[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 189 (Friday, September 30, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 59478-59484]
[FR Doc No: 2022-21194]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-95909; File No. SR-IEX-2022-07]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Investors Exchange LLC; Notice of
Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Amend IEX
Rule 11.270 (Cleary Erroneous Executions)

September 26, 2022.
    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 September 21, 2022, the Investors Exchange LLC (``IEX''
or the ``Exchange'') 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

    Pursuant to the provisions of Section 19(b)(1) under the Act,\4\
and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\5\ the Exchange is filing with the
Commission a proposed rule change to amend IEX Rule 11.270 (Clearly
Erroneous Executions). IEX has designated this rule change as ``non-
controversial'' under Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \6\ and provided
the Commission with the notice required by Rule 19b-4(f)(6)
thereunder.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \5\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \7\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The text of the proposed rule change is available at the Exchange's
website at www.iextrading.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 these statement may be examined at
the places specified in Item IV below. The self-regulatory organization
has prepared summaries, set forth in Sections A, B, and C below, of the
most significant aspects of such statements.

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

1. Purpose
    The purpose of the proposed rule change is to amend IEX Rule 11.270
(Clearly Erroneous Executions). On September 1, 2022, the Commission
approved the proposal of Cboe BZX Exchange, Inc. (``BZX''), to adopt on
a permanent basis its pilot program for Clearly Erroneous Executions in
BZX Rule 11.17.\8\ Based on the BZX approval, the Exchange proposes
substantially identical amendments to IEX Rule 11.270 to: (1) limit the
circumstances where clearly erroneous review would continue to be
available during Regular Market Hours,\9\ when the National Market
System Plan to Address Extraordinary Market Volatility (the ``LULD
Plan'') \10\ already provides similar protections for trades occurring
at prices that may be deemed erroneous. The Exchange believes that
these changes are appropriate as the LULD Plan has been approved by the
Commission on a permanent basis,\11\ and in light of amendments to the
LULD Plan, including changes to the applicable Price Bands \12\ around
the open and close of trading. Further, the proposed rule change is
based on and substantively identical to the recently-approved changes
to BZX Rule 11.17. The only differences between this proposed rule
change and the BZX rule change are: (i) IEX's Clearly Erroneous
Execution rule is not a pilot program,\13\ and therefore does not need
to be made permanent; (ii) IEX and BZX use different terms to define
trading sessions (i.e., the Exchange uses the terms Regular Market
Hours, Pre-Market

Session,\14\ and Post-Market Session \15\ whereas BZX uses the terms
Early Trading Session, Pre-Opening Session, Regular Trading Hours and
After Hours Trading Session); and (iii) BZX's clearly erroneous rule
proposal included the deletion of different procedures for conducting a
clearly erroneous review in initial public offering securities traded
pursuant to unlisted trading privileges, while IEX's Clearly Erroneous
Execution rule never contained this now-deleted paragraph.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 95658 (September 1,
2022) (SRCboeBZX-2022-037) (``BZX approval'').
    \9\ The term ``Regular Market Hours'' or ``Regular Market
Session'' means the time between 9:30 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. Eastern
Time. See IEX Rule 1.160(gg).
    \10\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 67091 (May 31,
2012), 77 FR 33498 (June 6, 2012).
    \11\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 85623 (April 11,
2019), 84 FR 16086 (April 17, 2019). (File No. 4-631) (``Amendment
Eighteen'').
    \12\ ``Price Bands'' refers to the term provided in Section V of
the LULD Plan.
    \13\ IEX's Clearly Erroneous Execution rule has been effective,
and not a pilot, since IEX's approval for registration as a national
securities exchange in 2016. See Securities Exchange Act Release No.
78101 (June 17, 2016), 81 FR 41142 (June 23, 2016) (File No. 10-
222).
    \14\ The term ``Pre-Market Hours'' or ``Pre-Market Session''
shall mean the time between 8:00 a.m. and 9:30 a.m. Eastern Time.
See IEX Rule 1.160(z).
    \15\ The term ``Post-Market Hours'' or ``Post-Market Session''
shall mean the time between 4:00 p.m. and 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time.
See IEX Rule 1.160(aa).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Current Clearly Erroneous Execution Rule
    IEX Rule 11.270 currently provides for uniform treatment of clearly
erroneous execution reviews in multi-stock events involving twenty or
more securities; and (ii) reduces the ability of the Exchange to
deviate from objective standards set forth in the rule.\16\ The rule
further provides that: (i) 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 resulting in a
severe valuation error for all such transactions; and (ii) in the event
of any disruption or malfunction in the operation of the electronic
communications and trading facilities of the Exchange, another SRO, or
responsible single plan processor in connection with the transmittal or
receipt of a trading halt, an Officer of the Exchange or senior level
employee designee, acting on his or her own motion, shall nullify any
transaction that occurs after a trading halt has been declared by the
primary listing market for a security, and before such a trading halt
has officially ended according to the primary listing market.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ See IEX Rule 11.270.
    \17\ See IEX Rule 11.270.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    When it originally approved the clearly erroneous pilot of BZX and
other exchanges, the Commission explained that the changes were ``being
implemented on a pilot basis so that the Commission and the Exchanges
can monitor the effects of the pilot on the markets and investors, and
consider appropriate adjustments, as necessary.'' \18\ The clearly
erroneous pilot was implemented following a severe disruption in the
U.S. equities markets on May 6, 2010 (``Flash Crash'') to ``provide
greater transparency and certainty to the process of breaking trades.''
\19\ IEX's Clearly Erroneous Execution rule limits the discretion of
the Exchange, other national securities exchanges, and Financial
Industry Regulatory Authority (``FINRA'') to deviate from the objective
standards in their respective rules when dealing with potentially
erroneous transactions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ See e.g., Securities Exchange Act Release No. 62886
(September 10, 2010), 75 FR 56613 (September 16, 2010) (SR-BATS-
2010-016).
    \19\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Amendments to the Clearly Erroneous Execution Rules
    When the Participants to the LULD Plan filed to introduce the Limit
Up-Limit Down (``LULD'') mechanism, itself a response to the Flash
Crash, a handful of commenters noted the potential discordance between
the clearly erroneous rules and the Price Bands used to limit the price
at which trades would be permitted to be executed pursuant to the LULD
Plan. For example, two commenters requested that the clearly erroneous
rules be amended so the presumption would be that trades executed
within the Price Bands would not be subject to review.\20\ While the
Participants acknowledged that the potential to prevent clearly
erroneous executions would be a ``key benefit'' of the LULD Plan, the
Participants decided not to amend the clearly erroneous rules at that
time.\21\ In the years since, industry feedback has continued to
reflect a desire to eliminate the discordance between the LULD
mechanism and the clearly erroneous rules so that market participants
would have more certainty that trades executed with the Price Bands
would stand. For example, the Equity Market Structure Advisory
Committee (``EMSAC'') Market Quality Subcommittee included in its April
19, 2016, status report a preliminary recommendation that clearly
erroneous rules be amended to conform to the Price Bands--i.e., ``any
trade that takes place within the band would stand and not be broken
and trades outside the LU/LD bands would be eligible for the
consideration of the Clearly Erroneous rules.'' \22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 67091 (May 31,
2012), 77 FR 33498 (June 6, 2012) (File No. 4-631) (n. 33505). An
amendment to the LULD Plan adding IEX as a Participant was filed
with the Commission on August 11, 2016, and became effective upon
filing pursuant to Rule 608(b)(3)(iii) of the Act. See Securities
Exchange Act Release No. 78703 (August 26, 2016), 81 FR 60397
(September 1, 2016) (File No. 4-631).
    \21\ Id.
    \22\ See EMSAC Market Quality Subcommittee, Recommendations for
Rulemaking on Issues of Market Quality (November 29, 2016),
available at https://www.sec.gov/spotlight/emsac/emsac-recommendations-rulemakingmarket-quality.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that it is important for there to be some
mechanism to ensure that investors' orders are either not executed at
clearly erroneous prices or are subsequently busted as needed to
maintain a fair and orderly market. At the same time, the Exchange
believes that the LULD Plan, as amended, would provide sufficient
protection for trades executed during Regular Market Hours. Indeed, the
LULD mechanism could be considered to offer superior protection as it
prevents potentially erroneous trades from being executed in the first
instance. After gaining experience with the LULD Plan, the Exchange now
believes that it is appropriate to largely eliminate clearly erroneous
review during Regular Market Hours when Price Bands are in effect.
Thus, as proposed, trades executed within the Price Bands would stand,
barring one of a handful of identified scenarios where such review may
still be necessary for the protection of investors. The Exchange
believes that this change would be beneficial for the U.S. equities
markets as it would ensure that trades executed within the Price Bands
are subject to clearly erroneous review in only rare circumstances,
resulting in greater certainty for Members and investors.
    The current LULD mechanism for addressing extraordinary market
volatility is available solely during Regular Market Hours. Thus,
trades during the Exchange's Pre-Market Session or Post-Market Session
would not benefit from this protection and could ultimately be executed
at prices that may be considered erroneous. For this reason, the
Exchange proposes that transactions executed during the Pre-Market
Session or Post-Market Session would continue to be reviewable as
clearly erroneous. Continued availability of the clearly erroneous rule
during pre- and post-market trading sessions would therefore ensure
that investors have appropriate recourse when erroneous trades are
executed outside of the hours where similar protection can be provided
by the LULD Plan. Further, the proposal is designed to eliminate the
potential discordance between clearly erroneous review and LULD Price
Bands, which does not exist outside of Regular Trading Hours because
the LULD Plan is not in effect. Thus, the Exchange believes that it is
appropriate to continue to allow transactions to be eligible for
clearly erroneous review if executed outside of Regular Market Hours.
    On the other hand, there would be much more limited potential to
request that a transaction be reviewed as

