[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 57 (Wednesday, March 25, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 15779-15781]
[FR Doc No: 2015-06692]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings #1

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric
corporate filings:

    Docket Numbers: EC15-97-000.
    Applicants: American Transmission Company LLC, Wisconsin Power and
Light Company.
    Description: Joint Application for Authority to Acquire
Transmission Facilities Under Section 203 of the FPA of American
Transmission Company LLC, et al.
    Filed Date: 3/17/15.
    Accession Number: 20150317-5223.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/7/15.

    Docket Numbers: EC15-98-000.
    Applicants: Union Power Partners, L.P., Entergy Arkansas, Inc.,
Entergy Gulf States Louisiana, L.L.C., Entergy Texas, Inc.
    Description: Joint Application for Section 203 Authorization of
Union Power Partners, L.P., Entergy Arkansas, Inc., Entergy Gulf States
Louisiana, L.L.C., and Entergy Texas, Inc.
    Filed Date: 3/17/15.
    Accession Number: 20150317-5227.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/7/15.

    Take notice that the Commission received the following exempt
wholesale generator filings:

    Docket Numbers: EG15-67-000.
    Applicants: Arbuckle Mountain Wind Farm LLC.
    Description: Notice of Self-Certification of Exempt Wholesale
Generator Status of Arbuckle Mountain Wind Farm LLC.
    Filed Date: 3/18/15.
    Accession Number: 20150318-5129.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/8/15.

    Docket Numbers: EG15-68-000.
    Applicants: Waverly Wind Farm LLC.
    Description: Notice of Self-Certification of Exempt Wholesale
Generator Status of Waverly Wind Farm LLC.
    Filed Date: 3/18/15.
    Accession Number: 20150318-5130.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/8/15.

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric
rate filings:

    Docket Numbers: ER11-1933-005.
    Applicants: Green Mountain Power Corporation.
    Description: Non-Material Change-in-Status Report of Green Mountain
Power Corporation.
    Filed Date: 3/17/15.
    Accession Number: 20150317-5228.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/7/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-879-001.
    Applicants: Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
    Description: Tariff Amendment per 35.17(b): 2446R1 Substitute
Municipal Energy Agency of Nebraska NITSA and NOA to be effective 12/1/
2014.
    Filed Date: 3/17/15.
    Accession Number: 20150317-5068.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/7/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-902-000.
    Applicants: Pacific Summit Energy LLC.
    Description: Amendment to January 23, 2015 Pacific Summit Energy
LLC tariff filing.
    Filed Date: 3/16/15.
    Accession Number: 20150316-5256.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/30/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-939-001.
    Applicants: Western Massachusetts Electric Company.
    Description: Tariff Amendment per 35.17(b): Amendment 2 Revised
HG&E Asset Demarcation Agreement to be effective 1/5/2015.
    Filed Date: 3/17/15.
    Accession Number: 20150317-5162.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/7/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-980-001.
    Applicants: Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc.
    Description: Tariff Amendment per 35.17(b): 2015-03-17_SA 2740 ATC-
WE FCA Amendment to be effective 4/6/2015.
    Filed Date: 3/17/15.
    Accession Number: 20150317-5175.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/7/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-1308-000.
    Applicants: Kingfisher Wind, LLC.
    Description: Initial rate filing per 35.12 Kingfisher Wind FERC
Electric Tariff Volume No. 1 MBR Tariff to be effective 6/30/2015.
    Filed Date: 3/17/15.
    Accession Number: 20150317-5157.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/7/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-1309-000.
    Applicants: Bethpage Energy Center 3, LLC.
    Description: Section 205(d) rate filing per 35.13(a)(2)(iii):
Market-Based Rate Tariff Revisions to be effective 3/18/2015.
    Filed Date: 3/17/15.
    Accession Number: 20150317-5177.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/7/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-1310-000.
    Applicants: Calpine Bethlehem, LLC.
    Description: Section 205(d) rate filing per 35.13(a)(2)(iii):
Market-Based Rate Tariff Revisions to be effective 3/18/2015.
    Filed Date: 3/17/15.
    Accession Number: 20150317-5180.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/7/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-1311-000.
    Applicants: Calpine Energy Services, L.P.
    Description: Section 205(d) rate filing per 35.13(a)(2)(iii):
Market-Based Rate to be effective 3/18/2015.
    Filed Date: 3/17/15.
    Accession Number: 20150317-5185.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/7/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-1312-000.
    Applicants: Calpine Mid-Atlantic Generation, LLC.
    Description: Section 205(d) rate filing per 35.13(a)(2)(iii):
Market-Based Rate Tariff Revisions to be effective 3/18/2015.
    Filed Date: 3/17/15.
    Accession Number: 20150317-5188.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/7/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-1313-000.
    Applicants: Calpine Mid Merit, LLC.
    Description: Section 205(d) rate filing per 35.13(a)(2)(iii):
Market-Based Rate Tariff Revisions to be effective 3/18/2015.
    Filed Date: 3/17/15.
    Accession Number: 20150317-5189.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/7/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-1314-000.
    Applicants: Calpine New Jersey Generation, LLC.
    Description: Section 205(d) rate filing per 35.13(a)(2)(iii):
Market-Based Rate Tariff Revisions to be effective 3/18/2015.
    Filed Date: 3/17/15.
    Accession Number: 20150317-5190.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/7/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-1315-000.
    Applicants: Calpine Power America--CA, LLC.
    Description: Section 205(d) rate filing per 35.13(a)(2)(iii):
Market-Based Rate Tariff Revisions to be effective 3/18/2015.
    Filed Date: 3/17/15.
    Accession Number: 20150317-5191.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/7/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-1316-000.
    Applicants: Calpine Vineland Solar, LLC.
    Description: Section 205(d) rate filing per 35.13(a)(2)(iii):
Market-Based Rate Tariff Revisions to be effective 3/18/2015.
    Filed Date: 3/17/15.
    Accession Number: 20150317-5192.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/7/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-1317-000.
    Applicants: CES Marketing IX, LLC.
    Description: Section 205(d) rate filing per 35.13(a)(2)(iii):
Market-Based Rate Tariff Revisions to be effective 3/18/2015.
    Filed Date: 3/17/15.
    Accession Number: 20150317-5193.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/7/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-1318-000.
    Applicants: CES Marketing X, LLC.
    Description: Section 205(d) rate filing per 35.13(a)(2)(iii):
Market-Based Rate Tariff Revisions to be effective 3/18/2015.
    Filed Date: 3/17/15.
    Accession Number: 20150317-5194.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/7/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-1319-000.
    Applicants: CPN Bethpage 3rd Turbine, Inc.
    Description: Section 205(d) rate filing per 35.13(a)(2)(iii):
Market-Based Rate Tariff Revisions to be effective 3/18/2015.
    Filed Date: 3/17/15.
    Accession Number: 20150317-5195.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/7/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-1320-000.
    Applicants: Nissequogue Cogen Partners.
    Description: Section 205(d) rate filing per 35.13(a)(2)(iii):
Market-Based Rate Tariff Revisions to be effective 3/18/2015.
    Filed Date: 3/17/15.
    Accession Number: 20150317-5196.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/7/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-1321-000.
    Applicants: Power Contract Financing, L.L.C.
    Description: Section 205(d) rate filing per 35.13(a)(2)(iii):
Market-Based Rate Tariff Revisions to be effective 3/18/2015.
    Filed Date: 3/17/15.
    Accession Number: 20150317-5197.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/7/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-1322-000.
    Applicants: TBG Cogen Partners.
    Description: Section 205(d) rate filing per 35.13(a)(2)(iii):
Market-Based Rate Tariff Revisions to be effective 3/18/2015.
    Filed Date: 3/17/15.
    Accession Number: 20150317-5198.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/7/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-1323-000.
    Applicants: Westbrook Energy Center, LLC.
    Description: Section 205(d) rate filing per 35.13(a)(2)(iii):
Market-Based Rate Tariff Revisions to be effective 3/18/2015.
    Filed Date: 3/17/15.
    Accession Number: 20150317-5199.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/7/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-1324-000.
    Applicants: Zion Energy LLC.
    Description: Section 205(d) rate filing per 35.13(a)(2)(iii):
Market-Based Rate Tariff Revisions to be effective 3/18/2015.
    Filed Date: 3/17/15.
    Accession Number: 20150317-5200.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/7/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-1325-000.
    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
    Description: Section 205(d) rate filing per 35.13(a)(2)(iii):
Service Agreement No. 3748; Queue No. W2-061 to be effective 2/24/2015.
    Filed Date: 3/17/15.
    Accession Number: 20150317-5201.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/7/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-1326-000.
    Applicants: KIAC Partners.
    Description: Section 205(d) rate filing per 35.13(a)(2)(iii):
Market-Based Rate Tariff Revisions to be effective 3/18/2015.
    Filed Date: 3/17/15.
    Accession Number: 20150317-5202.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/7/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-1328-000.
    Applicants: Southern California Edison Company.
    Description: Section 205(d) rate filing per 35.13(a)(2)(iii): GIA
and Distribution Service Agmt with SunEdison Utility Solutions to be
effective 3/19/2015.
    Filed Date: 3/18/15.
    Accession Number: 20150318-5086.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/8/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-1329-000.
    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
    Description: Section 205(d) rate filing per 35.13(a)(2)(iii):
Service Agreement No. 4095; Queue No. X3-087 to be effective 2/19/2015.
    Filed Date: 3/18/15.
    Accession Number: 20150318-5098.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/8/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-1330-000.
    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
    Description: Section 205(d) rate filing per 35.13(a)(2)(iii):
Service Agreement No. 3236; Queue No. W4-064 to be effective 3/6/2015.
    Filed Date: 3/18/15.
    Accession Number: 20150318-5112.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/8/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-1331-000.
    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
    Description: Tariff Withdrawal per 35.15: Notice of Cancellation of
Service Agreement No. 3206; Queue No. W4-014 to be effective 3/26/2015.
    Filed Date: 3/18/15.
    Accession Number: 20150318-5117.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/8/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-1332-000.
    Applicants: Arbuckle Mountain Wind Farm LLC.
    Description: Initial rate filing per 35.12 MBR Application to be
effective 5/17/2015.
    Filed Date: 3/18/15.
    Accession Number: 20150318-5125.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/8/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-1333-000.
    Applicants: Waverly Wind Farm LLC.
    Description: Initial rate filing per 35.12 MBR Application to be
effective 5/17/2015.
    Filed Date: 3/18/15.
    Accession Number: 20150318-5126.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/8/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-1334-000.
    Applicants: Tucson Electric Power Company.
    Description: Section 205(d) rate filing per 35.13(a)(2)(iii): Large
Generator Interconnection Agreement to be effective 2/17/2015.
    Filed Date: 3/18/15.
    Accession Number: 20150318-5136.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/8/15.

