[Federal Register: September 7, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 173)]
[Notices]
[Page 51431-51433]
[DOCID:fr07se07-59]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. PF07-12-000]

Dominion Transmission, Inc.; Notice of Intent to Prepare an
Environmental Assessment for the Proposed Storage Factory Project,
Request for Comments on Environmental Issues, and Notice of Public
Scoping Meetings and Site Visit

August 29, 2007.
    The staff of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or
Commission) will prepare an environmental assessment (EA) that will
discuss the environmental impacts of the Storage Factory Project,
involving construction and operation of facilities by Dominion
Transmission, Inc. (Dominion) in Clinton, Elk, and Tioga Counties,
Pennsylvania. The EA will be used by the Commission in its decision-
making process to determine whether the project is in the public
convenience and necessity.
    This notice announces the opening of the scoping period that will
be used to gather environmental input from the public and interested
agencies on the project. Your input will help the Commission staff
determine which issues need to be evaluated in the EA. Please note that
the scoping period will close on September 28, 2007.
    Comments may be submitted in written or verbal form. Further
details on how to submit written comments are provided in the Public
Participation section of this notice. In lieu of sending written
comments, you may choose to attend the public scoping meeting scheduled
as follows:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Date and time                          Location
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tuesday, September 18, 2007 7 p.m. to 9     Lawrenceville Fire
 p.m. (EDT).                                 Department, 9-11 Mechanic
                                             St., Lawrenceville, PA
                                             16901. Telephone: (570) 827-
                                             2047.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This notice is being sent to affected landowners; federal, state,
and local government representatives and agencies; environmental and
public interest groups; Native American tribes; other interested
parties in this proceeding; and local libraries and newspapers. We \1\
encourage government representatives to notify their constituents of
this planned project and encourage them to comment on their areas of
concern.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ ``We,'' ``us,'' and ``our'' refer to the environmental staff
of the Office of Energy Projects (OEP), part of the Commission
staff.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    If you are a landowner receiving this notice, you may be contacted
by a Dominion representative about the acquisition of an easement to
construct, operate, and maintain the proposed project facilities. The
pipeline company would seek to negotiate a mutually acceptable
agreement. However, if the project is approved by the Commission, that
approval conveys with it the right of eminent domain. Therefore, if
easement negotiations fail to produce an agreement, Dominion could
initiate condemnation proceedings in accordance with state law.
    A fact sheet prepared by the FERC entitled ``An Interstate Natural
Gas Facility on My Land? What Do I Need to Know?'' addresses a number
of typically asked questions, including the use of eminent domain and
how to participate in the Commission's proceedings. It is available for
viewing on the FERC Internet Web site (http://www.ferc.gov).

Summary of the Proposed Project

    The Storage Factory Project would involve the leaching of two salt
caverns

and placing the first cavern in service by 2014. The project consists
of constructing leaching/pumping facilities, a brine processing
facility, water and brine pipelines, and a new compressor station for
gas storage injection/withdrawal purposes in Tioga County.
    Dominion is also proposing on-system enhancements to other existing
facilities in Pennsylvania, including piping upgrades to the
Sabinsville Storage Pool. Proposed modifications to transmission
related facilities include additional compression at Dominion's
existing Ardell Station (approximately 4,000 horsepower located in Elk
County, Pennsylvania) and approximately 7.5 miles of new 30-inch-
diameter pipeline looping in Clinton County.
    The Storage Factory Project is in the preliminary design state.
Dominion anticipates filing an application with the FERC in March 2008
and to seek the Commission's approval in time for Dominion to begin
construction by March 2009, with a proposed in-service date of January
2014.
    Project location maps are included in Appendix A.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ The appendices referenced in this notice are not being
printed in the Federal Register. Copies of all appendices, other
than Appendix A (maps), are available on the Commission's Web site
at the ``eLibrary'' link or from the Commission's Public Reference
Room, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, or call (202)
502-8371. For instructions on connecting to eLibrary refer to the
``Additional Information'' section of this notice. Copies of the
appendices were sent to all those receiving this notice in the mail.
Requests for detailed maps of the proposed facilities should be made
directly to Dominion.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Land Requirements for Construction

