[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 181 (Tuesday, September 18, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 57621-57624]
[FR Doc No: 2012-22911]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-67838; File No. SR-NYSEMKT-2012-46]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE MKT LLC; Notice of Filing and
Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Amending Rule 993NY by
Adding a New Paragraph (c) That Addresses the Authority of the Exchange
or Archipelago Securities LLC (``Arca Securities'') To Cancel Orders
When a Technical or Systems Issue Occurs and To Describe the Operation
of an Error Account for Arca Securities

September 12, 2012.
    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 August 31, 2012, NYSE MKT LLC (the ``Exchange'' or ``NYSE
MKT'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the
``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\ 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 993NY by adding a new paragraph
(c) that addresses the authority of the Exchange or Archipelago
Securities LLC (``Arca Securities'') to cancel orders when a technical
or systems issue occurs and to describe the operation of an error
account for Arca Securities. 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 Exchange proposes to amend Rule 993NY by adding a new paragraph
(c) that addresses the authority of the Exchange or Arca Securities to
cancel orders when a technical or systems issue occurs and to describe
the operation of an error account for Arca Securities.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Arca Securities is a facility of the Exchange. Accordingly,
under Rule 993NY, the Exchange is responsible for filing with the
Commission rule changes and fees relating to Arca Securities'
functions. In addition, the Exchange is using the phrase ``Arca
Securities or the Exchange'' in this rule filing to reflect the fact
that a decision to take action with respect to orders affected by a
technical or systems issue may be made in the capacity of Arca
Securities or the Exchange depending on where those orders are
located at the time of that decision.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Arca Securities is an approved routing broker of the Exchange,
subject to the conditions listed in Rule 993NY.\5\ When necessary, the
Exchange may utilize Arca Securities to provide outbound routing
services from itself to routing destinations of Arca Securities
(``routing destinations'').\6\ When Arca Securities routes orders to a
routing destination, it does so by sending a corresponding order in its
own name to the routing destination. In the normal course, routed
orders that are executed at routing destinations are submitted for
clearance and settlement in the name of Arca Securities, and Arca
Securities arranges for any resulting securities positions to be
delivered to the ATP Holder that submitted the corresponding order to
the Exchange. However, from time to time, the Exchange and Arca
Securities encounter situations in which it becomes necessary to cancel
orders and resolve error positions.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ The Exchange currently relies on non-affiliate third-party
broker-dealers to provide outbound routing services (i.e., third-
party Routing Brokers). In those cases, orders are submitted to the
third-party Routing Broker through Arca Securities, the third-party
Routing Broker routes the orders to the routing destination in its
name, and any executions are submitted for clearance and settlement
in the name of Arca Securities so that any resulting positions are
delivered to Arca Securities upon settlement. As described above,
Arca Securities normally arranges for any resulting positions to be
delivered to the ATP Holder that submitted the corresponding order
to the Exchange. If error positions (as defined in proposed Rule
993NY(c)(2)) result in connection with the Exchange's use of a
third-party Routing Broker for outbound routing, and those positions
are delivered to Arca Securities through the clearance and
settlement process, Arca Securities would be permitted to resolve
those positions in accordance with proposed Rule 993NY(c). If the
third-party Routing Broker received error positions in connection
with its role as a routing broker for the Exchange, and the error
positions were not delivered to Arca Securities through the
clearance and settlement process, then the third-party Routing
Broker would resolve the error positions itself, and Arca Securities
would not be permitted to accept the error positions, as set forth
in proposed Rule 993NY(c)(2)(B).
    \6\ The Exchange has also been approved to receive inbound
routes of option orders by Arca Securities from NYSE Arca, Inc.
(``NYSE Arca''). See Rule 993NY(b).
    \7\ The examples described in this filing are not intended to be
exclusive. Proposed Rule 993NY(c) would provide general authority
for the Exchange or Arca Securities to cancel orders in order to
maintain fair and orderly markets when technical and systems issues
are occurring, and Rule 993NY(c) also would set forth the manner in
which error positions may be handled by the Exchange or Arca
Securities. The proposed rule change is not limited to addressing
order cancellation or error positions resulting only from the
specific examples described in this filing.