    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by
clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
    Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above
proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00
p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be
considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the
proceeding.
    eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing
requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying
facilities filings can be found at: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For other information, call<PHONE_NUMBER>
(toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: March 18, 2015.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2015-06692 Filed 3-24-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 247 (Wednesday, December 27, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Page 61281]
[FR Doc No: 2017-27902]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. EF18-2-000]

Notice of Filing; Western Area Power Administration

    Take notice that on December 1, 2017, Western Area Power
Administration submitted tariff filing per: Formula Rates for the Pick-
Sloan Missouri Basin Project-Eastern Division--Rate Order No. WAPA-180
to be effective 1/1/2018.
    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. On or
before the comment date, it is not necessary to serve motions to
intervene or protests on persons other than the Applicant.
    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 review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link
on the website 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 protected], or
call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Comment Date: 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on January 2, 2018.

    Dated: December 20, 2017.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2017-27902 Filed 12-26-17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 152 (Tuesday, August 7, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 47067-47068]
[FR Doc No: 2012-19310]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[FRL-9712-6]

Notification of Two Public Quality Review Teleconferences of the
Chartered Science Advisory Board

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The EPA Science Advisory Board (SAB) Staff Office announces
two public teleconferences of the chartered SAB to conduct quality
reviews of: (1) An SAB draft review report on EPA's ecological
assessment action plan and (2) an SAB draft review report on EPA's
accounting framework for biogenic carbon dioxide emissions from
stationary sources.

DATES: The public teleconference on August 28, 2012, will be held from
2:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m. The public teleconference on August 31, 2012,
will be held from 11:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m.

ADDRESSES: The public teleconferences will be conducted by telephone
only.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Any member of the public wishing to
obtain general information the quality review teleconferences should
contact Dr. Angela Nugent, Designated Federal Officer (DFO), EPA
Science Advisory Board (1400R), 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW.,
Washington, DC 20460; via telephone/voice mail<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax
(202) 565-2098 or via email at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>General

information concerning the EPA Science Advisory Board can be found on
the SAB Web site at http://www.epa.gov/sab.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Pursuant to the Federal Advisory Committee
Act (FACA), 5 U.S.C., App. 2, notice is hereby given that the EPA
Science Advisory Board will hold two public teleconferences to conduct
quality reviews of two SAB draft reports. The SAB was established
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 4365 to provide independent scientific and
technical advice to the Administrator on the technical basis for Agency
positions and regulations. The SAB is a Federal Advisory Committee
under FACA. The SAB will comply with the provisions of FACA and all
appropriate SAB Staff Office procedural policies.

Background

    Quality review is a key function of the chartered SAB. Draft
reports prepared by SAB committees, panels, or work groups must be
reviewed and approved by the chartered SAB before transmittal to the
EPA Administrator. The chartered SAB makes a determination in an open,
public meeting consistent with FACA about the quality of all draft
reports and determines whether the report is ready to be transmitted to
the EPA Administrator.
    August 28, 2012 teleconference. The purpose of the August 28, 2012
teleconference is for the chartered SAB to conduct a quality review of
a draft SAB report entitled ``SAB Review (7-24-12 Draft) of the EPA's
Ecological Assessment Action Plan.'' The EPA's Office of the Science
Advisor requested that the SAB review the agency's ecological
assessment action plan developed in response to recommendations in a
2007 SAB report, ``Advice to EPA on Advancing the Science and
Application of Ecological Risk Assessment in Environmental Decision-
Making'' (EPA-SAB-08-002). Background information about this advisory
activity can be found on the SAB Web site at http://yosemite.epa.gov/sab/sabproduct.nsf/fedrgstr_activites/RAF%20Eco%20Action%20Plan?OpenDocument.
    August 31, 2012 teleconference. The purpose of the August 31, 2012
teleconference is for the chartered SAB to conduct a quality review of
a draft SAB report entitled ``SAB Review (7-26-12 Draft) of EPA's
Accounting Framework for Biogenic CO2 Emissions from
Stationary Sources (September 2011).'' The EPA's Office of Air and
Radiation requested the SAB review the scientific and technical issues
associated with an agency draft framework that assesses options for
accounting for carbon dioxide emissions from biogenic sources.
Background information about this advisory activity can be found on the
SAB Web site at http://yosemite.epa.gov/sab/sabproduct.nsf/fedrgstr_activites/Accounting%20for%20biogenic%20CO2?OpenDocument.
    Availability of Meeting Materials: The agenda and other materials
in support of the teleconferences will be placed on the SAB Web site at
http://www.epa.gov/sab in advance of the teleconferences.
    Procedures for Providing Public Input: Public comment for
consideration by EPA's federal advisory committees and panels has a
different purpose from public comment provided to EPA program offices.
Therefore, the process for submitting comments to a federal advisory
committee is different from the process used to submit comments to an
EPA program office. Federal advisory committees and panels, including
scientific advisory committees, provide independent advice to EPA.
Members of the public can submit relevant comments pertaining to the
group providing advice, EPA's charge questions and EPA review or
background documents. Input from the public to the SAB will have the
most impact if it consists of comments that provide specific scientific
or technical information or analysis for the SAB panel to consider or
if it relates to the clarity or accuracy of the technical information.
Members of the public wishing to provide comment should contact the DFO
for the relevant advisory committee directly. Oral Statements: In
general, individuals or groups requesting time to make an oral
presentation at a public SAB teleconference will be limited to three
minutes, with no more than one-half hour for all speakers. Those
interested in being placed on the public speakers list for the August
28 and 31, 2012 teleconferences should contact Dr. Nugent at the
contact information provided above by August 21, 2012. Written
Statements: Written statements for the August 28, 2012, teleconference
should be supplied to the DFO via email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>by
August 21, 2012. Written statements for the August 31, 2012,
teleconference should be supplied to the DFO via email to
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>by August 24, 2012. Written statements should be
supplied in one of the following acceptable file format: Adobe Acrobat
PDF, MS Word, MS PowerPoint, or Rich Text files in IBM-PC/Windows 98/
2000/XP format). Submitters are asked to provide versions of each
document submitted with and without signatures, because the SAB Staff
Office does not publish documents with signatures on its Web sites.
    Accessibility: For information on access or services for
individuals with disabilities, please contact Dr. Nugent, as
appropriate at the contact information provided above. To request
accommodation of a disability, please contact her preferably at least
10 days prior to the teleconference, to give EPA as much time as
possible to process your request.