potentially erroneous during Regular Market Hours. With the
introduction of the LULD mechanism in 2013, clearly erroneous trades
are largely prevented by the requirement that trades be executed within
the Price Bands. In addition, in 2019, Amendment Eighteen to the LULD
Plan eliminated double-wide Price Bands: (1) at the Open, and (2) at
the Close for Tier 2 NMS Stocks 2 with a Reference Price above
$3.00.\23\ Due to these changes, the Exchange believes that the Price
Bands would provide sufficient protection to investor orders such that
clearly erroneous review would no longer be necessary during Regular
Market Hours. As the Participants to the LULD Plan explained in
Amendment Eighteen: ``Broadly, the Limit Up-Limit Down mechanism
prevents trades from happening at prices where one party to the trade
would be considered `aggrieved,' and thus could be viewed as an
appropriate mechanism to supplant clearly erroneous rules.'' While the
Participants also expressed concern that the Price Bands might be too
wide to afford meaningful protection around the open and close of
trading, amendments to the LULD Plan adopted in Amendment Eighteen
narrowed Price Bands at these times in a manner that the Exchange
believes is sufficient to ensure that investors' orders would be
appropriately protected in the absence of clearly erroneous review. The
Exchange therefore believes that it is appropriate to rely on the LULD
mechanism as the primary means of preventing clearly erroneous trades
during Regular Market Hours.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ See Amendment Eighteen, supra, note 11.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At the same time, the Exchange is cognizant that there may be
limited circumstances where clearly erroneous review may continue to be
appropriate, even during Regular Market Hours. Thus, the Exchange
proposes to amend its clearly erroneous rules to enumerate the specific
circumstances where such review would remain available during the
course of Regular Market Hours, as follows. All transactions that fall
outside of these specific enumerated exceptions would be ineligible for
clearly erroneous review.
    First, pursuant to proposed paragraph (c)(1)(A), a transaction
executed during Regular Market Hours would continue to be eligible for
clearly erroneous review if the transaction is not subject to the LULD
Plan. In such case, the Numerical Guidelines set forth in paragraph
(c)(2) of Rule 11.270 will be applicable to such NMS Stock. While the
majority of securities traded on the Exchange would be subject to the
LULD Plan, certain equity securities, such as rights and warrants, are
explicitly excluded from the provisions of the LULD Plan and would
therefore be eligible for clearly erroneous review instead.\24\
Similarly, there are instances, such as the opening auction on the
primary listing market,\25\ where transactions are not ordinarily
subject to the LULD Plan, or circumstances where a transaction that
ordinarily would have been subject to the LULD Plan is not--due, for
example, to some issue with processing the Price Bands. These
transactions would continue to be eligible for clearly erroneous
review, effectively ensuring that such review remains available as a
backstop when the LULD Plan would not prevent executions from occurring
at erroneous prices in the first instance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ See Appendix A of the LULD Plan.
    \25\ The initial Reference Price used to calculate Price Bands
is typically set by the Opening Price on the primary listing market.
See Section V(B) of the LULD Plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Second, investors would also continue to be able to request review
of transactions that resulted from certain systems issues pursuant to
proposed paragraph (c)(1)(B). This limited exception would help to
ensure that trades that should not have been executed would continue to
be subject to clearly erroneous review. Specifically, as proposed,
transactions executed during Regular Market Hours would be eligible for
clearly erroneous review pursuant to proposed paragraph (c)(1)(B) if
the transaction is the result of an Exchange technology or systems
issue that results in the transaction occurring outside of the
applicable LULD Price Bands pursuant to Rule 11.270(g). A transaction
subject to review pursuant to this paragraph shall be found to be
clearly erroneous if the price of the transaction to buy (sell) that is
the subject of the complaint is greater than (less than) the Reference
Price, described in paragraph (d) of this Rule, by an amount that
equals or exceeds the applicable Percentage Parameter defined in
Appendix A to the LULD Plan (``Percentage Parameters'').
    Third, the Exchange proposes to narrowly allow for the review of
transactions during Regular Market Hours when the Reference Price,
described in proposed paragraph (d), is determined to be erroneous by
an Officer of the Exchange. Specifically, a transaction executed during
Regular Market Hours would be eligible for clearly erroneous review
pursuant to proposed paragraph (c)(1)(C) if the transaction involved,
in the case of (1) a corporate action or new issue or (2) a security
that enters a Trading Pause pursuant to the LULD Plan and resumes
trading without an auction,\26\ a Reference Price that is determined to
be erroneous by an Officer of the Exchange because it clearly deviated
from the theoretical value of the security. In such circumstances, the
Exchange may use a different Reference Price pursuant to proposed
paragraph (d)(2) of this Rule. A transaction subject to review pursuant
to this paragraph shall be found to be clearly erroneous if the price
of the transaction to buy (sell) that is the subject of the complaint
is greater than (less than) the new Reference Price, described in
paragraph (d)(2) below, by an amount that equals or exceeds the
applicable Numerical Guidelines or Percentage Parameters, as applicable
depending on whether the security is subject to the LULD Plan.
Specifically, the Percentage Parameters would apply to all transactions
except those in an NMS Stock that is not subject to the LULD Plan, as
described in paragraph (c)(1)(A).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ The Exchange notes that the ``resumption of trading without
an auction'' provision of the proposed rule text applies only to
securities that enter a Trading Pause pursuant to LULD and does not
apply to a corporate action or new issue.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the context of a corporate action or a new issue, there may be
instances where the security's Reference Price is later determined by
the Exchange to be erroneous (e.g., because of a bad first trade for a
new issue), and subsequent LULD Price Bands are calculated from that
incorrect Reference Price. In determining whether the Reference Price
is erroneous in such instances, the Exchange would generally look to
see if such Reference Price clearly deviated from the theoretical value
of the security. In such cases, the Exchange would consider a number of
factors to determine a new Reference Price that is based on the
theoretical value of the security, including but not limited to, the
offering price of the new issue, the ratio of the stock split applied
to the prior day's closing price, the theoretical price derived from
the numerical terms of the corporate action transaction such as the
exchange ratio and spin-off terms, and the prior day's closing price on
the OTC market for an OTC up-listing.\27\ In the foregoing instances,
the theoretical value of the security would be used as the new
Reference Price when applying the Percentage Parameters under the LULD
Plan (or Numerical Guidelines if the transaction is in an NMS Stock
that