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

Examples of Circumstances That May Lead to Canceled Orders
    A technical or systems issue may arise at Arca Securities, a
routing destination, or the Exchange that may cause the Exchange or
Arca Securities to take steps to cancel orders if the Exchange or Arca
Securities determines that such action is necessary to maintain a fair
and orderly market. The examples set forth below describe some of the
circumstances in which the Exchange or Arca Securities may decide to
cancel orders.
    Example 1. If Arca Securities or a routing destination experiences
a technical or systems issue that results in Arca Securities not
receiving responses to immediate or cancel (``IOC'') orders that it
sent to the routing destination, and that issue is not resolved in a
timely manner, Arca Securities or the Exchange would seek to cancel the
routed orders affected by the issue.\8\ For instance, if Arca
Securities experiences a connectivity issue affecting the manner in
which it sends or receives order messages to or from routing
destinations, it may be unable to receive timely execution or
cancellation reports from the routing destinations, and Arca Securities
or the Exchange may consequently seek to cancel the affected routed
orders. Once the decision is made to cancel those routed orders, any
cancellation that an ATP Holder submitted to the Exchange on its
initial order during such a situation would be honored.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ In a normal situation (i.e., one in which a technical or
systems issue does not exist), Arca Securities should receive an
immediate response to an IOC order from a routing destination, and
would pass the resulting fill or cancellation on to the ATP Holder.
After submitting an order that is routed to a routing destination,
if an ATP Holder sends an instruction to cancel that order, the
cancellation is held by the Exchange until a response is received
from the routing destination. For instance, if the routing
destination executes that order, the execution would be passed on to
the ATP Holder and the cancellation instruction would be
disregarded.
    \9\ If an ATP Holder did not submit a cancellation to the
Exchange, however, that initial order would remain ``live'' and thus
be eligible for execution or posting on the Exchange, and neither
the Exchange nor Arca Securities would treat any execution of that
initial order or any subsequent routed order related to that initial
order as an error.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Example 2. If the Exchange experiences a systems issue, the
Exchange may take steps to cancel all outstanding orders affected by
that issue and notify affected ATP Holders of the cancellations. In
those cases, the Exchange would seek to cancel any routed orders
related to the ATP Holders' initial orders.
Examples of Circumstances That May Lead to Error Positions
    In some instances, the technical or systems issue at Arca
Securities, a routing destination, the Exchange, or a non-affiliate
third-party Routing Broker may also result in Arca Securities acquiring
an error position that it must resolve. The examples set forth below
describe some of the circumstances in which error positions may arise.
    Example A. Error positions may result from routed orders that the
Exchange or Arca Securities attempts to cancel but that are executed
before the routing destination receives the cancellation message or
that are executed because the routing destination is unable to process
the cancellation message. Using the situation described in Example 1
above, assume that the Exchange seeks to cancel orders routed to a
routing destination because it is not receiving timely execution or
cancellation reports from the routing destination. In such a situation,
Arca Securities may still receive executions from the routing
destination after connectivity is restored, which it would not then
allocate to ATP Holders because of the earlier decision to cancel the
affected routed orders. Instead, Arca Securities would post those
positions into its error account and resolve the positions in the
manner described below.
    Example B. Error positions may result from an order processing
issue at a routing destination. For instance, if a routing destination
experienced a systems problem that affects its order processing, it may
transmit back a message purporting to cancel a routed order, but then
subsequently submit an execution of that same order to the OCC for
clearance and settlement. In such a situation, the Exchange would not
then allocate the execution to the ATP Holder because of the earlier
cancellation message from the routing destination. Instead, Arca
Securities would post those positions into its error account and
resolve the positions in the manner described below.
    Example C. Error positions may result if Arca Securities receives
an execution report from a routing destination but does not receive
clearing instructions for the execution from the routing destination.
For instance, assume that an ATP Holder sends the Exchange an order to
buy 100 contracts overlying ABC stock, which causes Arca Securities to
send an order to a routing destination that is subsequently executed,
cleared and closed out by that routing destination, and the execution
is ultimately communicated back to that ATP Holder. If the routing
destination does not provide clearing instructions for that execution,
Arca Securities would still be responsible for settling that ATP
Holder's purchase, but would be left with a short position in its error
account.\10\ Arca Securities would resolve the position in the manner
described below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ To the extent that Arca Securities incurred a loss in
covering its position, it may submit a reimbursement claim to that
routing destination.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Example D. Error positions may result from a technical or systems
issue that causes orders to be executed in the name of Arca Securities
and are not related to any corresponding orders of ATP Holders. As a
result, Arca Securities would not be able to assign any positions
resulting from such an issue to ATP Holders. Instead, Arca Securities
would post those positions into its error account and resolve the
positions in the manner described below.
    Example E. Error positions may result from a technical or systems
issue through which the Exchange does not receive sufficient notice
that an ATP Holder that has executed trades on the Exchange has lost
the ability to clear trades through OCC. In such a situation, the
Exchange would not have valid clearing information, which would prevent
the trade from being processed pursuant to Rule 960. Accordingly, Arca
Securities would assume that ATP Holder's side of the trades so that
the counterparties can settle the trades. Arca Securities would post
those positions into its error account and resolve the positions in the
manner described below.
    In the circumstances described above, Arca Securities may not learn
about an error position until T+1, either: (1) During the clearing
process when a routing destination has submitted to OCC a transaction
for clearance and settlement for which Arca Securities never received
an execution confirmation; or (2) when a routing destination does not
recognize a transaction submitted on behalf of Arca Securities to OCC
for clearance and settlement. Moreover, the affected ATP Holders' trade
may not be nullified absent express authority under Exchange rules.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See, e.g., Rule 975NY (regarding obvious and catastrophic
errors).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Proposed Amendments to Rule 993NY
    The Exchange proposes to amend Rule 993NY to add new paragraph (c)
to address the cancellation of orders due to technical or systems
issues and the use of an error account by Arca Securities.
    Specifically, under paragraph (c)(1) of the proposed rule, the
Exchange or Arca