    Dated: July 26, 2012.
Thomas H. Brennan,
 Deputy Director, EPA Science Advisory Board Staff Office.
[FR Doc. 2012-19310 Filed 8-6-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


MEMORANDUM TO: Project File FROM: Meghan Kandle, ERG DATE: 03 June 2004 SUBJECT: Producers of L Lysine for Animal Feed EPA is investigating facilities classified under SIC code 2048 ( Animal Feed Preparations) in response to comments submitted by the National Resources Defense Council on March 18, 2004. The purpose of this memorandum is to provide general information on L lysine and its application in the manufacture of animal feeds, as well as identify major producers of L lysine in the United States.

L Lysine L lysine is an essential amino acid for the lean muscle development of swine and poultry ( 1). Animals often lack lysine in their diets, which can impair growth. Manufacturers of swine and poultry feed use lysine as a supplement to stimulate growth and improve the quality of the meat.

Lysine may be produced by the following methods:

° Fermentation; ° Enzymatic conversion; ° Isolation from natural sources; and ° Chemical synthesis.

Chemical synthesis of lysine results in a 50: 50 mixture of D and L lysine. Separating this mixture can be expensive ( 2). Therefore, fermentation is the preferred process. The fermentation process uses a bacteria strain, such as Corynebacteium glutamicum, to synthesize lysine from sugar or molasses ( 3).

Manufacturers of L Lysine ° BioKyowa ( Cape Girardeau, MO)

The BioKyowa facility in Cape Girardeau, MO accounts for 54 percent of the total TWPE assigned to SIC code 2048 ( Animal Feed Preparations) in the TRIReleases 2000 database. The facility reports a discharge of 376,000 pounds of ammonia to surface waters, which accounts for more than 99 percent of the total facility's TWPE in TRI.

BioKyowa reports to PCS for 2000 under SIC code 2833 ( Medicinals and Botanicals), which would classify the facility in the Pharmaceuticals Manufacturing Point Source Category. The facility reports a discharge of 1,270 pounds of ammonia to PCS for 2000, which is much lower than the TRI reported discharge.

On June 1, ERG contacted Frank Hund at EPA Headquarters to discuss the scope of the Pharmaceuticals Rule and its applicability to the BioKyowa facility. Frank had visited the BioKyowa facility in Cape Girardeau, MO in 1999. He described the facility as being similar to a chemical plant aside from the fermentation process used to produce lysine.

This facility is out of scope for the Pharmaceuticals Rule because the primary purpose of the L lysine product is not pharmaceutical in nature. The end use of the lysine produced at the BioKyowa plant is as a feed supplement for swine and poultry. Furthermore, the operations at the BioKyowa facility are not regulated by FDA.

On June 2, ERG contacted John Dunn at EPA Region 7 regarding the development of the permit for this facility. No effluent guidelines were applied as the basis for permit limits, rather water quality standards and best professional judgement were used. Mr. Dunn said that the wastewater at this facility is not similar to wastewater at pharmaceutical facilities. The wastewater from the lysine fermentation consists only of the fermentation broth, which is high in nutrients, ammonia, and salt. The facility implemented an ammonia recovery unit to address the high ammonia discharge.

BioKyowa has switched over their fermentation process from producing L lysine to producing a range of amino acids. The amino acid products have multiple end uses including animal feeds. Mr. Dunn was unsure of the current primary SIC code for this facility. According to 2001 TRI data, the facility still reports a primary SIC code of 2048.

° Archer Daniels Midland Company ( ADM) ( Decatur, IL)

The ADM facility in Decatur, IL has several manufacturing operations including a corn processing plant ( SIC 2046  Wet Corn Milling, 2869  Industrial Organic Chemicals), a Vitamin C plant ( SIC 2834  Pharmaceutical Preparations), a soybean oil mill ( SIC 2075), a lysine plant ( 2048  Animal Feed Preparations), and a cogeneration plant ( SIC 4911). Each plant reports to TRI separately. ADM Bioproducts ( TRI ID: 62526DMBCH4666F) is the lysine plant. The facility reports to TRI under SIC code 2048. No wastewater discharges are reported. According to 2000 TRI data, the facility transfers 290,000 pounds of ammonia for wastewater treatment and 2,200,000 pounds of ammonia for reuse or recovery at the ADM Corn Sweeteners facility in Decatur, IL ( 4).

The facility has two NPDES ( non major) permits for the corn processing plant ( SIC 2046). The permits cover stormwater runoff and spray irrigation ( 4). ° Ajinomoto USA/ Heartland Lysine ( Eddyville, IA)

The Ajinomoto facility in Eddyville, IA reports to TRI under two TRI Ids. Ajinomoto Food Ingredients LLC ( 52553JNMTS1AJIN) reports a primary SIC code of 2869 ( Industrial Organic Chemicals) to TRI. Ajinomoto Heartland LLC ( 52553HRTLNHIGHW) reports a primary SIC code of 2048 ( Animal Feed Preparations) to TRI. Neither facility reports wastewater discharges. According to TRI data for 2000, Ajinomoto transfers 360,078 pounds of ammonia to the Cargill Corn Milling facility in Eddyville, IA for wastewater treatment. Heartland transfers 64,724 pounds of ammonia to Cargill ( 4).

The facility also has two NPDES ( non major) permits. Ajinomoto Heartland ( IA0065692) reports under SIC 2934 ( Pharmaceutical Preparations) to PCS. The permit covers discharges for cooling tower blowdown and sanitary waste effluent. Ajinomoto Food Ingredients ( IA0072389) reports under SIC code 2099 ( Food Preparations) to PCS. The permit covers cooling water discharges ( 4).

° Midwest Lysine LLC ( Blair, NE)

The Midwest Lysine facility in Blair, NE was built in 1998 as a joint venture between Cargill and Degussa Corp. In 2003, Degussa purchased Cargill's share and assumed full ownership of the lysine facility ( 5). The facility reports to TRI and PCS under SIC code 2869 ( Industrial Organic Chemicals). According to TRI data for 2000, the facility transfers 32,746 pounds of ammonia to Cargill North America Sweeteners in Blair, NE for wastewater treatment, and 9,650 pounds to Chamness Tech, Inc in Blairsburg, IA for land disposal. The NPDES ( nonmajor permit for the facility covers non contact cooling water ( 4).

References:

1. de Roos, N. 1999. Examining Models of Collusion: the Market for Lysine. Department of Economics, Yale University.

2. L Lysine L Lysine HCl. < www. tidco. com/ tidcodocs/ tn/ Opportunities/ L LYSINE L LYSINE% 20HCl. doc> Accessed 06/ 02/ 2004.

3. BASF. 1999. Biotechnology: Fermentation. < www. basf. de/ en/ produkte/ biotech/ biokatalyse/ fermentation. htm> Accessed 06/ 02/ 2004.

4. US EPA Envirofacts < www. epa. gov/ enviro>.

5. News Aktuell. June 20, 2003. Degussa Attains Sole Ownership of Midwest Lysine/ Strengthens business in amino acids for animal nutrition. < www. presseportal. de> Accessed 06/ 02/ 2004.