    The Storage Factory Project is in the preliminary planning stage.
The precise facility design, pipeline route, rights-of-way, and other
details have not yet been finalized. Specific information on the
proposed project location and the land used by it will be made
available to the public when it is finalized.
    Construction of the proposed project would affect a total of about
250.7 acres during construction. Following construction, about 160
acres would be allowed to revert to its previous conditions.
Disturbance associated with aboveground facilities would permanently
impact 51.2 acres of land.
    Dominion proposes to construct its pipeline in Clinton County and
the pipelines associated with the Sabinsville Storage Pool in existing
rights-of-way. Dominion has indicated that it would seek 100-foot-wide
construction right-of-way for the pipelines associated with the
leaching and gas storage areas.

The EA Process

    For this project, the FERC staff has initiated its National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) review prior to receiving the
application. The purpose of the Commission's Pre-Filing Process is to
involve interested stakeholders early in project planning and to
identify and resolve issues before an application is filed with the
FERC. A docket number (PF07-12-000) has been established to place
information filed by Dominion, and related documents issued by the
Commission, into the public record. Once a formal application is filed
with the FERC, a new docket number will be established. The FERC will
be the lead federal agency for the preparation of the EA which will
satisfy the requirements of NEPA.
    The NEPA requires the Commission to take into account the
environmental impacts that could result from an action whenever it
considers the issuance of a Certificate of Public Convenience and
Necessity. NEPA also requires us to discover and address concerns the
public may have about proposals. This process is referred to as
``scoping.'' The main goal of the scoping process is to focus the
analysis in the EA on the important environmental issues. By this
Notice of Intent, we are requesting public comments on the scope of the
issues that should be addressed in the EA. We will consider all
comments received during scoping in the preparation of the EA.
    Our independent analysis and evaluation of the issues will be
included in the EA. The EA will also include possible alternatives to
the proposed project or portions of the project, and we will make
recommendations on how to lessen or avoid impacts on the various
resource areas of concern. Depending on the comments received during
the scoping process, the EA may be published and mailed to federal,
state, and local agencies; elected officials; environmental and public
interest groups; other interested parties; affected landowners; Native
American tribes; libraries, and newspapers; and the Commission's
official service list for this proceeding. A 30-day comment period will
be allotted for review of the EA. We will consider all comments
submitted on the EA in any Commission Order that is issued for the
project.
    We are currently involved in discussions with other jurisdictional
agencies to identify their issues and concerns. These agencies include
the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S.
EPA Region III Groundwater and Enforcement Branch, Susquehanna River
Basin Commission, and the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental
Protection.
    By this notice, we are asking these and other federal, state, and
local agencies with jurisdiction and/or special expertise with respect
to environmental issues to formally cooperate with us in the
preparation of the EA. Agencies that would like to request cooperating
status should follow the instructions for filing comments provided
below.

Currently Identified Environmental Issues

    The EA will discuss impacts that could occur as a result of the
construction and operation of the proposed project. We have already
identified several issues that we think deserve attention based on a
preliminary review of the project site and the facility information
provided by Iroquois. This preliminary list of issues and potential
impacts may change based on your comments and our analysis.
     Impacts on perennial and intermittent streams and
waterbodies.
     Water withdrawals from Cowanesque Reservoir or other water
source.
     Evaluation of temporary and permanent impacts on wetlands
and development of appropriate mitigation.
     Effect on federally and state-listed species.
     Impacts on existing land uses.
     Visual effects of the aboveground facilities on
surrounding areas.
     Impacts on local air and noise quality associated with
construction and operation.
     Public safety and potential hazards associated with the
transport of natural gas and the proposed compressor facilities.