Securities would be expressly authorized to cancel orders as may be
necessary to maintain fair and orderly markets if a technical or
systems issue occurred at the Exchange, Arca Securities, or a routing
destination.\12\ The Exchange or Arca Securities would be required to
provide notice of the cancellation to affected ATP Holders as soon as
practicable.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ Such a situation may not cause the Exchange to declare
self-help against the routing destination pursuant to Rule
991NY(b)(1). If the Exchange or Arca Securities determines to cancel
orders routed to a routing destination under proposed Rule 993NY(c),
but does not declare self-help against that routing destination, the
Exchange would continue to be subject to the trade-through
requirements in the Options Order Protection and Locked/Crossed
Markets Plan and Rule 991NY with respect to that routing
destination.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Paragraph (c)(2) of the proposed rule would permit Arca Securities
to maintain an error account for the purpose of addressing positions
that result from a technical or systems issue at Arca Securities, the
Exchange, a routing destination, or a non-affiliate third-party Routing
Broker that affects one or more orders (``error positions''). By
definition, an error position would not include any position that
results from an order submitted by an ATP Holder to the Exchange that
is executed on the Exchange and processed pursuant to Rule 960.\13\
Arca Securities also would not be permitted to accept any positions in
its error account from an account of an ATP Holder and could not permit
any ATP Holder to transfer any positions from the ATP Holder's account
to Arca Securities' error account under the proposed rule.\14\ However,
if a technical or systems issue results in the Exchange not having
valid clearing instructions for an ATP Holder to a trade, Arca
Securities may assume that ATP Holder's side of the trade so that the
trade can be processed pursuant to Rule 960.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ As provided in Rule 960, ``[a]ll Exchange option
transactions shall be submitted to the Exchange for comparison of
trade information, and all compared transactions shall be cleared
through the [OCC] and shall be subject to the rules of the [OCC].''
    \14\ The purpose of this provision is to clarify that Arca
Securities may address error positions under the proposed rule that
are caused by a technical or systems issue, but that Arca Securities
may not accept from an ATP Holder positions that are delivered to
the ATP Holder through the clearance and settlement process, even if
those positions may have been related to a technical or systems
issue at Arca Securities, the Exchange, a routing destination of
Arca Securities, or a non-affiliate third-party Routing Broker. This
provision would not apply, however, to situations like the one
described above in which Arca Securities incurred a short position
to settle an ATP Holder purchase, as the ATP Holder did not yet have
a position in its account as a result of the purchase at the time of
Arca Securities' action (i.e., Arca Securities' action was necessary
for the purchase to settle into the ATP Holder's account). Moreover,
to the extent an ATP Holder receives positions pursuant to Rule 960
in connection with a technical or systems issue, that ATP Holder may
seek to rely on Rule 905NY if it experiences a loss. That rule
provides ATP Holders with the ability to file claims against the
Exchange ``for the failure of its systems or facilities.''
    \15\ See Example E above.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Under paragraph (c)(3), in connection with a particular technical
or systems issue, Arca Securities or the Exchange would be permitted to
either (i) assign all resulting error positions to ATP Holders, or (ii)
have all resulting error positions liquidated, as described below. Any
determination to assign or liquidate error positions, as well as any
resulting assignments, would be required to be made in a
nondiscriminatory fashion.
    Arca Securities or the Exchange would be required to assign all
error positions resulting from a particular technical or systems issue
to the applicable ATP Holders affected by that technical or systems
issue if Arca Securities or the Exchange:
     Determined that it has accurate and sufficient information
(including valid clearing information) to assign the positions to all
of the applicable ATP Holders affected by that technical or systems
issue;
     Determined that it has sufficient time pursuant to normal
clearance and settlement deadlines to evaluate the information
necessary to assign the positions to all of the applicable ATP Holders
affected by that technical or systems issue; and
     Had not determined to cancel all orders affected by that
technical or systems issue.
    For example, a technical or systems issue of limited scope or
duration may occur at a routing destination, and the resulting trades