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 195 (Friday, October 7, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 69804-69805]
[FR Doc No: 2016-24269]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. CP16-506-000]

National Fuel Gas Supply Corporation; Notice of Request Under
Blanket Authorization

    Take notice that on September 23, 2016, National Fuel Gas Supply
Corporation (National Fuel), 6363 Main Street, Williamsville, New York
14221 filed in Docket No. CP16-506-000, filed a prior notice request
pursuant to sections 157.205 and 157.216 of the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission's regulations under the Natural Gas Act (NGA) and
National Fuel's blanket authorizations issued in Docket Nos. CP73-294-
000. National Fuel seeks authorization to abandon on indicator well and
associated facilities, all as more fully set forth in the application
which is on file with the Commission and open to public inspection. The
filing may also be viewed on the web at http://www.ferc.gov using the
``eLibrary'' link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three
digits in the docket number field to access the document. For
assistance, contact FERC at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call toll-
free,<PHONE_NUMBER> or TTY,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    National Fuel proposes to abandon facilities in its East Branch
Storage Field, located in McKean County, Pennsylvania. National Fuel
proposes to abandon one indicator well, Well 841-P, and abandon in
place the associated facilities. National Fuel states that based on the
excessive cost to rehabilitate this well, it claims that the most
prudent course of action is to abandon it and that the proposed
abandonment will not result in a material decrease in service to
customers.
    Any questions regarding this Application should be directed to
Laura P. Berloth, Attorney for National Fuel, 6363 Main Street,
Williamsville, New York 14221, by phone<PHONE_NUMBER>, by fax (716)
857-7206, or by email at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    Any person or the Commission's Staff may, within 60 days after the
issuance of the instant notice by the Commission, file pursuant to Rule
214 of the Commission's Procedural Rules (18 CFR 385.214) a motion to
intervene or notice of intervention and, pursuant to section 157.205 of
the Commission's Regulations under the NGA (18 CFR 157.205) a protest
to the request. If no protest is filed within the time allowed
therefore, the proposed activity shall be deemed to be authorized
effective the day after the time allowed for protest. If a protest is
filed and not withdrawn within 30 days after the time allowed for
filing a protest, the instant request shall be treated as an
application for authorization pursuant to section 7 of the NGA.
    Pursuant to Section 157.9 of the Commission's rules, 18 CFR 157.9,
within 90 days of this Notice the Commission staff will either:
Complete its environmental assessment (EA) and place it into the
Commission's public record (eLibrary) for this proceeding, or issue a
Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review. If a Notice of Schedule
for Environmental Review is issued, it will indicate, among other
milestones, the anticipated date for the Commission staff's issuance of
the final environmental impact statement (FEIS) or EA for this
proposal. The filing of the EA in the Commission's public record

for this proceeding or the issuance of a Notice of Schedule for
Environmental Review will serve to notify federal and state agencies of
the timing for the completion of all necessary reviews, and the
subsequent need to complete all federal authorizations within 90 days
of the date of issuance of the Commission staff's FEIS or EA.
    Persons who wish to comment only on the environmental review of
this project should submit an original and two copies of their comments
to the Secretary of the Commission. Environmental commenters will be
placed on the Commission's environmental mailing list, will receive
copies of the environmental documents, and will be notified of meetings
associated with the Commission's environmental review process.
Environmental commenters will not be required to serve copies of filed
documents on all other parties. However, the non-party commenters will
not receive copies of all documents filed by other parties or issued by
the Commission (except for the mailing of environmental documents
issued by the Commission) and will not have the right to seek court
review of the Commission's final order.
    The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings of comments,
protests, and interventions via the internet in lieu of paper. See 18
CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's Web
site (www.ferc.gov) under the ``e-Filing'' link. 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.

    Dated: September 30, 2016.
 Kimberly D. Bose,
 Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2016-24269 Filed 10-6-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 105 (Thursday, June 3, 2021)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 29725-29727]
[FR Doc No: 2021-11584]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[Docket Number USCG-2021-0379]
RIN 1625-AA00

Safety Zone; Lake Charles, Lake Charles, LA

AGENCY: Coast Guard, Department of Homeland Security (DHS).

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is proposing to establish a temporary safety
zone for all navigable waters of Lake Charles west of 93[deg]13'51.2''
W, east of 93[deg]14'8.3'' W, and extending 500 yards south from the
northern shore of Lake Charles. This safety zone is necessary to
protect persons and vessels from hazards associated with a Pro
Watercross event on August 28 and 29, 2021 in Lake Charles, LA. Entry
of vessels or persons into this zone would be prohibited unless
authorized by the Captain of the Port Marine Safety Unit Port Arthur or
a designated representative. We invite your comments on this proposed
rulemaking.

DATES: Comments and related material must be received by the Coast
Guard on or before June 18, 2021.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by docket number USCG-
2021-0379 using the Federal eRulemaking Portal at https://www.regulations.gov. See the ``Public Participation and Request for
Comments'' portion of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for further
instructions on submitting comments.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions about this
proposed rulemaking, call or email LT Christpher Saylor, MSU Lake
Charles, U.S. Coast Guard; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Table of Abbreviations

CFR Code of Federal Regulations
DHS Department of Homeland Security
FR Federal Register
NPRM Notice of proposed rulemaking
Sec.  Section
U.S.C. United States Code

II. Background, Purpose, and Legal Basis

    On May 19, 2021, the Pro Watercross Organization notified the Coast
Guard that it would be conducting watercross races from 8 a.m. through
6 p.m. on August 28 and 29, 2021. These watercross races are scheduled
to be conducted along the north shore of Lake Charles in waters west of
93[deg]13'51.2'' W, east of 93[deg]14'8.3'' W, and extending 500 yards
south from the north shoreline of Lake Charles, LA. The Captain of the
Port Marine Safety Unit Port Arthur (COTP) has determined that
potential hazards associated with the pro watercross races would be a
safety concern for spectator craft and vessels in the vicinity of these
race events.
    The purpose of this rulemaking is to ensure the safety of vessels
and the navigable waters in the vicinity of the pro watercross race
course, during, and after the scheduled races. The Coast Guard is
proposing this rulemaking under authority in 46 U.S.C. 70034
(previously 33 U.S.C. 1231).

III. Discussion of Proposed Rule

    The COTP is proposing to establish a temporary safety zone from 8
a.m. on August 28, 2021, through 6 p.m. on August 29, 2021. The safety
zone would be enforced from 8 a.m. through 6 p.m. on both days the 28th
and the 29th of August 2021. The safety zone would cover all navigable
waters west of 93[deg]13'51.2'' W, east of 93[deg]14'8.3'' W, and
extending 500 yards south from the north shoreline of Lake Charles, LA.
The duration of the safety zone is intended to protect participants,
spectators, and other persons and vessels, in the navigable waters of
the Lake Charles during the watercross races.
    No vessel or person would be permitted to enter the safety zone
without obtaining permission from the COTP or a designated
representative. They may be contacted on VHF-FM channel 13 or 16, or by
phone at by telephone at<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    The COTP or a designated representative may prohibit or control the
movement of all vessels in the zone. When hailed or signaled by an
official patrol vessel, a vessel would come to an immediate stop and
comply with the directions given. Failure to do so may result in
expulsion from the area, citation for failure to comply, or both. The
COTP or a designated representative may terminate the operation of any
vessel at any time it is deemed necessary for the protection of life or
property. The COTP or a designated representative may terminate
enforcement of the safety zone at the conclusion of the event.
    The COTP or a designated representative would inform the public of
the effective period for the safety zone as well as any changes in the
dates and times of enforcement through Local Notice to Mariners (LNMs),
Broadcast Notices to Mariners (BNMs), and/or Marine Safety Information
Bulletins (MSIBs) as appropriate.

IV. Regulatory Analyses

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

A. Regulatory Planning and Review

    Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the
costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if
regulation is necessary, to select regulatory

approaches that maximize net benefits. This NPRM has not been
designated a ``significant regulatory action,'' under Executive Order
12866. Accordingly, the NPRM has not been reviewed by the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB).
    This regulatory action determination is based the size, location,
and duration of the safety zone. The temporary safety zone would be
enforced on a 500-yards by 500-yards portion of navigable waters of
Lake Charles, LA, for only two days. This rule would be enforced to
protect personnel, vessels, and the marine environment from hazards
associated with the pro watercross race.