is not subject to the LULD Plan) to determine whether executions would
be cancelled as clearly erroneous.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ Using transaction data reported to the FINRA OTC Reporting
Facility, FINRA disseminates via the Trade Data Dissemination
Service a final closing report for OTC equity securities for each
business day that includes, among other things, each security's
closing last sale price.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The following illustrate the proposed application of the rule in
the context of a corporate action or new issue:
Example 1
1. ABCD is subject to a corporate action, 1 for 10 reverse split, and
the previous day close was $5, but the new theoretical price based on
the terms of the corporate action is $50.
2. The security opens at $5, with LULD bands at $4.50 x $5.50
3. The bands will be calculated correctly but the security is trading
at an erroneous price based on the valuation of the remaining
outstanding shares
4. The theoretical price of $50 would be used as the new Reference
Price when applying LULD bands to determine if executions would be
cancelled as clearly erroneous
Example 2
1. ABCD is subject to a corporate action, the company is doing a spin
off where a new issue will be listed, BCDE. ABCD trades at $50, and the
spinoff company is worth \1/5\ of ABCD
2. BCDE opens at $50 in the belief it is the same company as ABCD
3. The theoretical values of the two companies are ABCD $40 and BCDE
$10
4. BCDE would be deemed to have had an incorrect Reference Price and
the theoretical value of $10 would be used as the new Reference Price
when applying the LULD Bands to determine if executions would be
cancelled as clearly erroneous
Example 3
1. ABCD is an uplift from the OTC market, the prior days close on the
OTC market was $20
2. ABCD opens trading on the new listing exchange at $0.20 due to an
erroneous order entry
3. The new Reference Price to determine clearly erroneous executions
would be $20, the theoretical value of the stock from where it was last
traded

    In the context of the rare situation in which a security that
enters a LULD Trading Pause and resumes trading without an auction
(i.e., reopens with quotations), the LULD Plan requires that the new
Reference Price in this instance be established by using the mid-point
of the best bid and offer (``BBO'') on the primary listing exchange at
the reopening time.\28\ This can result in a Reference Price and
subsequent LULD Price Band calculation that is significantly away from
the security's last traded or more relevant price, especially in less
liquid names. In such rare instances, the Exchange is proposing to use
a different Reference Price that is based on the prior LULD Band that
triggered the Trading Pause, rather than the midpoint of the BBO.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ See LULD Plan, Section I(U) and V(C)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The following example illustrates the proposed application of the
rule in the context of a security that reopens without an auction:
Example 4
1. ABCD stock is trading at $20, with LULD Bands at $18 x $22
2. An incoming buy order causes the stock to enter a Limit State
Trading Pause and then a Trading Pause at $22
3. During the Trading Pause, the buy order causing the Trading Pause is
cancelled
4. At the end of the 5-minute halt, there is no crossed interest for an
auction to occur, thus trading would resume on a quote
5. Upon resumption, a quote that was available prior to the Trading
Pause (e.g., a quote was resting on the book prior to the Trading
Pause), is widely set at $10 x $90
6. The Reference Price upon resumption is $50 (mid-point of BBO)
7. The SIP will use this Reference Price and publish LULD Bands of $45
x $55 (i.e., far away from BBO prior to the halt)
8. The bands will be calculated correctly, but the $50 Reference Price
is subsequently determined to be incorrect as the price clearly
deviated from where it previously traded prior to the Trading Pause
9. The new Reference Price would be $22 (i.e., the last effective Price
Band that was in a limit state before the Trading Pause), and the LULD
Bands would be applied to determine if the executions should be
cancelled as clearly erroneous