may be submitted for clearance and settlement by such routing
destination to OCC. If there were a small number of trades, there may
be sufficient time to match positions with ATP Holder or orders and
avoid using the error account.
    There may be scenarios, however, where Arca Securities determines
that it is unable to assign all error positions resulting from a
particular technical or systems issue to all of the affected ATP
Holders, or determines to cancel all affected routed orders. For
example, in some cases, the volume of questionable executions and
positions resulting from a technical or systems issue might be such
that the research necessary to determine which ATP Holder to assign
those executions to could be expected to extend past the normal
settlement cycle for such executions. Furthermore, if a routing
destination experiences a technical or systems issue after Arca
Securities has transmitted IOC orders to it that prevents Arca
Securities from receiving responses to those orders, Arca Securities or
the Exchange may determine to cancel all routed orders affected by that
issue. In such a situation, Arca Securities or the Exchange would not
pass on to the ATP Holders any executions on the routed orders received
from the routing destination.
    The proposed rule also would require Arca Securities to liquidate
error positions as soon as practicable.\16\ In liquidating error
positions, Arca Securities would be required to provide complete time
and price discretion for the trading to liquidate the error positions
to a third-party broker-dealer and could not attempt to exercise any
influence or control over the timing or methods of trading to liquidate
the error positions. Arca Securities also would be required to
establish and enforce policies and procedures reasonably designed to
restrict the flow of confidential and proprietary information between
the third-party broker-dealer and Arca Securities/the Exchange
associated with the liquidation of the error positions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ If Arca Securities determines in connection with a
particular technical or systems issue that some error positions can
be assigned to some affected ATP Holders but other error positions
cannot be assigned, Arca Securities would be required under the
proposed rule to liquidate all such error positions (including those
positions that could be assigned to the affected ATP Holders).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Under proposed paragraph (c)(4), Arca Securities and the Exchange
would be required to make and keep records to document all
determinations to treat positions as error positions and all
determinations for the assignment of error positions to ATP Holders or
the liquidation of error positions, as well as records associated with
the liquidation of error positions through the third-party broker-
dealer.
2. Statutory Basis
    The proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b) \17\ of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the ``Act''), in general, and
furthers the objectives of Section 6(b)(5),\18\ in particular, in that
it is designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and
practices, to promote just and equitable principles of trade, to foster
cooperation and coordination with persons engaged in 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 it is not
designed to permit unfair discrimination among customers, brokers, or
dealers. The Exchange believes that this proposal is in keeping with
those principles since Arca Securities' or the Exchange's ability to
cancel orders during a technical and systems issue and to maintain an
error account facilitates the smooth and efficient operations of the
market. Specifically, the Exchange believes that allowing Arca
Securities or the Exchange to cancel orders during a technical or
systems issue would allow the Exchange to maintain fair and orderly
markets. Moreover, the Exchange believes that allowing Arca Securities
to assume error positions in an error account and to liquidate those
positions, subject to the conditions set forth in the proposed
amendments to Rule 993NY, would be the least disruptive means to
correct these errors, except in cases where Arca Securities can assign
all such error positions to all affected ATP Holders of the Exchange.
Overall, the proposed amendments are designed to ensure full trade
certainty for market participants and to avoid disrupting the clearance
and settlement process. The proposed amendments are also designed to
provide a consistent methodology for handling error positions in a
manner that does not discriminate among ATP Holders. The proposed
amendments are also consistent with Section 6 of the Act insofar as
they would require Arca Securities to establish controls to restrict
the flow of any confidential information between the third-party broker
and Arca Securities/the Exchange associated with the liquidation of
error positions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \18\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