B. Impact on Small Entities

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as
amended, requires Federal agencies to consider the potential impact of
regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term ``small
entities'' comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations
that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their
fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than
50,000. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this
proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities.
    While some owners or operators of vessels intending to transit the
safety zone may be small entities, for the reasons stated in section
IV.A above, this proposed rule would not have a significant economic
impact on any vessel owner or operator.
    If you think that your business, organization, or governmental
jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity and that this rule would have
a significant economic impact on it, please submit a comment (see
ADDRESSES) explaining why you think it qualifies and how and to what
degree this rule would economically affect it.
    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small
entities in understanding this proposed rule. If the rule would affect
your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you
have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance,
please call or email the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT section. The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small
entities that question or complain about this proposed rule or any
policy or action of the Coast Guard.

C. Collection of Information

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

D. Federalism and Indian Tribal Governments

    A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132
(Federalism), if it has a substantial direct effect on the States, on
the relationship between the National Government and the States, or on
the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels
of government. We have analyzed this proposed rule under that order and
have determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism
principles and preemption requirements described in Executive Order
13132.
    Also, this proposed rule does not have tribal implications under
Executive Order 13175 (Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal
Governments) because it would not have a substantial direct effect on
one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal
Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. If
you believe this proposed rule has implications for federalism or
Indian tribes, please call or email the person listed in the FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538)
requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary
regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may
result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in
the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for
inflation) or more in any one year. Though this proposed rule would not
result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule
elsewhere in this preamble.

F. Environment

    We have analyzed this proposed rule under Department of Homeland
Security Directive 023-01, Rev. 1, associated implementing
instructions, and Environmental Planning COMDTINST 5090.1 (series),
which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have made
a preliminary determination that this action is one of a category of
actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant
effect on the human environment. This proposed rule involves a safety
zone lasting 10 hours on each of the two event days, and would prohibit
entry within 500 yards of the beach area of North Lake Charles.
Normally such actions are categorically excluded from further review
under paragraph L60 of Appendix A, Table 1 of DHS Instruction Manual
023-01-001-01, Rev. 1. A preliminary Record of Environmental
Consideration supporting this determination is available in the docket.
For instructions on locating the docket, see the ADDRESSES section of
this preamble. We seek any comments or information that may lead to the
discovery of a significant environmental impact from this proposed
rule.

G. Protest Activities

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

V. Public Participation and Request for Comments

    We view public participation as essential to effective rulemaking,
and will consider all comments and material received during the comment
period. Your comment can help shape the outcome of this rulemaking. If
you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this
rulemaking, indicate the specific section of this document to which
each comment applies, and provide a reason for each suggestion or
recommendation.
    We encourage you to submit comments through the Federal eRulemaking
Portal at https://www.regulations.gov. If your material cannot be
submitted using https://www.regulations.gov, call or email the person
in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this document for
alternate instructions.
    We accept anonymous comments. Comments we post to https://www.regulations.gov will include any personal information you have
provided. For more about privacy and submissions in response to this
document, see DHS's eRulemaking System of Records notice (85 FR 14226,
March 11, 2020).
    Documents mentioned in this NPRM as being available in the docket,
and public comments, will be in our online docket at https://www.regulations.gov and can be viewed by following that website's
instructions. We review all

comments received, but we will only post comments that address the
topic of the proposed rule. We may choose not to post off-topic,
inappropriate, or duplicate comments that we receive.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165

    Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, Waterways.

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard is
proposing to amend 33 CFR part 165 as follows:

PART 165--REGULATED NAVIGATION AREA AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS

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

    Authority:  46 U.S.C. 70034, 70051; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-
6, and 160.5; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.

0
2. Add Sec.  165.T08-0379 to read as follows:

Sec.  165.T08-0379  Safety Zone; Lake Charles, Lake Charles, Louisiana.

    (a) Location. The following area is a safety zone: All navigable
waters of the Lake Charles west of 93[deg]13'51.2'' W, east of
93[deg]14'8.3'' W, and extending 500 yards south from the northern
shore of Lake Charles. The duration of the safety zone is intended to
protect participants, spectators, and other persons and vessels, on the
navigable waters of the Lake Charles during the watercross races.
    (b) Enforcement period. This section will be enforced from 8 a.m.
through 6 p.m. on August 28, 2021 and August 29, 2021.
    (c) Regulations. (1) In accordance with the general regulations in
Sec.  165.23, entry of vessels or persons into this zone is prohibited
unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Marine Safety Unit Port
Arthur (COTP) or a designated representative. They may be contacted on
VHF-FM channel 13 or 16, or by phone at by telephone at<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (2) The COTP or a designated representative may forbid and control
the movement of all vessels in the regulated area. When hailed or
signaled by an official patrol vessel, a vessel shall come to an
immediate stop and comply with the directions given. Failure to do so
may result in expulsion from the area, citation for failure to comply,
or both.
    (3) The COTP or a designated representative may terminate the event
or the operation of any vessel at any time it is deemed necessary for
the protection of life or property.
    (4) The COTP or a designated representative will terminate
enforcement of the special local regulations at the conclusion of the
event.
    (d) Informational broadcasts. The COTP or a designated
representative will inform the public of the effective period for the
safety zone as well as any changes in the dates and times of
enforcement through Local Notice to Mariners (LNMs), Broadcast Notices
to Mariners (BNMs), and/or Marine Safety Information Bulletins (MSIBs)
as appropriate.

    Dated: May 27, 2021.
Molly A. Wike,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Marine Safety Unit Port
Arthur.
[FR Doc. 2021-11584 Filed 6-2-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register: December 11, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 237)]
[Notices]
[Page 70356-70357]
[DOCID:fr11de07-81]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-56903; File No. SR-CBOE-2007-68]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Chicago Board Options Exchange,
Incorporated; Order Approving Proposed Rule Change, as Modified by
Amendment No. 1, Relating to Stock-Option Orders

December 5, 2007.

I. Introduction

    On June 20, 2007, the Chicago Board Options Exchange, Incorporated
(``CBOE'' or ``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 proposal to amend its rules to provide for the
electronic handling and execution of stock-option orders. The CBOE
filed Amendment No. 1 to the proposal on October 19, 2007.\3\ The
proposed rule change, as modified by Amendment No. 1, was published for
comment in the Federal Register on October 31, 2007.\4\ The Commission
received no comments regarding the proposed rule change, as amended.
This order approves the proposed rule change, as modified by Amendment
No. 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ Amendment No. 1 replaces the original filing in its
entirety.
    \4\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 56701 (October 25,
2007), 72 FR 61694.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Description of the Proposal