Public Participation

    You can make a difference by providing us with your specific
comments or concerns about the project. By becoming a commenter, your
concerns will be addressed in the EA and considered by the Commission.
Your comments should focus on the potential environmental effects of
the proposal, reasonable alternatives to the proposal (including
alternative locations and routes), and measures to avoid or lessen
environmental impact. The more specific your comments, the more useful
they will be. Please carefully follow these instructions to ensure that
your comments are received in time and properly recorded:
     Send an original and two copies of your letter to:
Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory

Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Room 1A, Washington, DC 20426.
     Label one copy of the comments for the attention of Gas
Branch 1;
     Reference Docket No. PF07-12-000;
     Mail your comments so that they will be received in
Washington, DC on or before September 28, 2007.
    Please note that the Commission strongly encourages electronic
filing of comments. See 18 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR)
385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's Internet
Web site at http://www.ferc.gov under the ``eFiling'' link and the link

to the User's Guide. Prepare your submission in the same manner as you
would if filing on paper and save it to a file on your hard drive.
Before you can file comments you will need to create an account by
clicking on ``Login to File'' and then ``New User Account.'' You will
be asked to select the type of filing you are making. This filing is
considered a ``Comment on Filing.''
    The public scoping meeting (date, time, and location is listed
above) is designed to provide state and local agencies, interested
groups, affected landowners, and the general public with another
opportunity to offer your comments on the project. Interested groups
and individuals are encouraged to attend the meetings and to present
comments on the environmental issues they believe should be addressed
in the EA. A transcript of each meeting will be made so that your
comments will be accurately recorded.
    All public meetings will be posted on the Commission's calendar
located at http://www.ferc.gov/EventCalendar/EventsList.aspx along with

other related information.
    Once Dominion formally files its application with the Commission,
you may want to become an official party to the proceeding known as an
``intervenor.'' Intervenors play a more formal role in the process and
are able to file briefs, appear at hearings, and be heard by the courts
if they choose to appeal the Commission's final ruling. An intervenor
formally participates in a Commission proceeding by filing a request to
intervene. Instructions for becoming an intervenor are included in the
User's Guide under the ``e-filing'' link on the Commission's Web site.
Please note that you may not request intervenor status at this time.
You must wait until a formal application is filed with the Commission.

Site Visit

    On September 18, 2007, the OEP staff will conduct a pre-
certification site visit of the proposed Storage Factory Project. We
will view Dominion's proposed pipeline route, route variations, and
aboveground facilities that are being considered for the proposed
project. Staff will tour the proposed project area by automobile and on
foot. Representatives of Dominion will accompany the OEP staff.
    All interested parties may attend the site visit. Those planning to
attend must provide their own transportation. If you are interested in
attending the site visit, please meet us at 1 p.m. in the parking lot
of the Lawrenceville Fire Department at 9-11 Mechanic St.,
Lawrenceville, PA 16901.
    For additional information, please contact the Commission's Office
of External Affairs at 1-866-208-FERC (3372).

Environmental Mailing List

    An effort is being made to send this notice to all individuals,
organizations, and government entities interested in and/or potentially
affected by the proposed project. This includes all landowners who are
potential right-of-way grantors, whose property may be used temporarily
for project purposes, or who own homes within distances defined in the
Commission's regulations of certain aboveground facilities. If you do
not return the attached form (Appendix B), you will be removed from the
Commission's environmental mailing list. All individuals who provide
written comments, attend the scoping meeting, or return the Information
Request will remain on our environmental mailing list for this project.

