[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 216 (Wednesday, November 7, 2012)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 66780-66781]
[FR Doc No: 2012-27226]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R09-OAR-2012-0827; FRL-9749-5]

Revisions to the California State Implementation Plan, South
Coast Air Quality Management District

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve revisions to the South Coast Air
Quality Management District (SCAQMD) portion of the California State
Implementation Plan (SIP). These revisions concern volatile organic
compound (VOC) emissions from architectural coatings. We are approving
a local rule that regulates these emission sources under the Clean Air
Act (CAA or the Act). We are taking comments on this proposal and plan
to follow with a final action.

DATES: Any comments must arrive by December 7, 2012.

ADDRESSES: Submit comments, identified by docket number EPA-R09-OAR-
2012-0827, by one of the following methods:
    1. Federal eRulemaking Portal: www.regulations.gov. Follow the
online instructions.
    2. Email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    3. Mail or deliver: Andrew Steckel (Air-4), U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA
94105-3901.
    Instructions: All comments will be included in the public docket
without change and may be made available online at www.regulations.gov,
including any personal information provided, unless the comment
includes Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Information that you
consider CBI or otherwise protected should be clearly identified as
such and should not be submitted through www.regulations.gov or email.
www.regulations.gov is an ``anonymous access'' system, and EPA will not
know your identity or contact information unless you provide it in the
body of your comment. If you send email directly to EPA, your email
address will be automatically captured and included as part of the
public comment. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical
difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be
able to consider your comment.
    Docket: Generally, documents in the docket for this action are
available electronically at www.regulations.gov and in hard copy at EPA
Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, California. While all
documents in the docket are listed at www.regulations.gov, some
information may be publicly available only at the hard copy location
(e.g., copyrighted material, large maps), and some may not be publicly
available in either location (e.g., CBI). To inspect the hard copy
materials, please schedule an appointment during normal business hours
with the contact listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Nicole Law, EPA Region IX, (415) 947-
4126<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, ``we,'' ``us'' and
``our'' refer to EPA.

Table of Contents

I. The State's Submittal
    A. What rule did the State submit?
    B. Are there other versions of this rule?
    C. What is the purpose of the submitted rule revisions?
II. EPA's Evaluation and Action
    A. How is EPA evaluating the rule?
    B. Does the rule meet the evaluation criteria?
    C. EPA Recommendations To Further Improve the Rule
    D. Public Comment and Final Action
III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. The State's Submittal

A. What rule did the State submit?

    Table 1 lists the rule addressed by this proposal with the dates
that it was adopted by the local air agency and submitted by the
California Air Resources Board (CARB).

                                            Table 1--Submitted Rules
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Local agency                  Rule No.              Rule title              Amended     Submitted
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SCAQMD..................................         1113  Architectural Coatings.........     06/03/11     09/27/11
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On October 24, 2011, EPA determined that the submittal for SCAQMD
Rule 1113 met the completeness criteria in 40 CFR part 51 Appendix V,
which must be met before formal EPA review.

B. Are there other versions of this rule?

    We approved an earlier version of Rule 1113 into the SIP on August
17, 2011 (76 FR 50891). The SCAQMD adopted revisions to the SIP-
approved version on June 3, 2011 and CARB submitted them to us on
September 27, 2011.

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

    VOCs help produce ground-level ozone and smog, which harm human
health and the environment. Section 110(a) of the CAA requires States
to submit regulations that control VOC emissions. Rule 1113 provides
VOC limits for architectural coatings. The major revisions to the rule
include limiting and phasing out the averaging compliance option and
introducing VOC limits for previously unregulated colorants. EPA's
technical support document (TSD) has more information about these
rules.

II. EPA's Evaluation and Action

A. How is EPA evaluating the rule?

    Generally, SIP rules must be enforceable (see section 110(a) of the
Act), must require Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT) for
each category of sources covered by a Control Techniques Guidelines
(CTG) document as well as each major source in nonattainment areas (see
sections 182(a)(2) and (b)(2)), and must not relax existing
requirements (see sections 110(l) and 193).
    Guidance and policy documents that we use to evaluate requirements
consistently include the following:
    1. ``Issues Relating to VOC Regulation Cutpoints, Deficiencies, and
Deviations,'' EPA, May 25, 1988 (the Bluebook).
    2. ``Guidance Document for Correcting Common VOC & Other Rule
Deficiencies,'' EPA Region 9, August 21, 2001 (the Little Bluebook).
    3. ``Suggested Control Measure for Architectural Coatings,'' CARB,
October 2007.
    4. ``Improving Air Quality with Economic Incentive Programs,'' EPA,
January 2001.

B. Does the rule meet the evaluation criteria?

    We believe this rule is consistent with the relevant policy and
guidance regarding enforceability and SIP relaxations. The TSD has more
information on our evaluation.

C. EPA Recommendations To Further Improve the Rule

    The TSD describes additional rule revisions that we recommend for
the next time the local agency modifies the rule but are not currently
the basis for rule disapproval.

D. Public Comment and Final Action

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

III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve a
SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and
applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a).
Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve State
choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act.
Accordingly, this proposed action merely proposes to approve State law
as meeting Federal requirements and does not impose additional
requirements beyond those imposed by State law. For that reason, this
proposed 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 disproportionate human health or environmental effects with
practical, appropriate, and legally permissible methods under Executive
Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
In addition, this proposed action does not have tribal implications as
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000),
because the SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in
the State, and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct
costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Ozone, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds.

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

    Dated: October 26, 2012.
Jared Blumenfeld,
Regional Administrator, Region IX.
[FR Doc. 2012-27226 Filed 11-6-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 24 (Monday, February 6, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 5817-5818]
[FR Doc No: 2012-2547]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

[Docket No. USCG-2011-1162]

Ocean Renewable Power Company, Tidal Energy Project, Cobscook
Bay, ME

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard seeks public comments and information on how
to best address the proposal put forth by Ocean Renewable Energy
Company (ORPC) to install five turbine generator units secured to the
ocean floor, used for generating electricity from tidal currents and is
now providing the public the opportunity to provide additional
comments. The proposed project will take place in the navigable waters
of Cobscook Bay, between the City of Eastport and the Town of Lubec in
Washington County, Maine. The proposal does not impede surface
navigation, but could pose a threat to navigation safety for activities
that occur within the water area where these underwater turbines
operate. To protect the maritime public and underwater

turbine equipment, the Coast Guard is considering several options to
ensure the safety of all waterway users and is garnering comments and
information from the public with regards to these various options.

DATES: All written comments and related material must be received by
the Coast Guard on or before February 21, 2012.

ADDRESSES: You may submit written comments identified by docket number
USCG-USCG-1162 before or after the meeting using any one of the
following methods:
    (1) Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
    (2) Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (3) Mail: Docket Management Facility (M-30), U.S. Department of
Transportation, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590-0001.
    (4) Hand delivery: Same as mail address above, between 9 a.m. and 5
p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The telephone
number is<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    To avoid duplication, please use only one of these four methods.
Our online docket for this rulemaking is available on the Internet at
http://www.regulations.gov under docket number USCG-USCG-2011-1162.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions concerning the
meeting or the proposed rule, please call or email Lieutenant Megan
Drewniak of the Waterways Management Division, U.S. Coast Guard Sector
Northern New England; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>telephone 207-
741-5421. If you have questions on viewing or submitting material to
the docket, call Renee V. Wright, Program Manager, Docket Operations,
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background and Purpose