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

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

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

    Because the 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 after the date of the filing, or such
shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become effective
pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \19\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(6)
\20\ thereunder.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \20\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). In addition, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)
requires a self-regulatory organization to give the Commission
written notice of its intent to file 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NYSE MKT has requested that the Commission waive the 30-day
operative delay.\21\ The Commission believes that waiver of the
operative delay is consistent with the protection of investors and the
public interest. Such waiver would allow the Exchange, without delay,
to implement the proposed rule change, which is designed to provide a
consistent methodology for handling error positions in a manner that
does not discriminate among ATP Holders. The Commission also notes that
the proposed rule change is based on, and substantially similar to,
NYSE Arca Equities Rule 7.45(d), which the Commission recently
approved.\22\ Accordingly, the Commission designates the proposal
operative upon filing.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii).
    \22\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 66963 (May 10,
2012), 77 FR 28919 (May 16, 2012) (SR-NYSEArca-2012-22).
    \23\ For purposes only of waiving the 30-day operative delay,
the Commission has considered the proposed rule change's impact on
efficiency, competition, and capital formation. 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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-NYSEMKT-2012-46 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NYSEMKT-2012-46. 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-NYSEMKT-2012-46 and should
be submitted on or before October 9, 2012.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-22911 Filed 9-17-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: April 21, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 76)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 20783-20785]
[DOCID:fr21ap10-11]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R04-OAR-2010-0150-201009(a); FRL-9138-9]

Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans: Tennessee;
Visibility Impairment Prevention for Federal Class I Areas; Removal of
Federally Promulgated Provisions

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Direct final rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is taking direct final action to rescind the Federally
promulgated provisions regarding visibility in 40 CFR 52.2234 of the
Tennessee State Implementation Plan (SIP). EPA approved Tennessee's
visibility rules addressing new source review (NSR) on July 18, 1996,
and a plan addressing monitoring and reporting of visibility on July 2,
1997. EPA's approval of these rules neglected to remove the previous
Federally promulgated provisions from the Federal Implementation Plan
(FIP) contained in 40 CFR 52.2234. EPA is correcting this omission in
this rulemaking. This action is being taken pursuant to section 110 of
the Clean Air Act (CAA).

DATES: This rule is effective on June 21, 2010 without further notice,
unless EPA receives relevant adverse comment by May 21, 2010. If EPA
receives such comment, EPA will publish a timely withdrawal in the
Federal Register informing the public that this rule will not take
effect.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R04-
OAR-2010-0150, by one of the following methods:
    1. http://www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions for
submitting comments.
    2. E-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    3. Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    4. Mail: ``EPA-R04-OAR-2010-0150,'' Regulatory Development Section,
Air Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management Division,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street, SW.,
Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960.
    5. Hand Delivery or Courier: Lynorae Benjamin, Chief, Regulatory
Development Section, Air Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics
Management Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61
Forsyth Street, SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. Such deliveries are
only accepted during the Regional Office's normal hours of operation.
The Regional Office's official hours of business are Monday through
Friday, 8:30 to 4:30, excluding Federal holidays.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. ``EPA-R04-OAR-
2010-0150.'' EPA's policy is that all comments received 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 information claimed
to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit through http:/
/www.regulations.gov or e-mail, information that you consider to be CBI
or otherwise protected. The http://www.regulations.gov Web site is an
``anonymous access'' system, which means EPA will not know your
identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of
your comment. If you send an e-mail comment directly to EPA without
going through http://www.regulations.gov, your e-mail address will be
automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is
placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you
submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name
and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any
disk or CD-ROM you submit. 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. Electronic files should avoid
the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of
any defects or viruses. For additional information about EPA's public
docket visit the EPA Docket Center homepage at http://www.epa.gov/
epahome/dockets.htm.
    Docket: All documents in the electronic docket are listed in the
http://www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, i.e., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
    Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed
on the Internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy form.
Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically
in http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Regulatory
Development Section, Air Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics
Management Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61
Forsyth Street, SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. EPA requests that if
at all possible, you contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section to schedule your inspection. The Regional
Office's official hours of business are Monday through Friday, 8:30 to
4:30, excluding Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Nacosta C. Ward, Regulatory
Development Section, Air Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics
Management Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61
Forsyth Street, SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. Ms. Ward may be
reached by phone at<PHONE_NUMBER> or by electronic mail address
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