    In all of the foregoing situations, investors would be left with no
remedy to request clearly erroneous review without the proposed
carveouts in paragraph (c)(1)(C) because the trades occurred within the
LULD Price Bands (albeit LULD Price Bands that were calculated from an
erroneous Reference Price). The Exchange believes that removing the
current ability for the Exchange to review in these narrow
circumstances would lessen investor protections.
Numerical Guidelines
    Today, paragraph (c)(1) defines the Numerical Guidelines that are
used to determine if a transaction is deemed clearly erroneous during
Regular Market Hours, or during the Pre-Market Session and Post-Market
Session. With respect to Regular Trading Hours, trades are generally
deemed clearly erroneous if the execution price differs from the
Reference Price (i.e., last sale) by 10% if the Reference Price is
greater than $0.00 up to and including $25.00; 5% if the Reference
Price is greater than $25.00 up to and including $50.00; and 3% if the
Reference Price is greater than $50.00. Wider parameters are also used
for reviews for Multi-Stock Events, as described in paragraph (c)(2).
With respect to transactions in Leveraged ETF/ETN securities executed
during Regular Market Hours, Pre-Market Session and Post-Market
Session, trades are deemed clearly erroneous if the execution price
exceeds the Regular Market Hours Numerical Guidelines multiplied by the
leverage multiplier.
    Given the changes described in this proposed rule change, the
Exchange proposes to amend the way that the Numerical Guidelines are
calculated during Regular Trading Hours in the handful of instances
where clearly erroneous review would continue to be available.
Specifically, the Exchange would base these Numerical Guidelines, as
applied to the circumstances described in paragraph (c)(1)(A), on the
Percentage Parameters used to calculate Price Bands, as set forth in
Appendix A to the LULD Plan. Without this change, a transaction that
would otherwise stand if Price Bands were properly applied to the
transaction may end up being subject to review and deemed clearly
erroneous solely due to the fact that the Price Bands were not
available due to a systems or other issue. The Exchange believes that
it makes more sense to instead base the Price Bands on the same
parameters as would otherwise determine whether the trade would have
been allowed to execute within the Price Bands. The Exchange also
proposes to modify the Numerical Guidelines applicable to leveraged
ETF/ETN securities during Regular Trading Hours. As noted above, the
Numerical Guidelines will only be applicable to transactions eligible
for review pursuant paragraph (c)(1)(A) (i.e., to NMS Stocks that are
not subject to the LULD Plan). As leveraged ETF/ETN securities are
subject to LULD and thus the Percentage Parameters will be applicable
during Regular Market Hours, the Exchange proposes to eliminate the
Numerical Guidelines for leveraged ETF/ETN