Additional Information

    Additional information about the project is available from the
Commission's Office of External Affairs at 1-866-208 FERC (3372) or on
the FERC Internet Web site (http://www.ferc.gov). Using the

``eLibrary'' link, select ``General Search'' from the eLibrary menu,
enter the selected date range and ``Docket Number'' excluding the last
three digits (i.e., PF07-12), and follow the instructions. For
assistance with access to eLibrary, the helpline can be reached at 1-
866-208-3676, TTY<PHONE_NUMBER>, or at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>The
eLibrary link on the FERC Internet Web site also provides access to the
texts of formal documents issued by the Commission, such as orders,
notices, and rule makings.
    In addition, the Commission now offers a free service called
eSubscription which allows you to keep track of all formal issuances
and submittals in specific dockets. This can reduce the amount of time
you spend researching proceedings by automatically providing you with
notification of these filings, document summaries and direct links to
the documents. Go to http://www.ferc.gov/esubscribenow.htm.

    Finally, Dominion has established an Internet Web site for this
project at http://www.dom.com/about/gas-transmission/storage/index.jsp.

The Web site includes a project overview, status, and answers to
frequently asked questions. You can also request additional information
by calling Dominion at 1-880-882-5055.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E7-17664 Filed 9-6-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 210 (Tuesday, November 1, 2022)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 65674-65675]
[FR Doc No: 2022-23458]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2022-0904; Airspace Docket No. 22-AGL-28]
RIN 2120-AA66

Amendment of Class E Airspace; Duluth, MN

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This action amends the Class E airspace at Duluth, MN. This
action supports new public instrument procedures. The geographic
coordinates of the airport are also being updated to coincide with the
FAA's aeronautical database.

DATES: Effective 0901 UTC, February 23, 2023. The Director of the
Federal Register approves this incorporation by reference action under
1 CFR part 51, subject to the annual revision of FAA Order JO 7400.11
and publication of conforming amendments.

ADDRESSES: FAA Order JO 7400.11G, Airspace Designations and Reporting
Points, and subsequent amendments can be viewed online at www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/. For further information, you can contact the
Airspace Policy Group, Federal Aviation Administration, 800
Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20591; telephone: (202) 267-
8783.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jeffrey Claypool, Federal Aviation
Administration, Operations Support Group, Central Service Center, 10101
Hillwood Parkway, Fort Worth, TX 76177; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Authority for This Rulemaking

    The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is
found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106
describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII,
Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's
authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described
in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section,
the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of
airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient
use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority
as it amends the Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above
the surface at Sky Harbor Airport, Duluth, MN, to support instrument
flight rule operations at this airport.

History

    The FAA published a notice of proposed rulemaking in the Federal
Register (87 FR 47149; August 2, 2022) for Docket No. FAA-2022-0904 to
amend the Class E airspace at Duluth, MN. Interested parties were
invited to participate in this rulemaking effort by submitting written
comments on the proposal to the FAA. No comments were received.

    Class E airspace designations are published in paragraph 6005 of
FAA Order JO 7400.11G, dated August 19, 2022, and effective September
15, 2022, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class
E airspace designations listed in this document will be published
subsequently in FAA Order JO 7400.11.

Availability and Summary of Documents for Incorporation by Reference

    This document amends FAA Order JO 7400.11G, Airspace Designations
and Reporting Points, dated August 19, 2022, and effective September
15, 2022. FAA Order JO 7400.11G is publicly available as listed in the
ADDRESSES section of this document. FAA Order JO 7400.11G lists Class
A, B, C, D, and E airspace areas, air traffic service routes, and
reporting points.

The Rule

    This amendment to 14 CFR part 71 amends the Class E airspace
extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Sky Harbor Airport,
Duluth, MN, by updating the header of the airspace legal description
from ``Duluth Sky Harbor Airport, MN'' to ``Duluth, MN'' to comply with
changes to FAA Order JO 7400.2N, Procedures for Handling Airspace
Matters; updates the geographic coordinates of the airport to coincide
with the FAA's aeronautical database; and removes the exclusionary
language from the airspace legal description as it is no longer
required.
    This action is due to an airspace review to support new public
instrument procedures.
    FAA Order JO 7400.11, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points,
is published yearly and effective on September 15.