    Currently, stock-option orders \5\ are handled manually on the CBOE
and the options component is traded in open outcry. The CBOE proposes
to amend CBOE Rule 6.53C, ``Complex Orders on the Hybrid System,'' to
allow stock-option orders to be submitted to the Complex Order Book
(``COB'') or executed via a Complex Order Auction (``COA'').\6\ The
stock component of a stock-option order will be executed electronically
on the CBOE's electronic stock trading facility, the CBOE Stock
Exchange (``CBSX''), consistent with CBSX's order execution rules.\7\ A
stock-option order will not be executed on the CBOE's Hybrid System
unless the stock leg is executable on CBSX at the price(s) necessary to
achieve the desired net price.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ A stock-option order is an order to buy or sell a stated
number of units of an underlying or a related security coupled with
either (a) the purchase or sale of option contract(s) on the
opposite side of the market representing either the same number of
units of the underlying or related security or the number of units
of the underlying security necessary to create a delta neutral
position or (b) the purchase or sale of an equal number of put and
call option contracts, each having the same exercise price,
expiration date and each representing the same number of units of
stock as, and on the opposite side of the market from, the
underlying security or related security portion of the order. See
CBOE Rule 1.1(ii) and CBOE Rule 6.53C(a)(10).
    \6\ See CBOE Rule 6.53C, Commentary .06 (c) and (d).
    \7\ See CBOE Rule 6.53C, Commentary .06(a).
    \8\ See CBOE Rule 6.53C, Commentary .06(a).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    An electronic stock-option order accepted by the Hybrid System will
be auctioned in a COA when the requirements for an auction are met. An
unexecuted stock-option order also could be maintained in the COB or on
a PAR workstation, either of which would monitor the marketability of
the order, taking into account the CBSX market for the execution of the
stock component of the order.
    Under the proposal, the CBOE proposes to process stock-option
orders in a manner that is substantially similar to the way that the
CBOE currently processes complex orders comprised solely of options.
However, a stock-option order submitted to the COB would seek to trade
first against other stock-option orders in the COB, and second against
individual orders or quotes on the CBOE.\9\ Similarly, a stock-option
order submitted to a COA would trade in the sequence set forth in CBOE
Rule 6.53C(d)(v)(1)-(4), except that subparagraph (d)(v)(1), relating
to individual orders and quotes residing in the EBook, would be applied
last in sequence.\10\ The CBOE believes that because a portion of a
stock-option order would be executed on a different platform (CBSX), it
is more practical to execute resting stock-option orders against other
stock-option orders received by the Hybrid System before scanning for
executions against the legs on the CBSX book and the Hybrid options
book.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See CBOE Rule 6.53C, Commentary .06(c). In contrast, a
complex order comprised solely of options would seek to execute
first against orders and quotes in the EBook, if possible, and then
against other complex orders in the COB. See CBOE Rule 6.53C(c)(ii).
    \10\ See CBOE Rule 6.53C, Commentary .06(d).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The options leg of a stock-option order will not trade ahead of any
public customer option resting on the Hybrid book. Specifically, the
options leg of a stock-option order will not be executed on the Hybrid
System at the CBOE's best bid (offer) in a series if one or more public
customer orders are resting on the electronic book at that price,
unless the options leg trades with such public customer order(s).\11\
Accordingly, the CBOE notes that the proposal is consistent with CBOE
Rule 6.45A(b)(iii), which provides the options leg of a stock-option
order with priority over bids (offers) in the trading crowd at the same
price, but not over public customer bids (offers) in the limit order
book at the same price.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See CBOE Rule 6.53C, Commentary .06(b).
    \12\ The CBOE provides the following example to illustrate how
the Hybrid System would protect the priority of a resting public
customer options order: a customer enters a stock-option order to
buy 100 shares of XYZ (trading at around $40) and sell a 45 call
with a net price of $39.00. A public customer order to sell the 45
call for $1 is resting on the Hybrid book. When executing the stock-
option order against auction responses, the Hybrid System will not
allow the options leg of the transaction to trade at $1 or higher,
thereby preserving the resting limit order's priority at that price.
An execution could occur where the options leg prints at $0.99 and
the stock trade prints at $39.99, in accordance with CBSX priority
rules. This execution would meet the stock-option order's limit
price and would not violate priority on CBOE or CBSX.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Discussion

    After careful review, the Commission finds that the proposed rule
change, as amended, is consistent with the requirements of the Act and
the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to a national
securities exchange.\13\ In particular, the Commission finds that the
proposal is consistent with section 6(b)(5) of the Act,\14\ which
requires, among other things, that the rules of a national securities
exchange be designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and
practices, to promote just and equitable principles of trade, to remove
impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and
a national market

system, and, in general, to protect investors and the public interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ In approving the 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).
    \14\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission believes that the proposal could facilitate the
execution of stock-option orders on the CBOE by providing for the
electronic handling and execution of these orders, which currently must
be handled manually. The Commission notes that proposal provides for
the execution of stock-option orders in a manner that is consistent
with the CBOE's existing priority rules for stock-option orders, which
provide the options leg of a stock-option order with priority over bids
(offers) in the trading crowd at the same price, but not over public
customer bids (offers) at the same price.\15\ In addition, the
execution of the stock component of a stock-option order on CBSX will
be consistent with CBSX's order execution rules.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ See CBOE Rule 6.45A(b)(iii).
    \16\ See CBOE Rule 6.53C, Commentary .06(a).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Conclusion

    It is therefore ordered, pursuant to section 19(b)(2) of the
Act,\17\ that the proposed rule change (SR-CBOE-2007-68), as modified
by Amendment No. 1, is approved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E7-23925 Filed 12-10-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 51 (Friday, March 17, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 14217-14218]
[FR Doc No: 2017-05375]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[ER-FRL-9032-2]

Environmental Impact Statements; Notice of Availability

    Responsible Agency: Office of Federal Activities, General
Information<PHONE_NUMBER> or http://www.epa.gov/nepa.

Weekly receipt of Environmental Impact Statements (EISs),
    Filed 03/06/2017 Through 03/10/2017.
Pursuant to 40 CFR 1506.9.

Notice

    Section 309(a) of the Clean Air Act requires that EPA make public
its comments on EISs issued by other Federal agencies. EPA's comment
letters on EISs are available at: http://www.epa.gov/compliance/nepa/eisdata.html.

EIS No. 20170032, Draft, USFS, OR, Ringo Project, Comment Period Ends:
05/01/2017, Contact: Lillian Cross,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

EIS No. 20170033, Draft, BPA, WA, Melvin R. Sampson Hatchery Yakima
Basin Coho Project, Comment Period Ends: 05/01/2017, Contact: Dave
Goodman,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
EIS No. 20170034, Draft, USFS, CA, Trinity Post Fire Hazard Reduction
and Salvage, Comment Period Ends: 05/01/2017, Contact: Thomas Hall,
530-628-1200.
EIS No. 20170035, Final Supplement, USFS, ID, Johnson Bar Fire Salvage,
Review Period Ends: 04/17/2017, Contact: Tam White,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
EIS No. 20170036, Final, USFS, AK, Shoreline II Outfitter/Guide, Review
Period Ends: 04/17/2017, Contact: Carey Case,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Amended Notices

EIS No. 20160261, Draft, USFS, ID, Coeur d Alene Basin Natural Resource
Restoration Plan, Comment Period Ends: 04/17/2017, Contact: Jo
Christensen,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Revision to FR Notice Published 11/10/2016; Reopening Comment
Period to End 04/17/2017.

EIS No. 20170002, Draft, DOE, CA, Remediation of Area IV and the
Northern Buffer Zone of the Santa Susana Field Laboratory, Comment
Period Ends: 04/13/2017, Contact: Stephie Jennings, 1-805-842-3864.

    Revision to FR Notice Published 01/13/2017; Extending the Comment
Period from 03/14/2017 to 04/13/2017.

EIS No. 20170004, Draft, USFWS, NPS, WA, North Cascades Ecosystem Draft
Grizzly Bear Restoration Plan, Comment Period Ends: 04/28/2017,
Contact: Karen Taylor-Goodrich,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Revision to FR Notice Published 01/13/2017; Extending the Comment
Period from 03/14/2017 to 04/28/2017.

EIS No. 20170031, Draft, USFS, ID, Big Creek Hot Springs Geothermal
Leasing, Comment Period Ends: 05/01/2017, Contact: Julie Hopkins, 208-
756-5279.

    Revision to FR Notice Published 03/10/2017; Reestablish the Comment
Period to End 05/01/2017.

