(6)(iii) requires the Exchange to give the Commission written
notice of the Exchange's intent to file the proposed rule change,
along with a brief description and text of the proposed rule change,
at least five business days prior to the date of filing of the
proposed rule change, or such shorter time as designated by the
Commission. The Commission deems this requirement to have been met.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule
change, the Commission may temporarily suspend such rule change if it
appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate
in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise
in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-ISE-2012-54 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-2012-54. 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 Commissions 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 7 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 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-2012-54 and should be submitted by
July 10, 2012.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-14906 Filed 6-18-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 225 (Thursday, November 21, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Pages 64405-64406]
[FR Doc No: 2019-25217]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

[Docket No. NHTSA-2019-0102]
RIN 2127-ZRIN

Advanced Driver Assistance Systems Draft Research Test Procedures

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

ACTION: Request for comments (RFC).

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

SUMMARY: NHTSA seeks public comment on a series of nine draft research
test procedures developed by the agency to assess the performance of
certain types of Advanced Driver Assistance Systems (ADAS) available to
consumers. NHTSA is specifically requesting comment on whether these
draft research test procedures adequately, objectively, and practically
assess the system performance of the underlying ADAS in a test track
environment. NHTSA intends to use these draft research test procedures
to further its research goals by using the output from clearly defined
test methods to help better understand system operation, performance,
and potential limitations.

DATES: Comments must be received no later than January 21, 2020.

ADDRESSES:
    Documents: The draft research test procedures described in this RFC
are available for viewing in PDF format in Docket No. NHTSA-2019-0102.
    Comments: You may submit comments, identified by Docket No. NHTSA-
2019-0102, by any of the following methods:
     Internet: To submit comments electronically, go to the
U.S. Government regulations website at http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the online instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax: Written comments may be faxed to<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: Send comments to Docket Management Facility, U.S.
Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, West Building
Ground Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
     Hand Delivery: If you submit written comments by hand or
courier, please do so at 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, West Building
Ground Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.
Eastern Time, Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
     You may call Docket Management at 1-800-647-5527.
    Instructions: For detailed instructions on submitting comments and
additional information, see the Public Participation heading of the
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document. Note that all
comments received will be posted without change to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided.
    Privacy Act: In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits
comments from the public to better inform its rulemaking process. DOT
posts these comments, without edit, to www.regulations.gov, as
described in the system of records notice, DOT/ALL-14 FDMS, accessible
through https://www.transportation.gov/privacy. To facilitate tracking
and response, we encourage commenters to provide their name, or the
name of their organization; however, submission of names is completely
optional. All timely comments will be fully considered, regardless of
whether commenters directly identify themselves. If you wish to provide
comments containing proprietary or confidential information, please
contact the agency for alternate submission instructions.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For research issues: Mr. Garrick
Forkenbrock, Research Engineer, Vehicle Research and Test Center,
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 10820 SR 347, Bldg. 60,
East Liberty, OH 43319. Telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>. Email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>For legal issues: Ms. Sara Bennett,
Attorney-Advisor, Office of Chief Counsel, National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590.
Telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>. Email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: NHTSA seeks comment on the draft research
test procedures listed below, which assess nine different ADAS
technologies. As background, the agency develops different test
procedures for different purposes. Most commonly, those test procedures
are for rulemaking, New Car Assessment Program (NCAP), or research
purposes. This RFC includes test procedures that have been developed
for research purposes only. Research test procedures are used by the
agency to evaluate a technology of interest and, when presented
publicly, provide a basis from which gaps in test methodology or other
specific deficiencies may be identified and resolved. In contrast,
rulemaking test procedures are developed to support identified
rulemaking efforts and, if a regulation is adopted, focus on ensuring
that a technology meets the level of performance defined in the
regulation and are used by the agency to determine compliance. Thus,
the fact that NHTSA is researching a specific technology is not an
indication that it will now or at any time initiate a rulemaking
related to that technology or include that technology as part of NCAP.
To the extent that research does inform future rulemaking efforts or
revisions to NCAP, the agency will appropriately engage the public
through public comment and other means during those processes.
    NHTSA developed the draft test procedures made available today to
research ways to objectively and practically assess the performance of
ADAS technologies presently available to consumers on certain vehicles
sold in the United States. NHTSA highlights that some of the research
test procedures included in this RFC are in the early stages of
development, while others are closer to being fully developed.
    For light vehicles, these include:
     Active Parking Assist (APA) \1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (2019,
August). Active park assist system confirmation test (DOT HS 812
714). Washington, DC: National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Blind Spot Detection (BSD) \2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (2018, June).
Blind spot detection system confirmation test (working draft).
Washington, DC: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Blind Spot Intervention (BSI) \3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (2019, July).
Blind spot intervention system confirmation test (working draft).
Washington, DC: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Intersection Safety Assist (ISA) \4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (2019,
September). Intersection safety assist system confirmation test
(working draft). Washington, DC: National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Opposing Traffic Safety Assist (OTSA) \5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (2019,
September). Opposing traffic safety assist system confirmation test
(working draft). Washington, DC: National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Pedestrian Automatic Emergency Braking (PAEB) \6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (2019,
April). Pedestrian automatic emergency brake system confirmation
test (working draft). Washington, DC: National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration.