    ORPC's tidal energy project involves installation of five
underwater turbines on the seabed in the navigable waters of Cobscook
Bay. The nature and operation of the structure is hazardous and poses
risks to the mariner. In order to mitigate the inherent risks involved
with these tidal generators, it may be necessary to control or limit
vessel movement and activity through the area.
    Several maritime practices that involve physical contact with the
seabed (e.g., anchoring, dragging, trawling, etc.) pose a specific risk
to the mariner as inadvertent entanglement with an underwater turbine
could pose the risk of a marine casualty. It is also conceivable that
mariners who become entangled in the underwater turbine and auxiliary
power cables could be electrocuted.
    In order to minimize the risk of a marine casualty, entanglement,
or electrocution, the Coast Guard may propose regulatory action or, in
the alternative, it may decide to take other actions outside of a
regulatory act. The proposed regulatory action might consist of a
regulated navigation area or safety zone. This option may look to
prohibit anchoring, fishing, dredging, diving, surface or submarine
scientific equipment, dragging, trawling, or any other activities that
could pose the risk of a marine casualty or impact the underwater
turbines. It is important to note that violations of these regulations
may result in law enforcement action and liable a civil or criminal
penalty.
    Potential non-regulatory actions that could be taken by the Coast
Guard are routing measures that would amount to recommendations to the
mariner of an area to be avoided or a precautionary area in which the
mariner would have notice that they should avoid the area in order to
reduce the risk of a marine casualty.
    This request invites public comment on the merits, advantages, and
disadvantages of taking action to prohibit certain activities in the
vicinity of the proposed tidal energy project. We are attempting to
determine the scope of any safety concerns associated with vessel
navigation in the area. We expect that information gathered during the
comment period and public meetings will identify any problems and
appropriate solutions. We will use your comments to evaluate if the
Coast Guard will pursue action within a designated area of Cobscook
Bay, ME and what activities should be excluded once these underwater
turbines are installed.
    The Coast Guard is also interested in receiving comments and
information about the current aids to navigation (ATON) configuration,
proposed private aids to navigation (PATON) to mark the turbine
generator units, and potential impacts associated with installation of
an underwater cable assembly to transfer electricity to a power control
and grid interface facility in Lubec, Maine.
    You may view documents prepared by the Coast Guard in our online
docket, and comments submitted thus far by going to http://www.regulations.gov. Once there, insert ``USCG-2011-1162'' in the
``Keyword'' box and click ``Search.'' You may also visit the Docket
Management Facility in Room W12-140 on the ground floor of the
Department of Transportation West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE.,
Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays. We have an agreement with the Department of
Transportation to use the Docket Management Facility.
    We encourage you to participate by submitting comments in writing.
All comments received will be posted without change to http://www.regulations.gov and will include any personal information you have
provided.
    Comments must reach the Coast Guard on or before February 21, 2012.
If you submit a comment online via http://www.regulations.gov, it will
be considered received by the Coast Guard when you successfully
transmit the comment. If you fax, hand delivery, or mail your comment,
it will be considered as having been received by the Coast Guard when
it is received at the Docket Management Facility.
    Anyone can search the electronic form of comments received into any
of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or
signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association,
business, labor union, etc.). You may review a Privacy Act notice
regarding our public dockets in the January 17, 2008, issue of the
Federal Register (73 FR 3316).

    Dated: January 20, 2012.
C.L. Roberge,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Sector Northern New
England.
[FR Doc. 2012-2547 Filed 2-3-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 95 (Friday, May 16, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 28590-28591]
[FR Doc No: 2014-11242]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

[FMCSA Docket No. FMCSA-2014-0013]

Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; Diabetes
Mellitus

AGENCY: Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of final disposition.

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

SUMMARY: FMCSA announces its decision to exempt 40 individuals from its
rule prohibiting persons with insulin-treated diabetes mellitus (ITDM)
from operating commercial motor vehicles (CMVs) in interstate commerce.
The exemptions will enable these individuals to operate CMVs in
interstate commerce.

DATES: The exemptions are effective May 16, 2014. The exemptions expire
on May 16, 2016.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Elaine M. Papp, Chief, Medical
Programs Division,<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>FMCSA, Room
W64-224, Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE.,
Washington, DC 20590-0001. Office hours are from 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Electronic Access

    You may see all the comments online through the Federal Document
Management System (FDMS) at: http://www.regulations.gov.
    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or
comments, go to http://www.regulations.gov and/or Room W12-140 on the
ground level of the West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE.,
Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays.
    Privacy Act: Anyone may search the electronic form of all comments
received into any of DOT's dockets by the name of the individual
submitting the comment (or of the person signing the comment, if
submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, or other
entity). You may review DOT's Privacy Act Statement for the Federal
Docket Management System (FDMS) published in the Federal Register on
January 17, 2008 (73 FR 3316).

Background

    On March 14, 2013, FMCSA published a notice of receipt of Federal
diabetes exemption applications from 40 individuals and requested
comments from the public (79 FR 14579). The public comment period
closed on April 14, 2014, and one comment was received.
    FMCSA has evaluated the eligibility of the 40 applicants and
determined that granting the exemptions to these individuals would
achieve a level of safety equivalent to or greater than the level that
would be achieved by complying with the current regulation 49 CFR
391.41(b)(3).

Diabetes Mellitus and Driving Experience of the Applicants

    The Agency established the current requirement for diabetes in 1970
because several risk studies indicated that drivers with diabetes had a
higher rate of crash involvement than the general population. The
diabetes rule provides that ``A person is physically qualified to drive
a commercial motor vehicle if that person has no established medical
history or clinical diagnosis of diabetes mellitus currently requiring
insulin for control'' (49 CFR 391.41(b)(3)).
    FMCSA established its diabetes exemption program, based on the
Agency's July 2000 study entitled ``A Report to Congress on the
Feasibility of a Program to Qualify Individuals with Insulin-Treated
Diabetes Mellitus to Operate in Interstate Commerce as Directed by the
Transportation Act for the 21st Century.'' The report concluded that a
safe and practicable protocol to allow some drivers with ITDM to
operate CMVs is feasible. The September 3, 2003 (68 FR 52441), Federal
Register notice in conjunction with the November 8, 2005 (70 FR 67777),
Federal Register notice provides the current protocol for allowing such

drivers to operate CMVs in interstate commerce.
    These 40 applicants have had ITDM over a range of 1 to 41 years.
These applicants report no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in
loss of consciousness or seizure, requiring the assistance of another
person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred
without warning symptoms, in the past 12 months and no recurrent (2 or
more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the past 5 years. In each case,
an endocrinologist verified that the driver has demonstrated a
willingness to properly monitor and manage his/her diabetes mellitus,
received education related to diabetes management, and is on a stable
insulin regimen. These drivers report no other disqualifying
conditions, including diabetes-related complications. Each meets the
vision requirement at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10).
    The qualifications and medical condition of each applicant were
stated and discussed in detail in the March 14, 2014, Federal Register
notice and they will not be repeated in this notice.

Discussion of Comments

    FMCSA received one comment in this proceeding. The comment is
discussed below.
    Ken Czeschin is in favor of granting Donald S. Middleton an
exemption.

Basis for Exemption Determination

    Under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, FMCSA may grant an exemption
from the diabetes requirement in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(3) if the exemption
is likely to achieve an equivalent or greater level of safety than
would be achieved without the exemption. The exemption allows the
applicants to operate CMVs in interstate commerce.
    To evaluate the effect of these exemptions on safety, FMCSA
considered medical reports about the applicants' ITDM and vision, and
reviewed the treating endocrinologists' medical opinion related to the
ability of the driver to safely operate a CMV while using insulin.
    Consequently, FMCSA finds that in each case exempting these
applicants from the diabetes requirement in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(3) is
likely to achieve a level of safety equal to that existing without the
exemption.

Conditions and Requirements

    The terms and conditions of the exemption will be provided to the
applicants in the exemption document and they include the following:
(1) That each individual submit a quarterly monitoring checklist
completed by the treating endocrinologist as well as an annual
checklist with a comprehensive medical evaluation; (2) that each
individual reports within 2 business days of occurrence, all episodes
of severe hypoglycemia, significant complications, or inability to
manage diabetes; also, any involvement in an accident or any other
adverse event in a CMV or personal vehicle, whether or not it is
related to an episode of hypoglycemia; (3) that each individual provide
a copy of the ophthalmologist's or optometrist's report to the medical
examiner at the time of the annual medical examination; and (4) that
each individual provide a copy of the annual medical certification to
the employer for retention in the driver's qualification file, or keep
a copy in his/her driver's qualification file if he/she is self-
employed. The driver must also have a copy of the certification when
driving, for presentation to a duly authorized Federal, State, or local
enforcement official.

Conclusion

    Based upon its evaluation of the 40 exemption applications, FMCSA
exempts Schylor M. Altenhofen (IA), Don R. Anderson, III (IN), Thomas
A. Barnes (MI), Charles L. Bryant (PA), Edward Cannon, Jr. (AZ), Alvin
L. Carpenter (MT), Richard J. D'Ambrosia (NY), Jefferey F. Deane (MA),
Keith M. Dickerson (WI), Carl A. Federighi (CA), Bradley J. Frazier
(IL), Maximo E. Gayten (CO), Carl R. Gentry (WA), Benjamin D. Hirsch
(NE), Robert M. Hutchison (NY), Gerald S. Johnson (FL), Michael E.
Jorissen (ND), Craig A. Keese, Jr. (NY), Robert E. Kilheffer, Jr. (PA),
Amos L. Lapp (PA), Edward J. Lulay (IL), Archard W. McQuade, Jr. (MD),
Donald S. Middleton (MO), Alva D. Moffatt (WA), John M. Muske (MN),
Joseph S. Myers (FL), Stephen R. Newlin (IL), Antonio Pepiciello (NY),
David R. Petitt (WA), James K. Popp (MN), Dustin P. Russell (PA),
Gilbert L. Sanchez (TX), Sean L. Shidell (WI), Randall L. Shultz (MO),
Patrick J. Smiley (PA), Kenneth R. Soult (OH), Chad B. Spidell (PA),
Cameron M. Sprinkle (IN), Douglas E. Stewart (MS), and Thomas L.
Williams (MN) from the ITDM requirement in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(3), subject
to the conditions listed under ``Conditions and Requirements'' above.
    In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315 each exemption will
be valid for two years unless revoked earlier by FMCSA. The exemption
will be revoked if the following occurs: (1) The person fails to comply
with the terms and conditions of the exemption; (2) the exemption has
resulted in a lower level of safety than was maintained before it was
granted; or (3) continuation of the exemption would not be consistent
with the goals and objectives of 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315. If the
exemption is still effective at the end of the 2-year period, the
person may apply to FMCSA for a renewal under procedures in effect at
that time.