    Dated: March 14, 2017.
Dawn Roberts,
Management Analyst, NEPA Compliance Division, Office of Federal
Activities.
[FR Doc. 2017-05375 Filed 3-16-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 87 (Tuesday, May 6, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 25933-25937]
[FR Doc No: 2014-10286]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-72050; File No. SR-NYSEARCA-2014-48]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE Arca, Inc.; Notice of Filing
of Proposed Rule Change Adding New Paragraphs (j) and (k) to Rule 7.10,
Entitled ``Clearly Erroneous Executions

April 30, 2014.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) \1\ of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 (the ``Act'') \2\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\3\ notice is hereby
given that, on April 21, 2014, NYSE Arca, Inc. (the ``Exchange'' or
``NYSE Arca'') 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 add new paragraphs (j) and (k) to Rule
7.10, entitled ``Clearly Erroneous Executions.'' The text of the
proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Web site 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
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

1. Purpose
    The purpose of this filing is to add new paragraph (j) to Rule 7.10
to provide the Exchange with authority to nullify transactions that
were effected based on the same fundamentally incorrect or grossly
misinterpreted issuance information even if such transactions occur
over a period of several days, as further described below. An example
of fundamentally incorrect and grossly misinterpreted issuance
information that led to a severe valuation error is included below for
illustrative purposes.
    The Exchange also proposes to add new paragraph (k) to Rule 7.10 to
make clear that in the event of any disruption or malfunction in the
operation of the electronic communications and trading facilities of
the Exchange, another market center or responsible single plan
processor in connection with the transmittal or receipt of a regulatory
trading halt, suspension or pause (hereafter generally referred to as a
``trading halt'' for ease of reference), the

Exchange will nullify any transaction that occurs after the primary
listing market for a security declares a trading halt with respect to
such security. In the event a trading halt is declared, then
prematurely lifted in error, and then re-instituted, proposed paragraph
(k) would also result in nullification of any transactions that occur
before the official, final end of the trading halt according to the
primary listing market.
    The Exchange also proposes a change to certain cross-references in
Rule 7.10, due to the addition of (j) and (k). Specifically, the
Exchange proposes to update cross-references in existing paragraph (i)
of Rule 7.10 in order to make clear that the provisions of paragraph
(i) do not alter the application of other provisions of Rule 7.10,
including new paragraphs (j) and (k).
Background
    On September 10, 2010, the Commission approved, on a pilot basis,
changes to Rule 7.10 to provide for uniform treatment: (1) Of clearly
erroneous execution reviews in multi-stock events involving twenty or
more securities; and (2) in the event transactions occur that result in
the issuance of an individual stock trading pause by the primary
listing market and subsequent transactions that occur before the
trading pause is in effect on the Exchange.\4\ The Exchange also
adopted additional changes to Rule 7.10 that reduced the ability of the
Exchange to deviate from the objective standards set forth in Rule
7.10,\5\ and in 2013, adopted a provision designed to address the
operation of the Plan to Address Extraordinary Market Volatility
Pursuant to Rule 608 of Regulation NMS under the Act (the ``Limit Up-
Limit Down Plan'' or the ``Plan'').\6\ Most recently, the Exchange
removed the specific provisions related to individual stock trading
pauses and extended the pilot program to coincide with the pilot period
for the Limit Up-Limit Down Plan, including any extensions thereof,
applicable to certain provisions of Rule 7.10.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 62886 (Sept. 10,
2010), 75 FR 56613 (Sept. 16, 2010) (SR-NYSEArca-2010-58).
    \5\ Id.
    \6\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 68809 (Feb. 1,
2013), 78 FR 9081 (Feb. 7, 2013) (SR- NYSEArca-2013-12); Securities
Exchange Act Release No. 67091 (May 31, 2012), 77 FR 33498 (June 6,
2012) (the ``Limit Up-Limit Down Release''); see also Exchange Rule
7.10(i).
    \7\ Paragraphs (c), (e)(2), (f), (g), and (i) of Rule 7.10 are
currently subject to a pilot program. See Securities Exchange Act
Release No. 70518 (September 26, 2013), 78 FR 60950 (October 2,
2013) (SR-NYSEArca-2013-100); Securities Exchange Act Release No.
71807 (March 26, 2014), 79 FR 18087 (March 21, 2014) [sic] (SR-
NYSEArca-2014-32).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As proposed, similar to other provisions added in recent years, as
described above, both paragraph (j) and paragraph (k) would be subject
to the pilot period, and thus, would coincide with the pilot period for
the Limit Up-Limit Down Plan, unless extended or made permanent.
Executions Based on Incorrect or Grossly Misinterpreted Issuance
Information
    The Exchange proposes to adopt a new provision, paragraph (j), to
Rule 7.10, which would provide that a series of transactions in a
particular security on one or more trading days may be viewed as one
event if all such transactions were effected based on the same
fundamentally incorrect or grossly misinterpreted issuance information
(e.g., with respect to a stock split or corporate dividend) resulting
in a severe valuation error for all such transactions (the ``Event'').
    As proposed, an Officer, acting on his or her own motion, would be
required to take action to declare all transactions that occurred
during the Event null and void not later than the start of trading on
the day following the last transaction in the Event. If trading in the
security is halted before the valuation error is corrected, the Officer
would be required to take action to declare all transactions that
occurred during the Event null and void prior to the resumption of
trading. The Exchange proposes to make clear that no action can be
taken pursuant to proposed paragraph (j) with respect to any
transactions that have reached settlement date for the security or that
result from an initial public offering of a security. The Exchange
believes that declaring a trade null and void after settlement date
would be complex to administer and unfair to the affected parties. The
Exchange also believes that excluding IPOs from the proposed rule will
ensure that transactions in a new security for which there is no
benchmark information are not called into question, as it is the IPO
process itself, including the extensive public disclosure associated
with IPOs, that is intended to drive price formation.
    Further, the Exchange proposes that to the extent transactions
related to an Event occur on one or more other market centers, the
Exchange will promptly coordinate with such other market center(s) to
ensure consistent treatment of the transactions related to the Event,
if practicable. The Exchange also proposes to state in the Rule that
any action taken in connection with paragraph (j) will be taken without
regard to the Numerical Guidelines set forth in paragraph (c)(1) of
Rule 7.10. In particular, the Exchange believes that there could be
scenarios where there are erroneous transactions related to an Event
that do not meet applicable Numerical Guidelines but that are, upon
review, clearly erroneous. One example of a situation that could occur
is a corporate action, such as a stock split, that results in the
dissemination of fundamentally incorrect or grossly misinterpreted
issuance information and leads to erroneous transactions at a price
that is close to the price at which the security was previously
trading. Even if such trading is consistent with prior trading activity
for the security, and thus would not meet applicable Numerical
Guidelines, the Exchange would have the authority to nullify such
transactions if they were affected based on the same fundamentally
incorrect or grossly misinterpreted issuance information and there was
a severe valuation error as a result (i.e., although the security
should be trading at a price further away from its previous range, due
to fundamentally incorrect or grossly misinterpreted issuance
information with respect to the corporate action the security continues
to trade at a price that does not meet applicable Numerical
Guidelines).
    The Exchange also proposes to include a provision, as it does in
many other sub-paragraphs of Rule 7.10, stating that each ETP Holder
involved in a transaction subject to proposed paragraph (j) shall be
notified as soon as practicable by the Exchange, and that the party
aggrieved by the action may appeal such action in accordance with
Exchange Rule 7.10(e)(2).
    In particular, the Exchange believes it is necessary to have
authority to nullify trades that occur in an event similar to an event
involving an exchange offer (``Exchange Offer'') made by U.S. Bancorp
on the New York Stock Exchange (``NYSE'') in 2010 in which there were a
series of executions based on incorrect or grossly misinterpreted
issuance information. As a result of such information, the securities
traded at severely dislocated prices. At the time, the NYSE filed an
emergency rule filing in order to respond to that event.\8\ With the
filing the NYSE interpreted the rule applicable to clearly erroneous
executions as permitting the NYSE to nullify all trades resulting after
the Exchange Offer at severely dislocated