I. Background for Today's Action
II. Final Action
III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. Background for Today's Action

    On February 9, 1993, and December 19, 1994, the State of Tennessee
submitted provisions constituting its plan to address visibility
impairment in Federal Class I areas. EPA approved these submittals on
July 2, 1997 (62 FR 35681). On January 17, 1995, the State of Tennessee
also submitted rules for addressing visibility in its NSR program. EPA
fully approved this submittal on July 18, 1996 (61 FR 35387).
    The aforementioned submittals provide the necessary revisions to
Tennessee's plan for visibility impairment prevention for Class I
areas, and satisfied EPA's requirements as set forth in 40 CFR 51.300
through 51.304 and 51.306. These visibility provisions were submitted
to EPA in order to satisfy the second part of the Settlement Agreement
with the Environmental Defense Fund, et al., Environmental Defense Fund
v. Thomas, number C826850 RPA, and are described at 49 FR 20647 on May
16, 1984. The schedule for submittal and promulgation of these
visibility provisions was renegotiated and subsequently extended by a
court order on September 9, 1986.
    The second part of the Settlement Agreement required EPA to propose
and promulgate Federal Visibility SIPs, addressing the general
visibility plan provisions including implementation control strategies
(40 CFR 51.302), integral vista protection (40 CFR 51.302 through
51.307), and long-term strategies (40 CFR 51.306) for those States
whose SIPs EPA had determined to be inadequate with respect to the
above provisions (see January 23, 1986,

notice of deficiency (51 FR 3046) and March 12, 1987, notice proposing
FIPs for deficient State SIPs (52 FR 7803)). However, as provided in
the renegotiated Settlement Agreement, a State could avoid the
promulgation of said provisions if they submitted a visibility SIP by
August 31, 1987. The State of Tennessee did not submit a plan by August
31, 1987, and as a result EPA promulgated Part 2 provisions for
Tennessee in a FIP to satisfy the Settlement Agreement on November 24,
1987.
    Subsequently, the State of Tennessee provided SIP revisions on
February 9, 1993, December 19, 1994, and January 17, 1995, with the
intent to replace the EPA-promulgated provisions (or FIP) that was put
in place. The EPA actions on July 18, 1996 and July 2, 1997, fully
approved these Tennessee SIP revisions but inadvertently did not remove
the Federally-promulgated provisions in 40 CFR 52.2234. Today's action
corrects that oversight.

II. Final Action

    EPA is taking direct final action to correct an omission related to
the visibility requirements for Tennessee. Specifically, EPA is
removing the previous Federally promulgated provisions in 40 CFR
52.2234 for visibility for Tennessee because the State later submitted,
and EPA approved, revisions covering visibility requirements for
Tennessee. EPA is approving the aforementioned changes to the Tennessee
SIP because they are consistent with the CAA and Agency requirements.
EPA is publishing this rule without prior proposal because the Agency
views this as a noncontroversial submittal and anticipates no adverse
comments. However, in the proposed rules section of this Federal
Register publication, EPA is publishing a separate document that will
serve as the proposal to approve the SIP revision should adverse
comments be filed. This rule will be effective June 21, 2010 without
further notice unless the Agency receives adverse comments by May 21,
2010.
    If EPA receives such comments, then EPA will publish a document
withdrawing the final rule and informing the public that the rule will
not take effect. All public comments received will then be addressed in
a subsequent final rule based on the proposed rule. EPA will not
institute a second comment period. Parties interested in commenting
should do so at this time. If no such comments are received, the public
is advised that this rule will be effective on June 21, 2010 and no
further action will be taken on the proposed rule.

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.
    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. EPA will submit a report containing this action and
other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2).
    Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for
judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court
of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by June 21, 2010. Filing a
petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule
does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of
judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for
judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness
of such rule or action. Parties with objections to this direct final
rule are encouraged to file a comment in response to the parallel
notice of proposed rulemaking for this action published in the proposed
rules section of today's Federal Register, rather than file an
immediate petition for judicial review of this direct final rule, so
that EPA can withdraw this direct final rule and address the comment in
the proposed rulemaking. This action may not be challenged later in
proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2)).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

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

    Dated: April 1, 2010.
Beverly H. Banister,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 4.

0
40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:

PART 52--[AMENDED]

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

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

Subpart RR--Tennessee

Sec.  52.2234  [Removed and Reserved]

0
2. Section 52.2234 is removed and reserved.