    Issued on: May 6, 2014.
Larry W. Minor,
Associate Administrator for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2014-11242 Filed 5-15-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 166 (Wednesday, August 27, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 51188-51189]
[FR Doc No: 2014-20429]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-4182-DR; Docket ID FEMA-2014-0003]

Minnesota; Amendment No. 3 to Notice of a Major Disaster
Declaration

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice amends the notice of a major disaster declaration
for the State of Minnesota (FEMA-4182-DR),

dated July 21, 2014, and related determinations.

DATES: Effective Date: August 21, 2014.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dean Webster, Office of Response and
Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW.,
Washington, DC 20472,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The notice of a major disaster declaration
for the State of Minnesota is hereby amended to include the following
areas among those areas determined to have been adversely affected by
the event declared a major disaster by the President in his declaration
of July 21, 2014.

    Hennepin and Ramsey Counties for Public Assistance.
    The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers
(CFDA) are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030,
Community Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis
Counseling; 97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster
Unemployment Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance
Grant; 97.048, Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and
Households In Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049,
Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance--Disaster Housing
Operations for Individuals and Households; 97.050 Presidentially
Declared Disaster Assistance to Individuals and Households--Other
Needs; 97.036, Disaster Grants--Public Assistance (Presidentially
Declared Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant.

W. Craig Fugate,
Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2014-20429 Filed 8-26-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111-23-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 172 (Wednesday, September 5, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 54576-54577]
[FR Doc No: 2012-21841]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[FRL-9724-5]

Proposed RCRA Prospective Purchaser Agreement, Order on Consent
and Covenant Not To Sue for a Portion of the Delphi Flint West Site, a/
k/a Chevy in the Hole in Flint, Genesee County, MI

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.

ACTION: Notice; request for public comment.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with the RCRA Prospective Purchaser Agreement,
notice is hereby given of a proposed administrative settlement
concerning a portion of the Delphi Flint West Site, a/k/a Chevy in the
Hole in Flint, Michigan with the following settling party: The City of
Flint. The settlement requires the Settling Party to conduct various
actions at the Property including: Conducting a Phase 1 and Baseline
Assessment of the Property; capping and enhancement of the existing
cover over contaminated soils; planting of trees and other native
vegetation; installing walkways; installing new groundwater monitoring
wells and the performance of groundwater monitoring at new and existing
wells; executing and recording a Declaration of Restrictive Covenant
and providing access to the Property.
    The settlement includes a covenant not to sue the Settling Party
pursuant to Sections 3008, 7003, or 9006 of RCRA, with respect to the
Existing Contamination. Existing Contamination is defined as any Waste
Material present or existing on or under the Property as of the
Effective Date of the Settlement Agreement; any Waste Material that
migrated from the Property prior to the Effective Date; and any Waste
Material presently at the Site that migrates onto, on, under, or from
the Property after the Effective Date.
    For thirty (30) days following the date of publication of this
notice, the Agency will receive written comments relating to the
settlement. The Agency will consider all comments received and may
modify or withdraw its consent to the settlement if comments received
disclose facts or considerations which indicate that the settlement is
inappropriate, improper, or inadequate. The Agency's response to any
comments received will be available for public inspection at the EPA,
Region 5, Records Center, 77 W. Jackson Blvd., 7th Fl., Chicago,
Illinois 60604.

DATES: Comments must be submitted on or before 30 days from date of
publication.

ADDRESSES: The proposed settlement is available for public inspection
at the EPA, Region 5, Records Center, 77 W. Jackson Blvd., 7th Fl.,
Chicago, Illinois 60604. A copy of the proposed settlement may be
obtained from Peter Felitti, Assoc. Regional Counsel, EPA, Office of
Regional Counsel, Region 5, 77 W. Jackson Blvd., mail code: C-14J,
Chicago, Illinois 60604. Comments should reference the Delphi Flint
West Site, Flint, Michigan and EPA Docket No. and should be addressed
to Peter Felitti, Assoc. Regional Counsel, EPA, Office of Regional
Counsel, Region 5, 77 W. Jackson Blvd., mail code: C-14J, Chicago,
Illinois 60604.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Peter Felitti, Assoc. Regional
Counsel, EPA, Office of Regional Counsel, Region

5, 77 W. Jackson Blvd., mail code: C-14J, Chicago, Illinois 60604.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Respondent proposes to acquire ownership
of specified parcels of the former RCRA hazardous waste treatment,
storage, or disposal facility known as the Delphi Flint West Site,
located at 300 N. Chevrolet Avenue, Flint, Michigan (Site). The EPA
identification number for the Site is MID 005 356 654.

    Dated: June 29, 2012.
Margaret M. Guerriero,
Director, Land and Chemicals Division.
[FR Doc. 2012-21841 Filed 9-4-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register: April 9, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 67)]
[Notices]
[Page 16205-16206]
[DOCID:fr09ap09-56]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ER09-886-000]

Connectiv Vineland Solar, LLC; Supplemental Notice That Initial
Market-Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204
Authorization

April 2, 2009.
    This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding of
Connectiv Vineland Solar, LLC's application for market-based rate
authority, with an accompanying rate tariff, noting that such
application includes a request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR
Part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of
liability.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and
385.214). Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a
copy of that document on the Applicant.

    Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with
regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18
CFR Part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of
liability, is April 22, 2009.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://
www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with Internet
access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an
intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the
eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the
intervention or protests.
    Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and
14 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First St., NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    The filings in the above-referenced proceeding are accessible in
the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in
the above list. They are also 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. E9-8042 Filed 4-8-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 179 (Thursday, September 15, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 63525-63532]
[FR Doc No: 2016-22150]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-78801; File No. SR-NYSEARCA-2016-123]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE Arca, Inc.; Notice of Filing
of Proposed Rule Change Amending Rule 7.46 Relating to the Tick Size
Pilot Program

September 9, 2016.
    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 25, 2016, NYSE Arca, Inc. (the ``Exchange'' or
``NYSE Arca'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the
``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I, II,
and III below, which Items have been prepared by the self-regulatory
organization. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit
comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 15 U.S.C. 78a.
    \3\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

I. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Terms of Substance
of the Proposed Rule Change

    The Exchange proposes to amend Rule 7.46 to (1) describe system
functionality requirements necessary to implement the Plan to Implement
a Tick Size Pilot Program submitted to the Commission pursuant to Rule
608 of Regulation NMS \4\ under the Act (the ``Plan'') and (2) clarify
the operation of certain exceptions to the Trade-at Prohibition \5\ on
Pilot Securities in the third test group. 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ 17 CFR 242.608.
    \5\ Rule 7.6(e)(4)(A) defines the ``Trade-at Prohibition'' to
mean the prohibition against executions by a Trading Center of a
sell order for a Pilot Security at the price of a Protected Bid or
the execution of a buy order for a Pilot Security at the price of a
Protected Offer during regular trading hours.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    In its filing with the Commission, the self-regulatory organization
included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the
proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the
proposed rule change. The text of those statements may be examined at
the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared
summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most
significant parts of such statements.