prices.\9\ The Exchange believes it is important to have in place a
rule to break such trades if an event like the U.S. Bancorp event
occurs again in the future. The U.S. Bancorp event is described in
further detail below and is intended to be illustrative of the manner
in which the Exchange proposes to utilize proposed paragraph (j), if
necessary.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 62609 (July 30,
2010), 75 FR 47327 (August 5, 2010) (SR-NYSE-2010-55).
    \9\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In May 2010, U.S. Bancorp commenced an offer to exchange up to
1,250,000 Depositary Shares, each representing a 1/100 interest in a
share of Series A Non-Cumulative Perpetual Preferred Stock, $100,000
liquidation preference per share (the ``Depositary Shares'') for any
and all of the 1,250,000 outstanding 6.189% Fixed-to-Floating Rate
Normal ITS issued by U.S. Bancorp Capital IX, each with a liquidation
amount of $1,000 (the ``Normal ITS''). The Depositary Shares were
approved for listing on the NYSE under the symbol USB PRA. On June 11,
2010, the NYSE opened the shares on a quote, but trading did not
commence until June 16, 2010 at prices in the range of $79.00 per
share. There were additional executions on the NYSE in that price range
on June 17 and 18, 2010. On June 18, 2010, NYSE staff learned that the
prices at which trades had executed were not consistent with the value
of the security, which was closer to an $800 price. Upon learning of
the pricing disparity, NYSE immediately halted trading in the
Depositary Shares on all markets and alerted U.S. Bancorp and other
exchanges that traded the Depositary Shares of the pricing discrepancy.
    In order to address the situation, the NYSE filed a proposal to
interpret its existing clearly erroneous execution rule such that the
trading in Depository Shares from June 16 to June 18 constituted a
single event because that trading was based on incorrect or grossly
misinterpreted issuance information that resulted in severe price
dislocation (the ``U.S. Bancorp Event'').\10\ Because the Depository
Shares were halted before the price of the Depository Shares ceased to
be dislocated, and remain halted, the NYSE was able to review trading
in Depository Shares and declare null and void all trading in the U.S.
Bancorp Event before the security resumed trading.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    Rather than filing a proposal in response to a similar event
happening again, the Exchange proposes to add paragraph (j) in order to
nullify transactions consistent with the description of the proposed
Rule above.
Executions After a Trading Halt Has Been Declared
    The Exchange proposes to add new paragraph (k) to Rule 7.10 to make
clear that in the event of any disruption or malfunction in the
operation of the electronic communications and trading facilities of
the Exchange, another market center or responsible single plan
processor in connection with the transmittal or receipt of a trading
halt, the Exchange will nullify any transaction that occurs after the
primary listing market for a security declares a trading halt and
before such trading halt with respect to such security has officially
ended according to the primary listing market. In addition, proposed
paragraph (k) will make clear that in the event a trading halt is
declared, then prematurely lifted in error and then re-instituted, the
Exchange will nullify transactions that occur before the official,
final end of the trading halt according to the primary listing market.
    As with other provisions in Rule 7.10, including proposed paragraph
(j) as discussed above, the authority to nullify transactions pursuant
to paragraph (k) would be vested in an Officer, acting on his or her
own motion. Any action taken in connection with paragraph (k) would be
taken in a timely fashion, generally within thirty (30) minutes of the
detection of the erroneous transaction and in no circumstances later
than the start of Core Trading Hours \11\ on the trading day following
the date of execution(s) under review. The Exchange also proposes to
specify that any action taken in connection with proposed paragraph (k)
will be taken without regard to the Numerical Guidelines set forth in
paragraph (c)(1) of Rule 7.10. The Exchange believes it is appropriate
to act to nullify transactions pursuant to proposed paragraph (k)
without regard to applicable Numerical Guidelines because in the
situations covered by paragraph (k), such transactions should not have
occurred in the first instance, and thus, their nullification does not
put parties in any different position than they should have been. The
Exchange also believes that the certainty that the proposed rule
provides is critical in situations involving trading halts.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ The Core Trading Hours on the Exchange are defined in Rule
1.1(j) and is generally the time between 6:30 a.m. to 1:00 p.m. P.T.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As it has proposed for paragraph (j), as described above, the
Exchange also proposes to an [sic] include a provision stating that
each ETP Holder involved in a transaction subject to proposed paragraph
(k) shall be notified as soon as practicable by the Exchange, and that
the party aggrieved by the action may appeal such action in accordance
with Exchange Rule 7.10(e)(2).
    The Exchange notes that trading in a security is typically halted
immediately on the Exchange when the primary listing market issues a
trading halt in such security. However, in certain circumstances, due
to a technical issue related to the transmission or receipt of the
electronic message instituting such trading halt or due to other
extraordinary circumstances, executions can occur on the Exchange
following the declaration of such a trading halt. Similarly, although
rare, the Exchange has witnessed scenarios where due to extraordinary
circumstances a trading halt is declared, then prematurely lifted in
error and then re-instituted. It is these types of extraordinary
circumstances that the Exchange believes require certainty, and thus,
the Exchange believes it necessary to make clear that in such a
circumstance any transactions after a trading halt has been declared
will be nullified. In the event that a trading halt is declared as of a
future time (i.e., if the primary listing exchange declares a trading
halt as of a specific, future time in order to ensure coordination
amongst market participants), the Exchange would only nullify
transactions occurring after the time the trading halt was supposed to
be in place until the official end of the trading halt according to the
primary listing market.
    The Exchange also notes that it currently has authority pursuant to
paragraph (f) of Rule 7.10 to review and nullify transactions that
arise during a disruption or malfunction in the operation of any
electronic communications and trading facilities of the Exchange.
Further, paragraph (f) of Rule 7.10 gives the Exchange authority to use
a lower numerical guideline than is set forth in paragraph (c)(1) of
the Rule when necessary to maintain a fair and orderly market and to
protect investors and the public interest. Thus, while the Exchange
believes that paragraph (f) does give the Exchange the authority to
nullify transactions occurring when there is an Exchange technical
issue related to the transmission or receipt of the electronic message
instituting a trading halt or with respect to a technical issue related
to a prematurely lifted trading halt, the Exchange believes that
proposed paragraph (k) will provide appropriate authority for the
Exchange to nullify all such transactions whether or not the systems
problem occurs on the Exchange with respect to trading halts

and explicit clarity for market participants that such transactions
will be nullified. The Exchange believes that such authority is
appropriate because when relied upon the Exchange will be cancelling
trades that should not have occurred in the first instance. Finally,
the Exchange believes that such authority is appropriate because a
trading halt declared by the primary listing market is indicative of an
issue with respect to the applicable security or a larger set of
securities.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with the
requirements of the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder that
are applicable to a national securities exchange, and, in particular,
with the requirements of Section 6(b) of the Act.\12\ In particular,
the proposal is consistent with Section 6(b)(5) of the Act,\13\ because
it would promote just and equitable principles of trade, remove
impediments to, and perfect the mechanism of, a free and open market
and a national market system.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \13\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that it is appropriate to adopt a provision
granting the Exchange authority to nullify trades that occur if an
Event similar to the U.S. Bancorp Event occurs again. The Exchange
believes that this provision will allow the Exchange to act in the
event of such a severe valuation error, that such action would promote
just and equitable principles of trade and that the proposal is
therefore consistent with the Act. Similarly, the Exchange believes
that adding a provision allowing the Exchange to nullify transactions
that occur when a trading halt is declared, then prematurely lifted in
error and then reinstituted, and providing that in the event of any
disruption or malfunction in the operation of the electronic
communications and trading facilities of the Exchange, another market
center or responsible single plan processor in connection with the
transmittal or receipt of a trading halt the Exchange will nullify
trades occurring after a trading halt has been declared by the primary
listing market for the security will help to avoid confusion amongst
market participants, which is consistent with the protection of
investors and the public interest and therefore consistent with the
Act. The Exchange further believes that the proposal is appropriate and
consistent with the Act because when relied upon the Exchange will be
cancelling trades that should not have occurred in the first instance.
The Exchange also believes that the proposal is appropriate because a
trading halt declared by the primary listing market is indicative of an
issue with respect to the applicable security or a larger set of
securities.
    The Exchange believes that the proposal to update cross-references
in existing paragraph (i) of Rule 7.10 to include new paragraphs (j)
and (k) is consistent with the Act because, as is the case with respect
to the current rule, this change makes clear that the provisions of
paragraph (i) do not alter the application of other provisions of Rule
7.10.
    The Exchange believes that the Financial Industry Regulatory
Authority (``FINRA'') and other national securities exchanges are also
filing similar proposals to add provisions similar to the provisions
proposed by the Exchange above. Therefore, the proposal promotes just
and equitable principles of trade in that it promotes transparency and
uniformity across markets concerning treatment of transactions as
clearly erroneous. The proposed rule change would also help to assure
consistent results in handling erroneous trades across the U.S.
markets, thus furthering fair and orderly markets, the protection of
investors and the public interest.

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change
implicates any competitive issues. To the contrary, as noted above, the
Exchange believes FINRA and other national securities exchanges are
also filing similar proposals, and thus, that the proposal will help to
ensure consistency across market centers.

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

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

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-NYSEARCA-2014-48 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-2014-48. This
file number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of
10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available
for inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All
comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does
not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should
submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All
submissions should refer to File Number SR-NYSEARCA-2014-48 and should
be submitted on or before May 27, 2014.

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

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

Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2014-10286 Filed 5-5-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P