securities traded during Regular Market Hours. However, as no Price
Bands are available outside of Regular Market Hours, the Exchange
proposes to keep the existing Numerical Guidelines in place for
transactions in leveraged ETF/ETN securities that occur during the Pre-
Market Session and Post-Market Session. The Exchange also proposes to
move existing paragraphs (c)(2), (c)(3), and (d) to proposed paragraph
(c)(2)(B), (c)(2)(C), and (c)(2)(D), respectively, as Multi-Stock
Events, Additional Factors, and Outlier Transactions will only be
subject to review if those NMS Stocks are not subject to the LULD Plan
or occur during the Pre-Market Session and Post-Market Session.
Proposed paragraph (c)(2)(B) is substantially similar to existing
paragraph (c)(2) except for a change in rule reference to paragraph
(c)(1) has been updated to paragraph (c)(1)(A). Further, given the
proposal to move existing paragraph (c)(2) to paragraph (c)(2)(B), the
Exchange also proposes to amend applicable rule references throughout
paragraph (c)(2)(A). Finally, the Exchange proposes to update
applicable rule references in paragraph (c)(2)(D) based on the above-
described structural changes to Rule 11.270.
Reference Price
    As proposed, the Reference Price used would continue to be based on
last sale and would be memorialized in proposed paragraph (d).
Continuing to use the last sale as the Reference Price is necessary for
operational efficiency as it may not be possible to perform a timely
clearly erroneous review if doing so required computing the arithmetic
mean price of eligible reported transactions over the past five
minutes, as contemplated by the LULD Plan. While this means that there
would still be some differences between the Price Bands and the clearly
erroneous parameters, the Exchange believes that this difference is
reasonable in light of the need to ensure timely review if clearly
erroneous rules are invoked. The Exchange also proposes to allow for an
alternate Reference Price to be used as prescribed in proposed
paragraphs (d)(1), (2), and (3). Specifically, the Reference Price may
be a value other than the consolidated last sale immediately prior to
the execution(s) under review (1) in the case of Multi-Stock Events
involving twenty or more securities, as described in paragraph
(c)(2)(B) above, (2) in the case of an erroneous Reference Price, as
described in paragraph (c)(1)(C) above,\29\ or (3) in other
circumstances, such as, for example, relevant news impacting a security
or securities, periods of extreme market volatility, sustained
illiquidity, or widespread system issues, where use of a different
Reference Price is necessary for the maintenance of a fair and orderly
market and the protection of investors and the public interest,
provided that such circumstances occurred during Pre-Market Session or
Post-Market Session or the execution(s) are eligible for review
pursuant to paragraph (c)(1)(A).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ As discussed above, in the case of (c)(1)(C)(1), the
Exchange would consider a number of factors to determine a new
Reference Price that is based on the theoretical value of the
security, including but not limited to, the offering price of the
new issue, the ratio of the stock split applied to the prior day's
closing price, the theoretical price derived from the numerical
terms of the corporate action transaction such as the exchange ratio
and spin-off terms, and the prior day's closing price on the OTC
market for an OTC up-listing. In the case of (c)(1)(C)(2), the
Reference Price will be the last effective Price Band that was in a
limit state before the Trading Pause.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Appeals
    As described more fully below, the Exchange proposes to eliminate
paragraph (f), System Disruption or Malfunction. Accordingly, the
Exchange proposes to remove from paragraph (e)(2), Appeals, each
reference to paragraph (f), and include language referencing proposed
paragraph (g), Transactions Occurring Outside of the LULD Bands.
System Disruption or Malfunction
    To conform with the structural changes described above, the
Exchange now proposes to remove paragraph 11.270(f), System Disruption
or Malfunction, and proposes new paragraph (c)(1)(B). Specifically, as
described in paragraph (c)(1)(B), transactions occurring during Regular
Market Hours that are executed outside of the LULD Price Bands due to
an Exchange technology or system issue, may be subject to clearly
erroneous review pursuant to proposed paragraph 11.270(g). Proposed
paragraph 11.270(c)(1)(B) further provides that a transaction subject
to review pursuant to this paragraph shall be found to be clearly
erroneous if the price of the transaction to buy (sell) that is the
subject of the complaint is greater than (less than) the Reference
Price, described in paragraph (d), by an amount that equals or exceeds
the applicable Percentage Parameter defined in Appendix A to the LULD
Plan.
    The Exchange also proposes to renumber paragraph (g) to paragraph
(f) based on the proposal to eliminate existing paragraph (f).
Securities Subject to Limit Up-Limit Down Plan
    The Exchange proposes to renumber paragraph (h) to paragraph (g)
based on the proposal to eliminate existing paragraph (f), and to
rename the paragraph to provide for transactions occurring outside of
LULD Price Bands. Given that proposed paragraph (c)(1) defines the LULD
Plan, the Exchange also proposes to eliminate redundant language from
proposed paragraph (h). Finally, the Exchange also proposes to update
references to the LULD Plan and Price Bands so that they are uniform
throughout the Rule and to update rule references throughout the
paragraph to conform to the structural changes to the Rule described
above.
Multi-Day Event and Trading Halts
    The Exchange proposes to renumber paragraphs (i) and (j) to
paragraphs (h) and (i), respectively, based on the proposal to
eliminate existing paragraph (f). Additionally, the Exchange proposes
to modify the text of both paragraphs to reference the Percentage
Parameters as well as the Numerical Guidelines. Specifically, the
existing text of proposed paragraphs (h) and (i) provides that any
action taken in connection with this paragraph will be taken without
regard to the Numerical Guidelines set forth in this Rule. The Exchange
proposes to amend the rule text to provide that any action taken in
connection with this paragraph will be taken without regard to the
Percentage Parameters or Numerical Guidelines set forth in this Rule,
with the Percentage Parameters being applicable to an NMS Stock subject
to the LULD Plan and the Numerical Guidelines being applicable to an
NMS Stock not subject to the LULD Plan.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with
the requirements of Section 6(b) of the Act,\30\ in general, and
Section 6(b)(5) of the Act,\31\ in particular, in that it is designed
to remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open
market and a national market system, to promote just and equitable
principles of trade, and, in general, to protect investors and the
public interest and not to permit unfair discrimination between
customers, issuers, brokers, or dealers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \30\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \31\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As explained in the Purpose section, the SROs that are part of the
clearly erroneous execution pilot believe that the pilot has
successfully ensured that

such reviews are conducted based on objective and consistent standards
across SROs and has therefore afforded greater certainty to Members and
investors. IEX agrees with such beliefs with respect to IEX Rule
11.270. IEX understands that the SROs that are part of the clearly
erroneous execution pilot will file largely identical proposals to make
their respective clearly erroneous pilots permanent. The Exchange
therefore believes that the proposed rule change would promote
transparency and uniformity across markets concerning review of
transactions as clearly erroneous and would also help assure consistent
results in handling erroneous trades across the U.S. equities markets,
thus furthering fair and orderly markets, the protection of investors,
and the public interest.
    Similarly, the Exchange believes that it is consistent with just
and equitable principles of trade to limit the availability of clearly
erroneous review during Regular Market Hours. The LULD Plan was
approved by the Commission to operate on a permanent rather than pilot
basis. As a number of market participants have noted, the LULD Plan
provides protections that ensure that investors' orders are not
executed at prices that may be considered clearly erroneous. Further,
amendments to the LULD Plan approved in Amendment Eighteen serve to
ensure that the Price Bands established by the LULD Plan are
``appropriately tailored to prevent trades that are so far from current
market prices that they would be viewed as having been executed in
error.'' \32\ Thus, the Exchange believes that clearly erroneous review
should only be necessary in very limited circumstances during Regular
Market Hours. Specifically, such review would only be necessary in
instances where a transaction was not subject to the LULD Plan, or was
the result of some form of systems issue, as detailed in the purpose
section of this proposed rule change. Additionally, in narrow
circumstances where the transaction was subject to the LULD Plan, a
clearly erroneous review would be available in the case of (1) a
corporate action or new issue or (2) a security that enters a Trading
Pause pursuant to LULD and resumes trading without an auction, where
the Reference Price is determined to be erroneous by an Officer of the
Exchange because it clearly deviated from the theoretical value of the
security. Thus, eliminating clearly erroneous review in all other
instances will serve to increase certainty for Members and investors
that trades executed during Regular Market Hours would typically stand
and would not be subject to review.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \32\ See Amendment Eighteen, supra note 11.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Given the fact that clearly erroneous review would largely be
limited to transactions that were not subject to the LULD Plan, the
Exchange also believes that it is necessary to change the parameters
used to determine whether a trade is clearly erroneous. Specifically,
due to the different parameters currently used for clearly erroneous
review and for determining Price Bands, it is possible that a trade
that would have been permitted to execute within the Price Bands would
later be deemed clearly erroneous, if, for example, a systems issue
prevented the dissemination of the Price Bands. The Exchange believes
that this result is contrary to the principle that trades within the
Price Bands should stand, and has the potential to cause investor
confusion if trades that are properly executed within the applicable
parameters described in the LULD Plan are later deemed erroneous. By
using consistent parameters for clearly erroneous reviews conducted
during Regular Market Hours and the calculation of the Price Bands, the
Exchange believes that this change would also serve to promote greater
certainty with regards to when trades may be deemed erroneous.
    Finally, the proposed rule changes make organizational updates to
the Exchange's Clearly Erroneous Execution Rule as well as minor
updates and corrections to the Rule to improve readability and clarity.