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to amend Rule 7.46 to (1) describe system
functionality requirements necessary to implement the Plan \6\ and (2)
clarify the operation of certain exceptions to the Trade-at Prohibition
\7\ on Pilot Securities in the third test group (``Test Group
Three'').\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See Securities and Exchange Act Release No. 74892 (May 6,
2015), 80 FR 27513 (File No. 4-657) (``Tick Plan Approval Order'').
See, also, Securities and Exchange Act Release No. 76382 (November
6, 2015) (File No. 4-657), 80 FR 70284 (File No. 4-657) (November
13, 2015), which extended the pilot period commencement date from
May 6, 2015 to October 3, 2016. The Plan was submitted to the
Commission pursuant to Rule 608 of Regulation NMS. 17 CFR 242.608.
    \7\ Unless otherwise specified, capitalized terms used in this
rule filing are based on the defined terms of the Plan.
    \8\ See infra notes 14-17 and accompanying text for a
description of Test Group Three.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Plan is designed to study and assess the impact of increment
conventions on the liquidity and trading of the common stocks of small
capitalization companies. The Exchange proposes to amend Rule 7.46,
which has been adopted on a two-year pilot period that coincides with
the pilot period for the Plan, which is currently scheduled to begin on
October 3, 2016.

Background
    On August 25, 2014, NYSE Group, Inc., on behalf of Bats BZX
Exchange, Inc. (f/k/a BATS Exchange, Inc.), Bats BYX Exchange, Inc. (f/
k/a BATS Y-Exchange, Inc.), Chicago Stock Exchange, Inc., Bats EDGA
Exchange, Inc. (f/k/a EDGA Exchange, Inc.), Bats EDGX Exchange, Inc.
(f/k/a EDGX Exchange, Inc.), Financial Industry Regulatory Authority,
Inc. (``FINRA''), NASDAQ OMX BX, Inc., NASDAQ OMX PHLX LLC, the Nasdaq
Stock Market LLC, New York Stock Exchange LLC, NYSE MKT LLC, and the
Exchange (collectively ``Participants''), filed with the Commission,
pursuant to Section 11A of the Act \9\ and Rule 608 of Regulation NMS
thereunder, the Plan to Implement a Tick Size Pilot Program.\10\ The
Participants filed the Plan to comply with an order issued by the
Commission on June 24, 2014 (the ``June 2014 Order'').\11\ The Plan was
published for comment in the Federal Register on November 7, 2014,\12\
and approved by the Commission, as modified, on May 6, 2015.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78k-1.
    \10\ See Letter from Brendon J. Weiss, Vice President,
Intercontinental Exchange, Inc., to Secretary, Commission, dated
August 25, 2014.
    \11\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 72460 (June 24,
2014), 79 FR 36840 (June 30, 2014).
    \12\ See Securities and Exchange Act Release No. 73511 (November
3, 2014), 79 FR 66423 (File No. 4-657) (Tick Plan Filing).
    \13\ See Tick Plan Approval Order, supra note 6. See, also,
Securities Exchange Act Release No. 77277 (March 3, 2016), 81 FR
12162 (March 8, 2016) (File No. 4-657), which amended the Plan to
add National Stock Exchange, Inc. as a Participant.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Plan is designed to allow the Commission, market participants,
and the public to study and assess the impact of increment conventions
on the liquidity and trading of the common stocks of small
capitalization companies. The Tick Size Pilot Program will enable the
Commission to assess whether wider tick sizes would enhance the market
quality of Pilot Securities for the benefit of issuers and investors.
Each Participant is required to comply with, and to enforce compliance
by its member organizations, as applicable, with the provisions of the
Plan.
    The Tick Size Pilot Program will include stocks of companies with
$3 billion or less in market capitalization, an average daily trading
volume of one million shares or less, and a volume weighted average
price of at least $2.00 for every trading day. The Tick Size Pilot
Program will consist of a control group of approximately 1400 Pilot
Securities and three test groups with 400 Pilot Securities in each
selected by a stratified sampling.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ See Section V of the Plan for identification of Pilot
Securities, including criteria for selection and grouping.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    During the pilot, Pilot Securities in the control group will be
quoted at the current tick size increment of $0.01 per share and will
trade at the currently permitted increments. Pilot Securities in the
first test group (``Test Group One'') will be quoted in $0.05 minimum
increments but will continue to trade at any price increment that is
currently permitted.\15\ Pilot Securities in the second test group
(``Test Group Two'') will be quoted in $0.05 minimum increments and
will trade at $0.05 minimum increments subject to a midpoint exception,
a retail investor exception, and a negotiated trade exception.\16\
Pilot Securities in Test Group Three will be subject to the same terms
as Test Group Two and also will be subject to the ``Trade-at''
requirement to prevent price matching by a person not displaying at a
price of a Trading Center's ``Best Protected Bid or ``Best Protected
Offer,'' unless an enumerated exception applies.\17\ In addition to the
exceptions provided under Test Group Two, an exception for Block Size
orders and exceptions that closely resemble those under Rule 611 of
Regulation NMS (``Rule 611'') \18\ will apply to the Trade-at
requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ See Section VI(B) of the Plan. Pilot Securities in Test
Group One will be subject to a midpoint exception and a retail
investor exception.
    \16\ See Section VI(C) of the Plan.
    \17\ See Section VI(D) of the Plan.
    \18\ 17 CFR 242.611.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Plan requires the Exchange to establish, maintain, and enforce
written policies and procedures that are reasonably designed to comply
with applicable quoting and trading requirements specified in the Plan.
Accordingly, the Exchange adopted paragraphs (a) and (c)-(e) of Rule
7.46 to require ETP Holders to comply with the quoting and trading
provisions of the Plan.\19\ The Exchange also adopted paragraph (b) of
Rule 7.46 to require ETP Holders to comply with the data collection
provisions under Appendix B and C of the Plan.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 77947 (May 31,
2016), 81 FR 36361 (June 6, 2016) (SR-NYSEArca-2016-76) (``Quoting &
Trading Rules Proposal'').
    \20\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 77484 (March 31,
2016), 81 FR 20024 (April 6, 2016) (SR-NYSEArca-2016-52).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Trade-At Intermarket Sweep Orders
    The Plan defines a Trade-at Intermarket Sweep Order (``ISO'') as a
limit order for a Pilot Security that, when routed to a Trading Center,
is identified as an ISO, and simultaneous with the routing of the limit
order identified as an ISO, one or more additional limit orders, as
necessary, are routed to execute against the full displayed size of any
protected bid (in the case of a limit order to sell) or the full
displayed size of any protected offer (in the case of a limit order to
buy) for the Pilot Security with a price that is equal to the limit
price of the limit order identified as an ISO. These additional routed
orders also must be marked as ISOs.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ See Plan, Section I(MM).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange clarified the use of an ISO in connection with the
``Trade-at'' requirement in Test Group Three by adopting a
comprehensive definition of ``Trade-at ISO'' under Rule
7.46(a)(1)(D).\22\ The Exchange now proposes to further clarify that,
when a Trade-at ISO is routed to a Trading Center, when simultaneously
routing additional limit orders to execute against the full displayed
size of any protected bid, in the case of a limit order to sell, or the
full displayed size of any protected offer, in the case of a limit
order to buy, such additional limit orders can be routed as either
Trade-at ISOs or ISOs. Therefore, the Exchange is proposing to
distinguish Trade-at from ISOs by adding the phrase ``or Intermarket
Sweep Orders'' to the end of Rule 7.46(a)(1)(D)(ii), so that any such
additional routed orders sent to execute against the Trade-at ISO limit
order would need to be marked as either Trade-at ISOs or ISOs, as
applicable.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ Rule 7.46(a)(1)(D) defines Trade-at Intermarket Sweep Order
to mean a limit order for a Pilot Security that meets the following
requirements:
    (i) When routed to a Trading Center, the limit order is
identified as a Trade-at Intermarket Sweep Order; and
    (ii) Simultaneously with the routing of the limit order
identified as a Trade-at Intermarket Sweep Order, one or more
additional limit orders, as necessary, are routed to execute against
the full size of any protected bid, in the case of a limit order to
sell, or the full displayed size of any protected offer, in the case
of a limit order to buy, for the Pilot Security with a price that is
better than or equal to the limit price of the limit order
identified as a Trade-at Intermarket Sweep Order. These additional
routed orders also must be marked as Trade-at Intermarket Sweep
Orders.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Likewise, the Exchange is proposing to amend Rule 7.46(e)(4)(C)(x)
to add the phrase ``or Intermarket Sweep Orders'' into the Trade-at ISO
exemption to the Trade-at Prohibition, to clarify that a Trading Center
can simultaneously route Trade-at ISOs or ISOs to execute against the
full displayed size of the Protected Quotation that was traded at.