Regulatory Notices and Analyses

    The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an
established body of technical regulations for which frequent and
routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current, is
non-controversial and unlikely to result in adverse or negative
comments. It, therefore: (1) is not a ``significant regulatory action''
under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a ``significant rule'' under
DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26,
1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation
as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter
that only affects air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is
certified that this rule, when promulgated, does not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the
criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

Environmental Review

    The FAA has determined that this action qualifies for categorical
exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act in accordance
with FAA Order 1050.1F, ``Environmental Impacts: Policies and
Procedures,'' paragraph 5-6.5.a. This airspace action is not expected
to cause any potentially significant environmental impacts, and no
extraordinary circumstances exist that warrant preparation of an
environmental assessment.

Lists of Subjects in 14 CFR 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

Adoption of the Amendment

    In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation
Administration amends 14 CFR part 71 as follows:

PART 71--DESIGNATION OF CLASS A, B, C, D, AND E AIRSPACE AREAS; AIR
TRAFFIC SERVICE ROUTES; AND REPORTING POINTS

0
1. The authority citation for part 71 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g); 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O.
10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.

71.1  [Amended]

0
2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of FAA Order JO
7400.11G, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 19,
2022, and effective September 15, 2022, is amended as follows:

Paragraph 6005 Class E Airspace Areas Extending Upward From 700
Feet or More Above the Surface of the Earth.

* * * * *

AGL MN E5 Duluth, MN [Amended]

Sky Harbor Airport, MN
    (Lat. 46[deg]43'20'' N, long. 92[deg]02'40'' W)

    That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface
within a 6.3-mile radius of the Sky Harbor Airport.

    Issued in Fort Worth, Texas, on October 24, 2022.
Martin A. Skinner,
Acting Manager, Operations Support Group, ATO Central Service Center.
[FR Doc. 2022-23458 Filed 10-31-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register: December 2, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 232)]
[Notices]
[Page 73373-73376]
[DOCID:fr02de08-114]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-59010; File No. SR-NYSEArca-2008-130]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE Arca, Inc.; Notice of Filing
and Order Granting Accelerated Approval of Proposed Rule Change To
Expand the Exception to NYSE Arca Equities Rule 3.10 To Allow
Archipelago Securities to Route Orders to NYSE Arca