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change would
impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate
in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The proposal would ensure
the continued, uninterrupted operation of harmonized clearly erroneous
execution rules across the U.S. equities markets while also amending
those rules to provide greater certainty to Members and investors that
trades will stand if executed during Regular Market Hours where the
LULD Plan provides adequate protection against trading at erroneous
prices. The Exchange understands that the SROs that are part of the
clearly erroneous execution pilot will also file similar proposals, the
substance of which are identical to this proposal. Thus, the proposed
rule change will help to ensure consistency across SROs without
implicating any competitive issues.

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

    Written comments were neither solicited nor received.

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

    The Exchange has filed the proposed rule change pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act \33\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder.\34\
Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not: (i) significantly
affect the protection of investors or the public interest; (ii) impose
any significant burden on competition; and (iii) become operative for
30 days from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as
the Commission may designate, it has become effective pursuant to
Section 19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act \35\ and subparagraph (f)(6) of
Rule 19b-4 thereunder.\36\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \33\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(iii).
    \34\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
    \35\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(iii).
    \36\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). In addition, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii)
requires a self-regulatory organization to give the Commission
written notice of its intent to file the proposed rule change, along
with a brief description and text of the proposed rule change, at
least five business days prior to the date of filing of the proposed
rule change, or such shorter time as designated by the Commission.
The Exchange has satisfied this requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A proposed rule change filed under Rule 19b-4(f)(6) \37\ normally
does not become operative prior to 30 days after the date of the
filing. However, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii) \38\ permits the Commission to
designate a shorter time if such action is consistent with the
protection of investors and the public interest. The Exchange has asked
the Commission to waive the 30-day operative delay so that the proposed
rule change may become operative on October 1, 2022. The Commission
believes that waiving the 30-day operative delay is consistent with the
protection of investors and the public interest, as it will allow the
Exchange to coordinate its implementation of the revised clearly
erroneous execution rules with the other national securities exchanges
and FINRA, and will help ensure consistency across the SROs.\39\ For
this reason, the Commission hereby waives the 30-day operative delay
and designates the proposed rule change as operative upon filing.\40\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \37\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
    \38\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii).
    \39\ See SR-CboeBZX-2022-37 (July 8, 2022).
    \40\ For purposes only of waiving the 30-day operative delay,
the Commission has also considered the proposed rule's impact on
efficiency, competition, and capital formation. See 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. If the Commission
takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings to
determine whether the proposed rule should be approved or 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 protected]. Please include
File Number SR-IEX-2022-07 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-IEX-2022-07. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's internet website (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml).
Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written
statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with
the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed
rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those
that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions
of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for website viewing and printing in
the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC
20549, on official business days between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and
3:00 p.m. Copies of such filing also will be available for inspection
and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All comments
received will be posted without change. Persons submitting comments are
cautioned that we do not redact or edit personal identifying
information from comment submissions. You should submit only
information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions
should refer to File Number SR-IEX-2022-07 and should be submitted on
or before October 21, 2022.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\41\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \41\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

J. Matthew DeLesDernier,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2022-21194 Filed 9-29-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: April 18, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 74)]
[Notices]
[Page 19491-19493]
[DOCID:fr18ap07-50]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2007-0103; FRL-8124-4]

Pyridate; Notice of Receipt of Requests to Voluntarily Cancel and
to Terminate Uses of Certain Pesticide Registrations

AGENCY:  Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION:  Notice.

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

SUMMARY:  In accordance with section 6(f)(1) of the Federal
Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), as amended, EPA is
issuing a notice of receipt of a request by a registrant to voluntarily
cancel its registrations for all products containing the pesticide
pyridate. This notice announces receipt by EPA of a request from the
registrant Syngenta Crop Protection, Inc., to cancel all remaining
pyridate product registrations. The request would terminate the last
pyridate products registered for use in the United States. The last
remaining pyridate products registered under FIFRA Section 3 were
cancelled in 2004 for failure to pay the required annual maintenance
fee (See Unit II for Federal Register cite), but there are several
FIFRA 24(c) Special Local Needs registrations (for weed control on
mint) that are still active. Syngenta Crop Protection, Inc., the
registrant for all of the currently registered FIFRA 24(c) products,
has requested cancellation of all of the remaining pyridate 24(c)
products. EPA intends to grant this request at the close of the comment
period for this announcement unless the Agency receives substantive
comments within the comment period that would merit its further review
of the request, or unless the registrant withdraws their request within
this period. Upon acceptance of this request, any sale,

distribution, or use of products listed in this notice will be
permitted only if such sale, distribution, or use is consistent with
the terms as described in the final order.

DATES:  Comments must be received on or before October 15, 2007.

ADDRESSES:  Submit your comments, identified by docket identification
(ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2007-0103, by one of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.

Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments.
     Mail: Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP) Regulatory Public
Docket (7502P), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania
Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001.
     Delivery: OPP Regulatory Public Docket (7502P),
Environmental Protection Agency, Rm. S-4400, One Potomac Yard (South
Bldg.), 2777 S. Crystal Dr., Arlington, VA. Deliveries are only
accepted during the Docket's normal hours of operation (8:30 a.m. to 4
p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays). Special
arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed information. The
Docket telephone number is<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-
2007-0103. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included
in the docket without change and may be made available on-line 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 information that you
consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through regulations.gov or e-
mail. The Federal regulations.gov website 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
regulations.gov, your e-mail address will be automatically captured and
included as part of the comment that is placed in the 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.
    Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the docket index
available in regulations.gov. To access the electronic docket, go to
http://www.regulations.gov, select ``Advanced Search,'' then ``Docket

Search.'' Insert the docket ID number where indicated and select the
``Submit'' button. Follow the instructions on the regulations.gov web
site to view the docket index or access available documents. Although
listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, e.g.,
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 in the
electronic docket at http://www.regulations.gov, or, if only available

in hard copy, at the OPP Regulatory Public Docket in Rm. S-4400, One
Potomac Yard (South Bldg.), 2777 S. Crystal Dr., Arlington, VA. The
hours of operation of this Docket Facility are from 8:30 a.m. to 4
p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The Docket
telephone number is<PHONE_NUMBER>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:  John W. Pates, Jr., Special Review
and Reregistration Division (7508P), Office of Pesticide Programs,
Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW.,
Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax number:
703-308-7070; e-mail address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. Does this Action Apply to Me?