[FR Doc. 2010-8935 Filed 4-20-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


analogs (all with purity >95% and with varying susceptibilities to
metabolism of the ether bond (tether) or the alkylbenzene substituents)
were assessed for their peroxisome proliferation potential in groups of
five CD-1 female mice.  These analogs included 209068 (methylene
tether), 278131 (nitrogen tether), 149953 (ethanol), 215257
(trifluoromethoxy), 247356 (methylfluoro ether), 257641 (biphenyl),
809161 (TFMPE, 2-[4-(trifluoromethyl) benzyl]ethanol), and 809305
(t-butyrate).  The parent compound and its analogs were solubilized in
corn oil (except for 247356 which was suspended in 10% acacia gum
solution) and were administered by gavage in four daily treatments.  The
mice were killed the day following the last treatment and the absolute
and relative liver weights and liver peroxisomal fatty acyl-CoA oxidase
(FAO) activity as a marker for peroxisome proliferation were measured.

FAO activity data indicated that oxidation of the t-butyl substitutent
on the alkylbenzene moiety of XDE-436 and related compounds is the
critical step for induction of hepatocellular peroxisome proliferation
in mice.  Analogs of XDE-436 containing a substitutent on the
alkylbenzene portion of the molecule oxidizable to a carboxylic acid
were active peroxisome proliferators while analogs less sensitive to
oxidation were inactive.  Hydrolysis and subsequent oxidation of the
tether of XDE-436 and its analogs did not result in pronounced
peroxisome proliferation.

This peroxisome proliferation study in the mouse is classified
Acceptable/Nonguideline and satisfies the study’s intent.

Appendix B.	Expected rat metabolic pathway

Appendix C.	Fenazaquin Metabolites

C.1.	Metabolic Profile (Apple)

The primary mode of metabolism of fenazaquin occurs in the first 7-14
days and is a result of photolysis.  Cleavage of the ether link in the
fenazaquin results in production of photoproducts which are incorporated
into the peel and pulp.  Parent fenazaquin was the primary metabolite in
the surface solvent washes.  A (photolyticly produced) dimer of
fenazaquin was also observed in the surface washes.  In the pulp and the
washed peel, metabolites I, J and C/L were also seen.

FIGURE C..1. 	Proposed Metabolic Profile of Fenazaquin in Apples (copied
unmodified from MRID 46684002

TABLE C.1. Identification of Compounds from Apple Metabolism Study
(MRIDs 45029914, 45029917)

Common name/code

Figure C.3.1  ID No.	Chemical name	Chemical structure

Fenazaquin	4-[2-(4-tert-Butyl-phenyl)-ethoxy]-

The apple metabolism study is adequate to show that parent fenazaquin is
the primary residue of toxicological interest present in superficial
residues (50% to 100% of the TRR).  Data on residues in the flesh are
very limited, but suggest that fenazaquin can be somewhere between 5% to
50% of the TRR in the flesh.  Under the conditions of this study
superficial residues completely predominated over residues in the flesh,
but the way the study was performed would have maximized that
predominance.

Appendix D	Goat Metabolism

옍)

hÓ

摧䪦¶

摧䪦¶

gdÓ

hÓ

hÓ

hÓ

hÓ

hÓ

hÓ

hÓ

hÓ

hÓ

hÓ

hÓ

hÓ

hÓ

hÓ

 hÓ

 hÓ

hÓ

 and excreta were inadequate. The study indicates that bioaccumulation
of fenazaquin residues in ruminants is limited, but the metabolism of
fenazaquin in goats was not determined.

Table D. Chemical Names and Structures of Reference Standards Used in
Goat Metabolism Study.

Common name;

Company code	Chemical name	Chemical structure

Fenazaquin

AGR 289213

Page   PAGE  1  of   NUMPAGES  56

Page   PAGE  56  of   NUMPAGES  56


[Federal Register: May 24, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 100)]
[Notices]
[Page 29143-29144]
[DOCID:fr24my07-49]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. QF07-123-000]

Food Lion 575 Elizabeth City, NC; Notice of Filing of Notice of
Self-Certification of Qualifying Status of a Cogeneration Facility