Block Size Exemption to Trade-At
    The Plan defines Block Size as an order (1) of at least 5,000
shares or (2) for a quantity of stock having a market value of at least
$100,000. The Block Size exception to the Trade-at Prohibition permits
a Trading Center to immediately execute a Block Size order against
displayed and undisplayed liquidity at a price equal to the National
Best Bid or National Best Offer, as applicable, without satisfying all
Protected Quotations at the National Best Bid or National Best Offer,
as applicable.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ See Plan, Section VI(D).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange is proposing to amend Rule 7.46(e)(4)(C)(iii) to
clarify how the Block Size exception to the Trade-at Prohibition would
operate under the requirements of the Plan. The Exchange proposes to
delete subparagraph (C) of Rule 7.46(e)(4)(C)(iii), which state that,
to qualify for the Block Size exception, the order may not be executed
on multiple Trading Centers. By deleting this requirement, the Block
Size exception to the Trade At Prohibition would apply to an order
received by a market that has sufficiently liquidity to execute such
Block Size, irrespective of whether the receiving market routes a
portion of the Block Size order to another Trading Center to comply
with Rule 611 or Regulation NMS. Any routed interest that returns
unexecuted may be immediately executed under the same Block Size
exception, provided such interest remains marketable.
Proposed Amendments to Rule 7.46 for Tick-Pilot Specific System Changes
    The Exchange proposes to add paragraph (f) of Rule 7.46 to describe
changes to system functionality necessary to implement the Plan.
Paragraph (f) of Rule 7.46 would set forth the Exchange's specific
procedures for handling, executing, re-pricing and displaying of
certain order types and order type instructions applicable to Pilot
Securities in Test Groups One, Two, and Three.
    In determining the scope of these proposed changes to implement the
Plan, the Exchange reviewed its order types and identified which orders
and instructions would be inconsistent with the Plan and propose to
modify the operation of such order types so they will comply with the
Plan, or, to the extent inconsistent with the Plan, eliminate them.
These proposed changes are designed to comply with the Plan and to
allow the Exchange to meet its regulatory obligations under the Plan.
    As part of this review, the Exchange identified order types that
were designed to comply with the requirements of Regulation NMS. Among
other things, Regulation NMS requires a trading center to have policies
and procedures to reasonably avoid displaying quotations that lock or
cross any protected quotation \24\ and to prevent trade-throughs in NMS
stocks that do not fall within an exception enumerated in Rule 611(b)
to Regulation NMS.\25\ As such, under Regulation NMS, an exchange may
rank undisplayed orders at the price of a protected quotation on an
away market and execute such non-displayed orders at the price of a
protected quotation on an away market. By contrast, in Test Group
Three, an undisplayed order may not trade at the price of a protected
quotation on an away market. Accordingly, as described below, in order
to comply with the Plan for Test Group Three securities, the Exchange
is proposing to modify the behavior of specified orders that are
currently permitted to trade undisplayed at the price of the PBBO or
NBBO.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ See 17 CFR 242.610(d).
    \25\ See 17 CFR 242.611(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As described in greater detail below, the Exchange is also
proposing to reject specified orders in Pilot Securities in Test Group
Three because the operation of such order types are, by their terms,
inconsistent with the requirements of the Trade At Prohibition.
Proposed Rule 7.46(f)(1)--Trade-At Intermarket Sweep Orders
    Proposed Rule 7.46(f)(1) would describe the handling of Trade-at
Intermarket Sweep Orders (``TA ISO'') on the Exchange. As described
above, the requirements for an ETP Holder that enters a TA ISO are
specified in Rule 7.46(a)(1)(D)(ii) and differ from the requirements
for an ETP Holder that enters an IOC ISO (as specified in Rule
7.31P(e)(3)(A)). However, the Exchange will handle a TA ISO the same
way it handles an IOC ISO in all securities.
    As proposed in Rule 7.46(f)(1)(A), the Exchange would accept TA
ISOs in all securities. Further, TA ISOs must be designated as IOC, may
be designated with a ``No Midpoint Execution'' modifier, may not be
designated with a minimum trade size, and do not route. These
requirements are based on existing IOC functionality, as specified in
Rule 7.31P(b)(2) governing IOC Modifiers, and IOC ISO functionality, as
specified in Rule 7.31P(e)(3)(B).
    In addition, proposed Rule 7.46(f)(1)(B) would provide that a TA
ISO would be immediately traded with contra-side displayed and non-
displayed interest in the NYSE Arca Book up to its full size and limit
price and the quantity and the quantity not so traded will be
immediately and automatically cancelled. This proposed rule text is
based on current Rule 7.31P(e)(3)(B).
Proposed Rule 7.46(f)(2)--Pilot Securities in Test Groups One, Two, and
Three
    Proposed Rule 7.46(f)(2) would describe the procedures for
handling, executing, re-pricing and displaying of certain order types
and order type instructions applicable to Pilot Securities in Test
Groups One, Two and Three.
     Proposed Rule 7.46(f)(2)(A) would provide that references
in Exchange rules to the minimum price variation (``MPV''), as defined
in Rule 7.6, would instead mean the quoting MPV specified in paragraphs
(c), (d), and (e) of this Rule. This proposed rule text promotes
transparency in Exchange rules to be clear that if a rule specifies
that an order will be priced based off of the MPV, for Pilot Securities
in Test Groups One, Two, and Three, the applicable MPV will be the
quoting MPV required by the Plan.\26\ For example, Rule 7.31P(e)(1)
provides that if an Arca Only Order is marketable against Exchange
interest or would lock or cross a protected quotation in violation of
Rule 610(d) of Regulation NMS, the order to buy (sell) will be re-
priced as provided for in Rule 7.31P(e)(1)(A)(i)-(iv), including being
assigned a display price one MPV below (above) the PBO (PBB). For Pilot
Securities in Test Groups One, Two, and Three, the applicable MPV would
be $0.05. Proposed Rule 7.46(f)(2)(A) would further provide that
references to truncating to the MPV in Exchange rules would instead
mean rounding down to the applicable quoting MPV for Pilot Securities
in Test Groups One, Two and Three. For example, if a value would come
to a $0.09 price, it would be rounded down to a $0.05 increment, which
is the nearest quoting MPV for Pilot Securities in Test Groups One,
Two, and Three.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ See, e.g., Rules 7.31P(a)(1)(B)(i) and (ii),
7.35P(a)(10)(A) and (B), and 7.31P(e).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Proposed Rule 7.46(f)(2)(B) would provide that Mid-Point
Liquidity Orders (``MPL Orders'') \27\ must be entered with