    This action is directed to the public in general, and may be of
interest to a wide range of stakeholders including environmental, human
health, and agricultural advocates; the chemical industry; pesticide
users; and members of the public interested in the sale, distribution,
or use of pesticides. Since others also may be interested, the Agency
has not attempted to describe all the specific entities that may be
affected by this action. If you have any questions regarding the
applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the person
listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

B. What Should I Consider as I Prepare My Comments for EPA?

     1.  Submitting CBI. Do not submit this information to EPA through
regulations.gov or e-mail. Clearly mark the part or all of the
information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information in a disk or
CD ROM that you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD ROM as
CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD ROM the
specific information that is claimed as CBI. In addition to one
complete version of the comment that includes information claimed as
CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information
claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket.
Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with
procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2.
    2. Tips for preparing your comments. When submitting comments,
remember to:
    i. Identify the document by docket ID number and other identifying
information (subject heading, Federal Register date and page number).
     ii. Follow directions. The Agency may ask you to respond to
specific questions or organize comments by referencing a Code of
Federal Regulations (CFR) part or section number.
    iii. Explain why you agree or disagree; suggest alternatives and
substitute language for your requested changes.
     iv. Describe any assumptions and provide any technical information
and/or data that you used.
    v. If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how you
arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be
reproduced.
    vi. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns and
suggest alternatives.
    vii. Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the use of
profanity or personal threats.
     viii. Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period
deadline identified.

II. Background on the Receipt of Requests to Cancel Registrations to
Delete Uses

     This notice announces receipt by EPA of a request from the
registrant Syngenta Crop Protection, Inc., to cancel all remaining
pyridate product registrations. Pyridate is a terrestrial herbicide
classified as a pyrazole thiocarbonate chlorine.
     In a letter dated January 12, 2007, Syngenta Crop Protection, Inc.
requested that EPA cancel all product registrations and terminate all
uses of

the pesticide product registrations identified in this notice (Table
1). The request would terminate the last pyridate products registered
for use in the United States. The last remaining pyridate products
registered under FIFRA Section 3 were cancelled in 2004 for failure to
pay the required annual maintenance fee October 27, 2004, (69 FR 62666)
(FRL 7683-7), but there are several FIFRA 24(c) Special Local Needs
registrations (for weed control on mint) that are still active.
Syngenta Crop Protection, Inc. has now requested cancellation of all of
the remaining pyridate 24(c) registrations. The registrant's request
will terminate the last pyridate products registered in the United
States for these uses.

III. What Action is the Agency Taking?

    This notice announces receipt by EPA of a request from a registrant
to cancel all pyridate product registrations. The affected products and
the registrant making the request are identified in Tables 1 and 2 of
this unit.
    Under section 6(f)(1)(A) of FIFRA, registrants may request, at any
time, that their pesticide registrations be canceled or amended to
terminate one or more pesticide uses. Section 6(f)(1)(B) of FIFRA
requires that before acting on a request for voluntary cancellation,
EPA must provide a 30-day public comment period on the request for
voluntary cancellation or use termination. In addition, section
6(f)(1)(C) of FIFRA requires that EPA provide a 180-day comment period
on a request for voluntary cancellation or termination of any minor
agricultural use before granting the request, unless:
    1. The registrants request a waiver of the comment period, or
    2. The Administrator determines that continued use of the pesticide
would pose an unreasonable adverse effect on the environment.
    Because the pyridate registrant has not expressly waived the 180-
day comment period, EPA will provide a 180-day comment period on the
proposed requests.
    Unless a request is withdrawn by the registrant within 180 days of
publication of this notice, or if the Agency determines that there are
substantive comments that warrant further review of this request, an
order will be issued canceling the affected registrations.

   Table 1.--Pyridate Product Registrations with Pending Requests for
                              Cancellation
------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Registration No.             Product name           Company
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CA010008                          Tough 5EC           Syngenta Crop
                                                       Protection, Inc.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ID010006                          Tough 5EC           Syngenta Crop
                                                       Protection, Inc.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
IN010001                          Tough 5EC           Syngenta Crop
                                                       Protection, Inc.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
MT010003                          Tough 5EC           Syngenta Crop
                                                       Protection, Inc.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ND000007                          Tough 5EC           Syngenta Crop
                                                       Protection, Inc.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
OR010005                          Tough 5EC           Syngenta Crop
                                                       Protection, Inc.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
WA010007                          Tough 5EC           Syngenta Crop
                                                       Protection, Inc.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
*WI010005                         Tough 5EC           Syngenta Crop
                                                       Protection, Inc.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Section 24c use in Wisconsin (WI010005) has expired and will not be
  reinstated.

    Table 2 of this unit includes the name and address of record for
the registrant of the products listed in Table 1 of this unit.

         Table 2.--Registrant Requesting Voluntary Cancellation
------------------------------------------------------------------------
              EPA Company No.                 Company name and address
------------------------------------------------------------------------
100                                         Syngenta Crop Protection,
                                             Inc.
                                            P.O. Box 18300
                                            Greensboro, NC 27419-8300
------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. What is the Agency's Authority for Taking this Action?

    Section 6(f)(1) of FIFRA provides that a registrant of a pesticide
product may at any time request that any of its pesticide registrations
be canceled or amended to terminate one or more uses. FIFRA further
provides that, before acting on the request, EPA must publish a notice
of receipt of any such request in the Federal Register. Thereafter,
following the public comment period, the Administrator may approve such
a request.

V. Procedures for Withdrawal of Request and Considerations for
Reregistration of Pyridate

    Registrants who choose to withdraw a request for cancellation must
submit such withdrawal in writing to the person listed under FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT, postmarked before October 15, 2007. This
written withdrawal of the request for cancellation will apply only to
the applicable FIFRA section 6(f)(1) request listed in this notice. If
the products have been subject to a previous cancellation action, the
effective date of cancellation and all other provisions of any earlier
cancellation action are controlling.