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

     Rear Automatic Braking \7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (2015,
December). Rear automatic braking feature confirmation test
procedure). Washington, DC: National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration. www.regulations.gov, Docket No. NHTSA-2015-0119-
0030.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Traffic Jam Assist (TJA) \8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (2019, June).
Traffic jam assist system confirmation test (working draft).
Washington, DC: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For heavy vehicles, this includes:
     Forward Collision Warning (FCW) \9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (2019,
March). Test track procedures for heavy vehicle forward collision
warning and automatic emergency braking systems. Washington, DC:
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Automatic Emergency Braking (AEB) \9\
    Each draft procedure includes test scenarios designed to emulate
real-world crash-imminent situations, all performed within the
controlled confines of a test track. To ensure these tests are
objective (i.e., clear about exactly how they should be executed), and
can be accurately and repeatedly performed, each draft procedure
contains detailed specifications pertaining to test conduct including,
but not limited to, the equipment, facilities, instructions, and
tolerances needed to perform them in the most objective and consistent
manner possible. While the procedures include draft evaluation
criteria, there are no pass/fail assessments provided because they have
been assembled for research purposes only.
    NHTSA invites public comment on each of its draft research ADAS
test procedures. Specifically, the agency seeks information related to
the following areas of interest. In your responses, please clearly
specify to which test procedure(s) your comments apply.
    1. Can the test procedures be expected to assess adequately for the
purposes of research, within practical limitations, the performance of
the underlying ADAS technologies? If not, please provide specific
reasons why, and suggestions for how they may be improved.
    2. Do any of the draft research test procedures contain elements
that may potentially confound the system operation and/or test results
(e.g., regarding test conduct)? If so, please indicate what those
elements are and how they might be addressed and/or mitigated?
    3. Are the draft research test procedures clearly written,
understandable, and executable? If not, please provide specific areas
for which clarification is necessary, and suggestions for how they may
be improved.
    4. Are the ranges of test speeds, speed combinations, and/or speed
increments specified within each draft research test procedure
reasonable? If not, please provide any data or evidence to support any
claim of unreasonableness from a research perspective.
    5. To reduce test burden for the assessment of some technologies
for research purposes, the number of repeated trials per test condition
is proposed to be less than or equal to seven based on our experience
from past test procedure design work. Is this adequate, or should
another number of repeated trials be performed for all technology/
condition combinations to support an assessment of whether differences
in the test results, for a given condition, are statistically
significant?
    6. Are there additional ADAS technologies NHTSA should be
evaluating for research purposes? If so, please indicate what they are.
    7. Are there existing, alternative test procedures for the ADAS
technologies identified in this notice that NHTSA should consider? If
so, please identify them and provide any comparisons/contrasts that
might be useful to the agency.