a limit price in a $0.05 pricing increment. While MPL Orders in all
Test Groups would be eligible to trade at the midpoint of the PBBO,
which may not be in a $0.05 pricing increment, the Exchange proposes
that the limit price specified for such orders must be in the quoting
MPV for Test Groups One, Two, and Three.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ An MPL Order is a Limit order priced at the midpoint of the
PBBO and not displayed. An order designated as an MPL Order will not
route or trade-through a Protected Quotation. MPL Orders shall have
a minimum order entry size of one share and such orders, if entered
without a limit price or with a FOK modifier, are rejected. As
described in Rules 7.46(c), (d)(1) and (e)(1), orders priced to
trade at the midpoint of the PBBO, i.e., MPL Orders, may be ranked
in increments less than $0.05.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Proposed Rule 7.46(f)(3)--Pilot Securities in Test Groups One and Two
    Proposed Rule 7.46(f)(3) would describe the procedures for
handling, executing, re-pricing and displaying of certain order types
and order type instructions applicable to Pilot Securities in Test
Groups One and Two.
     A Market Pegged Order to buy (sell), as set forth in Rule
7.31P(h)(1)(C), may include an offset value that will set the working
price below (above) the PBO (PBB) by the specified offset, which may be
specified up to two decimals. Proposed Rule 7.46(f)(3) would provide
that an offset included with a Market Pegged Order in Pilot Securities
in Test Groups One and Two must be in pricing increments of $0.05.
Proposed Rule 7.46(f)(4)--Pilot Securities in Test Groups Two and Three
    Proposed Rule 7.46(f)(4) would describe the procedures for
handling, executing, re-pricing and displaying of certain order types
and order type instructions applicable to Pilot Securities in Test
Groups Two and Three.
     A Retail Price Improvement Order, as set forth in Rule
7.44P(a)(4), consists of non-displayed interest in NYSE Arca-listed
securities and UTP Securities, excluding NYSE-listed (Tape A)
securities, that would trade at prices better than the PBB or PBO by at
least $0.001 and that is identified as such. Consistent with the
requirements of the Plan, which requires a minimum of $0.005 price
improvement in retail programs in Test Groups Two and Three instead of
the $0.001 price improvement specified in Rule 7.44P, proposed Rule
7.46(f)(4) would provide that Retail Price Improvement Orders in Pilot
Securities in Test Groups Two and Three must be entered in pricing
increments of $0.005.
Proposed Rule 7.46(f)(5)--Pilot Securities in Test Group Three
    Proposed Rule 7.46(f)(5) would describe the procedures for
handling, executing, re-pricing and displaying certain order types and
order type instructions applicable to Pilot Securities in Test Group
Three. The proposed changes to order behavior for Pilot Securities in
Test Group Three are designed to comply with the Trade-at Prohibition
by changing the ranking and working price of orders that trade at non-
displayed prices unless the execution is eligible for an exception.
     Proposed Rule 7.46(f)(5)(A)(i)-(iv) would provide for the
priority of resting orders at each price point for Pilot Securities in
Test Group Three. Rule 7.36P(e) sets forth the priority of orders for
all other securities, including that Priority 1--Market Orders always
have first priority. In addition, protected quotations are not included
in the ranking in Rule 7.36P(e) because at a price point, the Exchange
may trade with all displayed and non-displayed interest before routing
to a protected quotation. In order to meet the requirements of the
Trade-at Prohibition, the Exchange proposes to revise the priority of
resting orders, as follows:
    [cir] First priority would be given to Priority 2--Display Orders,
which are non-marketable Limit Orders with a displayed working price.
This is consistent with the Trade-at Prohibition, whose objective is to
promote the display of liquidity and generally to prevent any Trading
Center that is not quoting from price-matching protected quotations.
    Second priority would be given to protected quotations of Away
Markets. This would be a new priority category that would be applicable
only to Pilot Securities in Test Group Three and would reflect the
requirement in the Trade-at Prohibition to trade with protected
quotations on Away Markets before trading with any undisplayed interest
at a price.
    [cir] Third priority would be given to Priority 3--Market Orders,
which are unexecuted Market Orders. Because unexecuted Market Orders
are not displayed, such orders would have priority behind protected
quotations at the same price on Away Markets. Ranking unexecuted Market
Orders next is consistent with the current ranking process, pursuant to
which Market Orders are ranked ahead of non-displayed Limit Orders.
    [cir] Fourth priority would be given to Priority 3--Non-Display
Orders, which are non-marketable Limit Orders for which the working
price is not displayed, including reserve interest of Reserve Orders.
This proposed ranking is consistent with the ranking set forth in Rule
7.36P(e). As described below, because the Exchange would not be
offering Tracking Orders in Pilot Securities in Test Group Three,
proposed Rule 7.46(f)(5)(A) would not need to reference Priority 4--
Tracking Orders.
     Proposed Rule 7.46(f)(5)(B) would provide that orders
would not be routed to Away Markets that are not displaying protected
quotations. As defined in Rule 1.1(ffP), the term ``Away Market''
includes alternative trading systems and other broker-dealers with
which NYSE Arca Marketplace maintains an electronic linkage and which
provides instantaneous responses to orders routed from the NYSE Arca
Marketplace. However, because such markets do not display protected
quotations, the Exchange will not route orders in Pilot Securities in
Test Group Three to such Away Markets.
     Proposed Rule 7.46(f)(5)(C) would provide that the display
price of Limit Orders to buy (sell) repriced under Rule 7.31P(a)(2)(C)
would be the same as provided for in that rule, but the working price
of such orders would be the same as the display price. Rule
7.31P(a)(2)(C) specifies re-pricing of displayed Limit Orders to
prevent the Exchange from locking or crossing the PBBO. Under such re-
pricing, the Exchange assigns a display price one MPV below (above) the
contra-side PBO (PBB), and a working price equal to the contra-side
PBBO. As proposed, in Test Group Three, to avoid ranking orders
undisplayed at the price of a protected quotation, the Exchange
proposes to assign a working price equal to the re-priced display price
under Rule 7.31P(a)(2)(C).
     Proposed Rule 7.46(f)(5)(D) would apply to Reserve Orders
in Pilot Securities in Test Group Three, and would provide that if a
Reserve Order to buy (sell) is displayed at a price that is locked or
crossed by a protected offer (bid), the portion of the Reserve Order
that is not displayed would be assigned a working price of $0.05 below
(above) the protected offer (bid), but if routable, would route to a
protected offer (bid) based on the limit price of the order. A Reserve
Order is defined in Rule 7.31P(d)(1) as a Limit or Inside Limit Order
with a quantity of the size displayed and with a reserve quantity of
the size (``reserve interest'') that is not displayed. The displayed
quantity of a Reserve Order is ranked Priority 2--Display Orders and
the reserve interest is ranked Priority 3--Non-Display Orders. Both the
display quantity and the reserve interest of an arriving marketable
Reserve Order are eligible to trade with resting interest in the NYSE
Arca Book or route to Away Markets.
     Proposed Rule 7.46(f)(5)(E) would provide that if the
limit price of a

resting Limit Non-Displayed Order to buy (sell) is equal to or higher
(lower) than the PBO (PBB), it would have a working price $0.05 below
(above) the PBO (PBB). Under Rule 7.31P(d)(2)(A), if the limit price of
a Limit Non-Displayed Order to buy (sell) is equal to the PBO (PBB), it
will be assigned a working price equal to the limit price, i.e., the
same price as the PBO (PBB). To avoid ranking non-displayed orders at
the price of the PBBO, the Exchange proposes that for Pilot Securities
in Test Group Three, a Limit Non-Displayed Order would be assigned a
working price one MPV off of the PBBO.
     Proposed Rule 7.46(f)(5)(F) relates to orders in Pilot
Securities in Test Group Three with instructions not to route, as
defined in Rule 7.31P(e).\28\ As proposed in Rule 7.46(f)(5)(F)(i), on
arrival, orders with instructions not to route would trade with resting
orders in the NYSE Arca Book consistent with the terms of the order and
the Trade-at Prohibition. Because an ETP Holder that enters a Day ISO
to buy (sell) must simultaneously route one or more limit orders to
execute against the full displayed size of any protected offer (bid),
an ETP Holder entering a Day ISO would have met the obligations
specified in Rule 7.46(e)(4)(C)(ix). Accordingly, proposed Rule
7.46(f)(5)(F)(i)(A) would provide that on arrival, Day ISOs would be
eligible for the exception set forth in Rule 7.46(e)(4)(C)(ix).
Additionally, proposed Rule 7.46(f)(5)(F)(i)(B) would provide that an
IOC ISO to buy (sell) would not trade with orders to sell (buy) ranked
Priority 1--Market Orders or Priority 3--Non-Display Orders that are
the same price as a protected offer (bid) unless the limit price of
such IOC ISO is higher (lower) than the price of the protected offer
(bid). As such, an arriving IOC ISO would be permitted to trade with
undisplayed orders resting on the NYSE Arca Book only if the limit
price of the arriving IOC ISO order is better than the PBBO. This would
be permitted under the Trade-at Prohibition because to enter an IOC ISO
to buy (sell) at a price higher (lower) than PBO (PBB), the entering
firm would have been required to simultaneously route limit orders to
execute against the full displayed size of the PBO (PBB).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ The proposed rule would be applicable to Arca Only Orders,
ALO Orders and Intermarket Sweep Orders. An Arca Only Order is a
Limit Order that does not route. See Rule 7.31P(e)(1). An ALO Order
is an Arca Only Order that, with some exceptions, will not remove
liquidity from the NYSE Arca Book and must have a minimum on one
displayed round lot. See Rule 7.31P(e)(2). An Intermarket Sweep
Order is a Limit Order that does not route and meets the
requirements of Rule 600(b)(30) of Regulation NMS. See Rule
7.31P(e)(3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Proposed Rule 7.46(f)(5)(F)(ii) would provide that when an
Arca Only Order or ALO Orders is being added to the NYSE Arca Book,
such orders to buy (sell) with a limit price equal to or above (below)
the PBO (PBB) would be assigned a display price and working price one
MPV below (above) the PBO (PBB). Currently, Rule 7.31P(e)(1)(A)(i)
provides that an Arca Only Order to buy (sell) is priced with a working
price of the PBO (PBB) and a display price one MPV below (above) the
PBO (PBB). For Pilot Securities in Test Group Three, to avoid assigning
a working price that is equal to the PBBO and that differs from a
display price, the Exchange proposes that the working price of an Arca
Only would be the same as the display price.
     Proposed Rule 7.46(f)(5)(iii) would provide that once an
Arca Only Order or ALO Order to buy (sell) is resting on the NYSE Arca
Book, such orders would not be eligible to trade with later-arriving
orders to sell (buy) ranked Priority 2--Display Orders priced equal to
the PBO (PBB). The proposed rule further provides that a later-arriving
order to buy (sell) that is eligible to trade with the PBO (PBB) may
trade before such resting order. This proposed rule text makes clear
that once an Arca Only is assigned a working price, it will not be
repriced if the PBBO does not change. In such case, a later-arriving
order that is on the same side of the market as the resting Arca Only
Order and is eligible to trade with the PBBO may trade ahead of the
resting Arca Only Order. For example, assume that the Exchange receives
an Arca Only Order to buy (``A'') priced at $10.15 and the PBO is
$10.10 and the Exchange Best Offer is $10.15. On arrival, pursuant to
proposed Rule 7.46(f)(5)(ii), Order A would be assigned both a working
and display price of $10.05, i.e., one MPV below the PBO of $10.10.
Assume now the Exchange receives a sell order priced at $10.10. The
Exchange publishes this offer because it matches the price of the away
PBO. Assume next that the Exchange receives another Arca Only Order to
buy (``B'') priced at $10.15. On arrival, Order B will trade consistent
with the terms of the order and the Trade-at Prohibition, and therefore
may trade with the Exchange's displayed offer at $10.10. In such case,
even though Order A was received before Order B, Order A would not be
repriced to trade with the Exchange offer at $10.10. Any remaining
quantity of Order B would be added to the NYSE Arca Book at $10.05,
i.e., one MPV below the away market PBO. At this point, consistent with
Rule 7.36P(f)(1), Order B would be assigned a working time after Order
A's working time, and therefore, for any subsequent executions at that
price point, Order A would trade before Order B.
     Proposed Rule 7.46(f)(5)(G) would provide that the only
orders eligible for the exception set forth in Rule 7.46(e)(4)(C)(iii)
would be Limit IOC Cross Orders that meet the Block Size definition
under the Plan. A Limit IOC Cross Order is defined in Rule 7.31P(g)(1)
as a two-sided order with instructions to match the buy-side with the
identified sell-side at a specified price and that does not route and
will cancel at the time of entry if the cross price is not between the
BBO or would trade through the PBBO. Rule 7.46(e)(4)(iii), described in
more detail above, sets forth the Block Size exception to the Trade-At
Prohibition. The Exchange believes that orders that meet the Block Size
definition and that are entered as a Limit IOC Cross Order would meet
this exception because such orders are required to trade in full at
price or be rejected, e.g., if at the same price as the BBO. Currently,
the Limit IOC Cross Order is designed to comply with Rule 611(b) of
Regulation NMS in that it is permitted to trade at the PBBO, provided
it does not trade at the Exchange BBO. For Pilot Securities in Test
Group Three, a Limit IOC Cross Order that meets the Block Size
definition would therefore operate no differently than Limit IOC Cross
Orders of any size in any other security. However, because Limit IOC
Cross Orders that do not meet the Block Size definition would not be
eligible to trade at the PBBO, the Exchange proposes to provide that a
Limit IOC Cross Order that is at the same price as the PBBO but does
not meet the Plan's Block Size definition would be rejected.
     Proposed Rule 7.46(f)(5)(H) would provide that Market
Pegged Orders and Tracking Orders would be rejected. The Exchange
proposes to reject these order types for Pilot Securities in Test Group
Three because they are designed in compliance with Rule 611 to be non-
displayed orders that price match protected quotations, which would be
prohibited under the Trade-at Prohibition.
    As described in Rule 7.31P(d)(4), a Tracking Order is an order that
is not displayed, does not route, and will trade only with an order
that is eligible to trade. The working price of a Tracking Order is the
same-side PBBO. As further described in Rule 7.31P(d)(4)(A), a Tracking
Order does not trade on arrival and is triggered to trade by a contra-
side order that has (i) exhausted all other interest eligible to trade
at the Exchange,