May 17, 2007.
    Take notice that on April 2, 2007, Food Lion 575 Elizabeth City, NC
filed with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission a notice of self-
certification of a facility as a qualifying cogeneration facility
pursuant to 18 CFR 292.207(a) of the Commission's regulations.
    This qualifying cogeneration facility consists of a 400 kW packaged
diesel engine generator set operating on 2 fuel oil. The
package is set on a concrete pad. The unit is self-contained, including
all necessary switchgear and controls. The electricity is generated at
208 V, 3 phase, 60 Hz. The facility is located at 1903 Weeksville Road,
Elizabeth City, NC 27909.
    This qualifying facility interconnects with the City of Elizabeth
City's electric distribution system. The facility will provide standby
power and occasionally supplementary power to Food Lion.
    A notice of self-certification does not institute a proceeding
regarding qualifying facility status; a notice of self-certification
provides notice that the entity making filing has determined the
Facility meets the applicable criteria to be a qualifying facility. Any
person seeking to challenge such qualifying facility status may do so
by filing a motion pursuant to 18 CFR 292.207(d)(iii).
    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 Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For
assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call

<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E7-10005 Filed 5-23-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 172 (Thursday, September 7, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Page 61652]
[FR Doc No: 2023-19249]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[SEC File No. 270-184, OMB Control No. 3235-0236]

Proposed Collection; Comment Request; Extension: Form N-54C

Upon Written Request, Copies Available From: Securities and Exchange
Commission, Office of FOIA Services, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC
20549-2736

    Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction
Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), the Securities and Exchange
Commission (the ``Commission'') is soliciting comments on the
collection of information summarized below. The Commission plans to
submit this existing collection of information to the Office of
Management and Budget for extension and approval.
    Certain investment companies can elect to be regulated as business
development companies, as defined in section 2(a)(48) of the Investment
Company Act of 1940 (``Investment Company Act''), under sections 55
through 65 of the Investment Company Act. Under section 54(a) of the
Investment Company Act,\1\ any company defined in section 2(a)(48)(A)
and (B) of the Investment Company Act may, if it meets certain
enumerated eligibility requirements, elect to be subject to the
provisions of sections 55 through 65 of the Investment Company Act by
filing with the Commission a notification of election. Under section
54(c) of the Investment Company Act,\2\ any business development
company may voluntarily withdraw its election under section 54(a) of
the Investment Company Act by filing a notice of withdrawal of election
with the Commission. The Commission has adopted Form N-54C as the form
for the notification of withdrawal of election to be subject to
sections 55 through 65 of the Investment Company Act. The purpose of
Form N-54C is to notify the Commission that the business development
company withdraws its election to be subject to sections 55 through 65
of the Investment Company Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 80a-53(a).
    \2\ 15 U.S.C. 80a-53(c).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission estimates that on average approximately seven
business development companies file notifications on Form N-54C each
year. Each of those business development companies need only make a
single filing of Form N-54C. The Commission further estimates that this
information collection imposes a burden of one hour, resulting in a
total annual burden of seven hours. Based on the estimated wage rate,
the total estimated internal time costs to the business development
company industry of the hour burden for complying with Form N-54C would
be approximately $2,975.\3\ Futher, based on an estimated external cost
burden of $80 per filing, the total estimated annual external cost
burden to the business development company industry for complying with
Form N-54C would be $560.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The industry burden is calculated by multiplying the total
annual hour burden to prepare Form N-54C (seven) by the estimated
hourly wage rate of $425 for a compliance attorney or other
similarly situated business development company employee. The
estimated wage figure is based on published rates for compliance
attorneys from the Securities Industry and Financial Markets
Association's Report on Management & Professional Earnings in the
Securities Industry 2013, modified by Commission staff to account
for an 1800 hour work-year and inflation, and multiplied by 5.35 to
account for bonuses, firm size, employee benefits and overhead,
yielding an effective hourly rate of $2,975.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The collection of information under Form N-54C is mandatory. The
information provided by the form is not kept confidential. An agency
may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to,
a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB
control number.
    Written comments are invited on: (a) whether the proposed
collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of
the functions of the Commission, including whether the information
shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the Commission's
estimate of the burden of the collection of information; (c) ways to
enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected;
and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on
respondents, including through the use of automated collection
techniques or other forms of information technology. Consideration will
be given to comments and suggestions submitted by November 6, 2023.
    An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required
to respond to, a collection of information under the PRA unless it
displays a currently valid OMB control number.
    Please direct your written comments to: David Bottom, Acting
Director/Chief Information Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission,
c/o John Pezzullo, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549 or send an
email to: [email protected].

    Dated: August 31, 2023.
Sherry R. Haywood,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2023-19249 Filed 9-6-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P