Public Participation

How can I be sure that my comments were received?

    If you submit comments by hard copy and wish Docket Management to
notify you upon its receipt of your comments, enclose a self-addressed,
stamped postcard in the envelope containing your comments. Upon
receiving your comments, Docket Management will return the postcard by
mail. If you submit comments electronically, your comments should
appear automatically in Docket No. NHTSA-2019-0102 on
www.regulations.gov. If they do not appear within two weeks of posting,
NHTSA suggested that you call the Docket Management Facility at (202)
366-9826.

How do I submit confidential business information?

    If you wish to submit any information under a claim of
confidentiality, you should submit three copies of your complete
submission, including the information you claim to be confidential
business information, to the Office of Chief Counsel, NHTSA, U.S.
Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC
20590. In addition, you should submit a copy, from which you have
deleted the claimed confidential business information, to Docket
Management at the address given above under ADDRESSES. When you send a
comment containing information claimed to be confidential business
information, you should include a cover letter setting forth the
information specified in our confidential business information
regulation. (49 CFR part 512)

Will the agency consider late comments?

    In our response, we will consider all comments that Docket
Management receives before the close of business on the comment closing
date indicated above under DATES. To the extent possible, we will also
consider comments that Docket Management receives after that date.

How can I read the comments submitted by other people?

    You may read the comments received by Docket Management at the
address given above under ADDRESSES. The hours of the docket are
indicated above in the same location. You may also see the comments on
the internet, at www.regulations.gov, identified by the docket number
at the heading of this notice. Please note that, even after the comment
closing date, NHTSA will continue to file relevant information in the
docket as it becomes available. Further, some people may submit late
comments. Accordingly, NHTSA recommends that you periodically check the
docket for new material.

    Issued in Washington, DC, under authority delegated in 49 CFR
1.95 and 501.4.
James Clayton Owens,
Acting Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2019-25217 Filed 11-20-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-59-P


[Federal Register: January 11, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 7)]
[CORRECTIONS]
[Page 1381]
[DOCID:fr11ja07-84]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-54977; File No. SR-NYSE-2006-116]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; New York Stock Exchange LLC;
Notice of Filing of Proposed Rule Change Relating to Amendment of
Annual Report Timely Filing Requirements

Correction

    In notice document E6-22201 beginning on page 78249 in the issue of
Thursday, December 28, 2006, make the following correction:
    On page 78250, in the second column footnote 17 should be footnote
5.

[FR Doc. Z6-22201 Filed 1-10-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 1505-01-D


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 208 (Tuesday, October 28, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Page 64186]
[FR Doc No: 2014-25541]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. EL15-7-000]

Michigan Public Service Commission v. Midcontinent Independent
System Operator, Inc.; Notice of Complaint

    Take notice that on October 17, 2014, pursuant to Rule 206 of the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's (Commission) Rules of Practice
and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.206 and sections 206, 306, and 309 of the
Federal Power Act, 16 U.S.C. 824e, 825e, and 825h, the Michigan Public
Service Commission (Complainant), filed a formal complaint against
Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc. (Respondent), alleging
that the provision of the Respondent's Open Access Transmission, Energy
and Operating Reserve Markets Tariff governing the allocation of System
Support Resource costs within the American Transmission Company
footprint are unjust and unreasonable.
    The Complainant certifies that copies of the complaint were served
on the contacts for the Respondent as listed in the Commission's list
of Corporate Officials and on all Respondent parties in a related
Docket No. ER14-2952-000.
    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. The Respondent's
answer and all interventions, or protests must be filed on or before
the comment date. The Respondent's answer, motions to intervene, and
protests must be served on the Complainants.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an
original and 5 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC
20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the
``eLibrary'' link and is available for electronic review in the
Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an
``eSubscription'' link on the Web site that enables subscribers to
receive email notification when a document is added to a subscribed
docket(s). For assistance with any FERC Online service, please email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For
TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Comment Date: 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on November 6, 2014.

    Dated: October 21, 2014.
 Kimberly D. Bose,
 Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2014-25541 Filed 10-27-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P