VI. Provisions for Disposition of Existing Stocks

    Existing stocks are those stocks of registered pesticide products
which are currently in the United States and which were packaged,
labeled, and released for shipment prior to the effective date of the
cancellation action. If this request for voluntary cancellation is
granted, the Agency intends to issue a cancellation order that will
allow persons other than the registrant to continue to use the FIFRA
24(c) labels to apply existing stocks of the previously-cancelled
parent Section 3 product, Tough 5EC (EPA Reg. No. 100-880), to mint,
provided such use is consistent with the 24(c) labels, until such
existing stocks are exhausted. The registrant will not be permitted to
sell or distribute the previously-cancelled parent Section 3 product,
Tough 5EC (EPA Reg. No. 100-880), but existing stocks already in the
hands of dealers or users may be distributed, sold or used legally
until they are exhausted. If, as the Agency currently intends, the
final cancellation order contains the existing stocks provision just
described, the order will be sent only to the affected registrants of
the cancelled products. If the Agency determines that the final
cancellation order should contain existing stocks provisions different
than the ones just described, the Agency will publish the cancellation
order in the Federal Register.

List of Subjects

    Environmental protection, Pesticides and pests.

    Dated: April 6, 2007.
 Debra Edwards,
Director, Special Review and Reregistration Division, Office of
Pesticide Programs.
[FR Doc. E7-7258 Filed 4-17-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-507-S


[Federal Register: April 7, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 66)]
[Notices]
[Page 17737-17738]
[DOCID:fr07ap10-56]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2010-0194; FRL-8820-2]

Industrial Economics, Incorporated; Transfer of Data

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice announces that pesticide related information
submitted to EPA's Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP) pursuant to the
Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) and the
Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), including information
that may have been claimed as Confidential Business Information (CBI)
by the submitter, will be transferred to Industrial Economics,
Incorporated in accordance with 40 CFR 2.307(h)(3) and 2.308(i)(2).
Industrial Economics, Incorporated has been awarded multiple contracts
to perform work for OPP, and access to this information will enable
Industrial Economics, Incorporated to fulfill the obligations of the
contract.

DATES: Industrial Economics, Incorporated will be given access to this
information on or before April 12, 2010.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Felicia Croom, Information Technology
and Resources Management Division (7502P), Office of Pesticide
Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW.,
Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail
address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. Does this Action Apply to Me?

    This action applies to the public in general. As such, the Agency
has not attempted to describe all the specific entities that may be
affected by this action. If you have any questions regarding the
applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the person
listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

B. How Can I Get Copies of this Document and Other Related Information?

    EPA has established a docket for this action under docket
identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2010-0194. Publicly available
docket materials are available either in the electronic docket at
http://www.regulations.gov, or, if only

available in hard copy, at the Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP)
Regulatory Public Docket in Rm. S-4400, One Potomac Yard (South Bldg.),
2777 S. Crystal Dr., Arlington, VA. The hours of operation of this
Docket Facility are from 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday,
excluding legal holidays. The Docket Facility telephone number is (703)
305-5805.

II. Contractor Requirements

    Under these contract numbers, the contractor will perform the
following:
    1. Under Contract No. EP10H000898, the Contractor shall provide
expertise and update the computer models, develop new models as
appropriate, and educate enforcement staff on the models. The
Contractor shall also provide expert advice to law enforcement
personnel regarding financial issues that impact enforcement
litigation, and, when directed, supports enforcement negotiations.
    2. These contracts involve no subcontractors.
    The OPP has determined that the contracts described in this
document involve work that is being conducted in connection with FIFRA,
in that pesticide chemicals will be the subject of certain evaluations
to be made under this contract. These evaluations may be used in
subsequent regulatory decisions under FIFRA.
    Some of this information may be entitled to confidential treatment.
The information has been submitted to EPA under sections 3, 4, 6, and 7
of FIFRA and under sections 408 and 409 of FFDCA.
    In accordance with the requirements of 40 CFR 2.307(h)(3), the
contracts with Industrial Economics, Incorporated, prohibits use of the
information for any purpose not specified in these contracts; prohibits
disclosure of the information to a third party without prior written
approval from the Agency; and requires that each official and employee
of the contractor sign an agreement to protect the information from
unauthorized release and to handle it in accordance with the FIFRA
Information Security Manual. In addition, Industrial Economics,
Incorporated is required to submit, for EPA approval, a security plan
under which any CBI will be secured and protected against unauthorized
release or compromise. No information will be provided to Industrial
Economics, Incorporated until the requirements in this document have
been fully satisfied. Records of information provided to Industrial
Economics, Incorporated will be maintained by EPA Project Officers for
these contracts. All information supplied to Industrial Economics,
Incorporated by EPA for use in connection with these contracts will be
returned to EPA when Industrial Economics, Incorporated has completed
its work.

List of Subjects

    Environmental protection, Business and industry, Government
contracts, Government property, Security measures.

    Dated: March 29, 2010.
Oscar Morales,
Acting Director, Office of Pesticide Programs.

[FR Doc. 2010-7859 Filed 4-6-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-S


[Federal Register: February 27, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 38)]
[Notices]
[Page 8723]
[DOCID:fr27fe07-66]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[P-12514-000, Indiana]

Norway-Oakdale Project; Northern Indiana Public Service Company;
Notice of Availability of Final Environmental Assessment

February 16, 2007.
    In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of
1969, as amended, and Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission)
regulations (18 CFR part 380), Commission staff has reviewed the
application for license for the Norway-Oakdale Project and have
prepared a final environmental assessment (FEA) for the project. The
project is located on the Tippecanoe River in Carroll and White
counties, Indiana.
    In this FEA, Commission staff analyzes the probable environmental
effects of implementing the project and conclude that approval of the
project, with appropriate staff-recommended environmental measures,
would not constitute a major federal action significantly affecting the
quality of the human environment.
    Copies of the FEA are available for review in Public Reference Room
2-A of the Commission's offices at 888 First Street, NE., Washington,
DC. The FEA also may be viewed on the Commission's Internet Web site
(http://www.ferc.gov) using the ``eLibrary'' link. Additional

information about the project is available from the Commission's Office
of External Affairs at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or on the Commission's website
using the ``eLibrary'' link. For assistance with eLibrary, contact
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>call toll-free at<PHONE_NUMBER>; or, for

TTY, contact<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    For further information, please contact Sergiu Serban (202) 502-
6211 or at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
Magalie R. Salas,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E7-3346 Filed 2-26-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P