(ii) has a remaining quantity equal to or less than the size of the
resting Trading Order, and (iii) would otherwise route to an Away
Market. As such, the Tracking Order is designed in compliance with Rule
611 to be resting non-displayed interest, priced at the PBBO, and that
would be triggered to trade only by an order that would otherwise route
and in so doing, price-matches Away Market protected quotations.
    Similarly, as described in Rule 7.31P(h)(1), once resting on the
NYSE Arca Book, a Market Pegged Order is a non-displayed order with a
working price pegged to the contra-side PBBO. As such, the Market
Pegged Order is designed to be in compliance with Rule 611 to price
match protected quotations. As discussed above, unlike Rule 611(b) of
Regulation NMS, the Trade-At Prohibition applicable for Pilot
Securities in Test Group Three prevents a trading center that was not
quoting from price-matching protected quotations. Because both Tracking
Orders and Market Pegged Orders are designed as non-displayed resting
orders that price-match protected quotations, which would not be
permitted in Test Group Three, these order types are inconsistent with
the Plan. Therefore, the Exchange proposes not to make these order
types available in Test Group Three. As proposed, Tracking Orders or
Market Pegged Orders entered in Test Group Three Pilot Securities would
be rejected. The Exchange believes that rejecting such orders in Pilot
Securities for Test Group Three would promote transparency in the
Exchange's rule book that the Tracking Order and Market Pegged Order
functionality would not be available under the Trade-at Prohibition.
Proposed Amendments to Other Exchange Rules
    The Exchange also proposes amendments to Rule 7.11P, which governs
the Limit Up/Limit Down (``LULD'') price controls pursuant to the NMS
Plan to Address Extraordinary Market Volatility (``LULD Plan''),\29\
Rule 7.31P(a)(2)(B) governing Limit Order Price Protection, and Rule
7.35P(a)(8) governing the definition of Indicative Match Price. These
proposed rule changes are designed to facilitate compliance with the
Plan and would be applicable across all securities that trade at the
Exchange, regardless of the applicable MPV.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 67091 (May 31,
2012), 77 FR 33498 (June 6, 2012) (File No. 4-631).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In particular, the Exchange proposes to add a new subsection (9) to
Rule 7.11P(a) that would specify that, after the Exchange opens or
reopens an Exchange-listed security but before receiving Price Bands
from the SIP under the LULD Plan, the Exchange will calculate Price
Bands based on the first Reference Price provided to the SIP and, if
such Price Bands are not in the MPV for the security, round such Price
Bands to the nearest price at the applicable MPV. The Exchange would
apply this standard rounding calculation regardless of the MPV of the
security. As described above, pursuant to proposed Rule 7.46(f)(2)(A),
references to MPV in Exchange rules instead mean the quoting MPV
specified in Rules 7.46(c), (d), and (e).
    The Exchange also proposes to amend Rule 7.31P(a)(2)(B), which
describes the circumstance under which a Limit Order would be rejected,
to specify that Limit Order Price Protection for both buy and sell
orders that are not in the MPV for the security, as defined in Rule
7.6, would be rounded down to the nearest price at the applicable MPV.
The Exchange further proposes to amend Rule 7.35P regarding Indicative
Match Price. Under Rule 7.35P(a)(8), Indicative Match Price means the
best price at which the maximum volume of shares, including non-
displayed quantity of Reserve Orders, is tradable in the applicable
auction, subject to the Auction Collars. The Exchange proposes to
specify, as proposed in Rule 7.35P(a)(8)(F), that unless the Indicative
Match Price is based on the midpoint of an Auction NBBO, if the
Indicative Match Price is not in the MPV for the security, it would be
rounded to the nearest price at the applicable MPV. In both such
rounding scenarios, for Tick Pilot Securities, pursuant to proposed
Rule 7.46(f)(2)(A), references to MPV in these rules would instead mean
the quoting MPV specified in Rules 7.46(c), (d), and (e).
Proposed Non-Substantive Amendments to Rule 7.46
    Finally, the Exchange proposes to make non-substantive, technical
amendments to Rule 7.46. First, the Exchange proposes to amend Rule
7.46(a)(1)(D)(ii) to add the word ``displayed'' between the words
``full'' and ``size'' so that the full clause would provide ``are
routed to execute against the full displayed size of any protected
bid.'' This proposed amendment makes the rule text parallel with the
existing rule text that provides ``or the full displayed size of any
protected offer.'' Second, the Exchange proposes to amend Rule
7.46(e)(4)(C)(xv) to correct a typographical error and change the word
``bond'' to ``bona'' when using the phrase ``bona fide error.''
Implementation Date
    If the Commission approves the proposed rule changes, the proposed
rule changes will be effective upon Commission approval and shall
become operative upon the commencement of the Pilot Period.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section
6(b) of the Act \30\ in general, and furthers the objectives of Section
6(b)(5) of the Act \31\ in particular, in that it is designed 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. The Plan requires the
Exchange to establish, maintain, and enforce written policies and
procedures that are reasonably designed to comply with applicable
quoting and trading requirements specified in the Plan. The proposed
rule change is designed to comply with the Plan, reduce complexity and
enhance system resiliency while not adversely affecting the data
collected under the Plan. Therefore, the Exchange believes that the
proposed rule changes are reasonably designed to comply with applicable
quoting and trading requirements specified in the Plan and, as
discussed further below, other applicable regulations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange believes that the proposed changes to order behavior
for Pilot Securities in Test Group Three would remove impediments to
and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national
market system because they are designed, and necessary, to modify order
behavior to comply with the Trade-at Prohibition by eliminating the
ability for orders with a non-displayed working price to price match
protected quotations. As the Commission noted in the Tick Plan Approval
Order, the Plan is reasonably designed to provide measurable data that
should facilitate the ability of the Commission, the public, and market
participants to review and analyze the effect of tick size on the
trading, liquidity, and market quality of

securities of smaller capitalization companies.\32\ The Plan thus
provides for a mechanism to provide a data-driven approach to evaluate
whether certain changes to market structure for Pilot Securities would
be consistent with the Commission's mission to protect investors,
maintain fair and orderly and efficient markets, and facilitate capital
formation.\33\ By having three test groups, the data that will be
collected will demonstrate how behavior will change based on the
differing requirements of the test groups. Because there are different
requirements for the three Test Groups, a logical consequence is that
order behavior will change depending on the requirements of each Test
Group, which is the purpose of having a pilot with three test groups.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \32\ See Tick Plan Approval Order, supra note 6, at 27529.
    \33\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With respect to Pilot Securities in Test Group Three, the
Commission recognized the particular complexity of implementing and
complying with the Trade-at Prohibition, including that trading centers
would need to ``monitor protected quotations on other trading centers
and prevent an execution that would match the price of any such
quotation unless the trading center itself was displaying a protected
quotation'' and that ``compliance with the Trade-at Prohibition would
require systems changes by trading centers.'' \34\ Trading centers that
are not registered exchanges will be able to implement compliance with
the Trade-at Prohibition by modifying the behavior of order types that
currently price match protected quotations and without public notice
and without filing any rule changes with the Commission. Such modified
behavior would be applicable, and indeed required, only for Pilot
Securities in Test Group Three. Applying the modified order behavior
for compliance with the Trade-at Prohibition to Pilot Securities in
other Test Groups would moot the differences between the Test Groups,
which would thwart the ability to assess any meaningful differences in
order behavior for the three Test Groups.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \34\ Id. at 27530.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As a trading center, the Exchange must also modify behavior of
order types to comply with the Trade-at Prohibition. However, as a
registered exchange, the Exchange has rules that are filed with the
Commission that describe in detail order behavior, including current
order behavior that is designed in compliance with Rules 610(d) and 611
of Regulation NMS. These existing rules provide for non-displayed order
types to price match protected quotations even if not displaying a
quote at that price. Unlike a trading center that is not a registered
exchange, the Exchange is required to file a proposed rule change to
describe how it would modify order behavior in compliance with the
Plan.\35\ For the Exchange to implement compliance with the Plan, and
specifically the requirements of the Trade-at Prohibition, the Exchange
assessed its order type behavior and identified those changes that
would be necessary to prevent an execution on a non-displayed order
that would match the price of protected quotation unless that Away
Market is displaying a protected quotation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \35\ Section 19(b)(1) of the Act requires that each self-
regulatory organization shall file with the Commission, in
accordance with Rule 19b-4 thereunder, copies of any proposed rule
or any proposed change in, addition to, or deletion from the rules
of such self-regulatory organization. 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    More specifically, the Exchange believes that the proposed changes
regarding ISOs, MPL Orders, Market Pegged Orders, Tracking Orders, RPI
Orders, priority of resting orders, Reserve Orders, Limit Non-Displayed
Orders and Orders with instructions not to route are consistent with
the Act because they are intended to modify the Exchange's system to
comply with the provisions of the Plan and the different requirements
for the three Test Groups and are designed to assist the Exchange in
meeting its regulatory obligations pursuant to the Plan. For Pilot
Securities in Test Group Three, the Exchange believes that the proposed
modifications to order behavior are designed to prevent executions of
orders with a non-displayed working price from price matching a
protected quotation. These are precisely the type of order behavior
changes contemplated by the Plan; complying with the Trade-at
Prohibition by definition requires differing order behavior as compared
to the other Test Groups or the control group. For example, both
Tracking Orders and Market Pegged Orders are designed in compliance
with Rule 611, which permits non-displayed orders to price match a
protected quotation. If such orders cannot trade at the price of the
PBBO, such order types are moot; there is no alternate behavior for
such orders. As such, the Exchange proposes to reject those order types
in Pilot Securities in Test Group Three. Similarly, the Exchange
proposes that order types with a non-displayed working price that is
equal to the PBBO would be re-priced to assure that such orders would
not price match a protected quotation in violation of the Trade-at
Prohibition. The Exchange would not apply these order behavior changes
to Pilot Securities in Test Groups One and Two because to do so would
subvert the quality of data collected; Test Groups One and Two do not
have the Trade-at Prohibition and therefore non-displayed orders in
those Test Groups may price match a protected quotation, provided such
executions are in the applicable MPV for the security. Because these
proposed rule changes are intended to comply with the Plan, the
Exchange believes that these proposals are in furtherance of the
objectives of the Plan, as identified by the Commission, and are
therefore consistent with the Act.
    The Exchange further believes that the proposed amendments to Rules
7.11P, 7.31P(a) and 7.35P would remove impediments to and perfect the
mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system as
they provide transparency regarding (1) how the Exchange would
calculate and round Price Bands under the LULD Plan after the Exchange
opens or reopens an Exchange-listed security but before receiving Price
Bands from the SIP, (2) that Limit Order Price Protection for both buy
and sell orders that are not in the MPV for the security will be
rounded down to the nearest price at the applicable MPV, and (3) when
the Exchange would round down the Indicative Match Price if it is not
in the MPV for an applicable security. The Exchange proposes to
implement these changes for all securities, not only Pilot Securities
under the Plan. As provided for in proposed Rule 7.46(f)(2)(A), any
references to MPV in these rules would instead mean the quoting MPV
specified in Rule 7.46(c), (d), and (e).

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. The proposed rule change is
intended to assist the Exchange in meeting its regulatory obligations
pursuant to the Plan, reduce system complexity and enhance resiliency.
The Plan requires all trading centers, including over-the-counter
markets, to implement changes to comply with the requirements of the
Plan and specifically the Trade-at Prohibition. The Exchange fully
expects that, in order to comply with the Trade-at Prohibition, trading
centers other than registered exchanges will modify the behavior of
orders for Pilot Securities in Test Group Three that will

not be applied to Pilot Securities in Test Groups One and Two. Unlike
such trading centers, as a self-regulatory organization, under Section
19(b)(1) of the Act,\36\ the Exchange is required to file proposed rule
changes for any modifications to order behavior that it proposes for
the Plan. The absence of Commission approval of these proposed rule
changes would impose a burden on competition that is not necessary or
appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act because trading
centers that are not registered exchanges would be able to implement
changes to comply with the Plan, but the Exchange would not. The
Exchange believes that a disapproval of the Exchange's proposed rules
would therefore put the Exchange at a competitive disadvantage vis-
[agrave]-vis the over-the-counter markets because such trading centers
would be able to modify the behavior of non-displayed orders in Test
Group Three without restriction. The Exchange further notes that the
proposed rule change will apply equally to all ETP Holders that trade
Pilot Securities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \36\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

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

    The Exchange respectfully requests accelerated effectiveness of
this proposed rule change pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act.\37\
The Exchange believes that there is good cause for the Commission to
accelerate effectiveness because the proposed rule changes are designed
to specify procedures for the handling, executing, re-pricing and
displaying of certain order types and order type instructions
applicable to Pilot Securities in Test Groups One, Two, and Three. In
determining the scope of these proposed changes to implement the Plan,
the Exchange reviewed its order types and identified which orders and
instructions would be inconsistent with the Plan and propose to modify
the operation of such order types so they will comply with the Plan,
or, to the extent inconsistent with the Plan, eliminate them. These
proposed changes are consistent with the protection of investors and
the public interest because they are designed to comply with the Plan
and to allow the Exchange to meet its regulatory obligations under the
Plan. Because the Plan will be implemented beginning on October 3,
2016, the Exchange believes there is good cause to accelerate
effectiveness so that the Exchange may implement the proposed changes
concurrent with the implementation date of the Plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-NYSEARCA-2016-123 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NYSEARCA-2016-123. This
file number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of
10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available
for inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All
comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does
not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should
submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All
submissions should refer to File Number SR-NYSEARCA-2016-123, and
should be submitted on or before September 29, 2016.

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

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

Brent J. Fields,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2016-22150 Filed 9-14-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P