November 24, 2008.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that
on November 19, 2008, NYSE Arca, Inc. (``NYSE Arca'' or ``Exchange''),
through its wholly-owned subsidiary, NYSE Arca Equities, Inc., filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'') the
proposed rule change as described in Items I and II below, which Items
have been prepared by the Exchange. The Commission is publishing this
notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change from interested
persons, and is approving the proposal on an accelerated basis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange proposes to expand the exception to NYSE Arca Equities
Rule 3.10 to allow Archipelago Securities LLC (``Arca Securities''), an
NYSE Arca affiliated member, to route orders to NYSE Arca, in its
capacity as an order routing facility of NYSE Alternext U.S., L.L.C.
(``NYSE Alternext''). A copy of this filing is available on the
Exchange's Web site at www.nyse.com, at the Exchange's principal office
and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    On September 29, 2008, the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``SEC'' or ``Commission'') approved the routing of orders by Arca
Securities to NYSE Arca and certain revisions to Exchange Rule 14.3.\3\
In that filing, the Exchange discussed Arca Securities' status as an
order routing facility of the New York Stock Exchange, LLC
(``NYSE'').\4\ In its capacity as an order routing facility, Arca
Securities receives routing instructions from the NYSE and routes
orders to various away market centers, including NYSE Arca, for
execution. The Exchange notes that Arca Securities is subject to
independent oversight and enforcement by the Financial Industry
Regulatory Authority (``FINRA''), an unaffiliated self-regulatory
organization (``SRO'') that is Arca Securities' designated examining
authority. In this capacity, FINRA is responsible for examining Arca
Securities with respect to its books and records and capital
obligations, and shares with NYSE Regulation, Inc. (``NYSE
Regulation'') the responsibility for reviewing Arca Securities'
compliance with intermarket trading rules such as SEC Regulation NMS.
In addition, through an agreement between FINRA and NYSE Arca pursuant
to the provisions of SEC Rule 17d-2 under the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934, FINRA's staff reviews for Arca Securities' compliance with
certain other NYSE Arca rules through FINRA's examination program. NYSE
Regulation monitors Arca Securities for compliance with NYSE Arca
trading rules, subject, of course, to SEC oversight of NYSE
Regulation's regulatory program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 58681 (September 29,
2008), 73 FR 58285 (October 6, 2008) (order approving NYSEArca-2008-
90).
    \4\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 55590 (April 5,
2007), 72 FR 18707 (April 13, 2007) (notice of immediate
effectiveness of SR-NYSE-2007-29). Arca Securities also currently
acts as the outbound order routing facility of NYSE Arca. See,
Securities Exchange Act Release No. 52497 (September 22, 2005), 70
FR 56949 (September 29, 2005) (SR-PCX-2005-90); see also, Securities
Exchange Act Release No. 44983 (October 25, 2001), 66 FR 55225
(November 1, 2001) (SR-PCX-00-25).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, the Exchange has established certain mechanisms
designed to address the Commission's concerns regarding affiliated
members. Pursuant to NYSE Arca Equities Rule 14.3, the Exchange has
established and implemented procedures and internal controls reasonably
designed to ensure that Arca Securities does not develop or implement
changes to its system on the basis of non-public information regarding
planned changes to Exchange systems, obtained as a result of its
affiliation with the Exchange, until such information is available
generally to similarly situated members of the Exchange in connection
with the provision of inbound order routing to the Exchange. In
addition, NYSE Regulation has agreed to collect and maintain certain
surveillance related information concerning Arca Securities. NYSE
Regulation has further agreed to provide a report to the Exchange's
Chief Regulatory Officer, on at least a quarterly basis, utilizing a
quantitative approach in assessing Arca Securities' compliance with
applicable NYSE Arca or SEC rules. By this filing, the Exchange
proposes to expand the exception to NYSE Arca Equities Rules 3.10 to
allow Arca Securities to route orders to NYSE Arca, in its capacity as
an order routing facility of NYSE Alternext.
    Recently, NYSE Alternext filed with the Commission a proposal to
use Arca Securities as its approved outbound order routing facility.\5\
Pursuant to that proposal and NYSE Alternext rules governing its
Routing Broker,\6\ Arca

Securities will receive its routing instructions from NYSE Alternext
and report any such executions back to NYSE Alternext. Arca Securities
has no discretion and cannot change the terms of an order or the
routing instructions. Moreover, each type of order is subject to the
same principles governing the Exchange's authority to route orders to
away market centers, namely: Use of Arca Securities for outbound
routing is only available to--and is optional for--NYSE Alternext
members, the primary regulatory responsibility for Arca Securities lies
with an unaffiliated SRO, and appropriate procedures are in place to
manage any conflicts of interest or potential information advantages.
In the capacity as a facility of NYSE Alternext, Arca Securities will
receive routing instructions from NYSE Alternext and will route orders
to various away market centers, including NYSE Arca, for execution.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See SR-NYSEALTR-2008-07 (filing seeking approval for Arca
Securities to operate as the outbound order routing facility of NYSE
Alternext). Arca Securities will perform only the functions
described in SR-NYSEALTR-2008-07 and the functionality approved in
SR-AMEX-2008-62. See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 34-58673
(September 29, 2008), 73 FR 57707 (October 3, 2008) (order approving
SR-AMEX-2008-62).
    \6\ NYSE Alternext recently received approval to implement Rules
13 and 17, which define the term Routing Broker and establish the
conditions under which its Routing Broker shall operate. See,
Securities Exchange Act Release No. 34-58705 (October 1, 2008), 73
FR 58995 (October 8, 2008) (order approving SR-AMEX-2008-63).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange is submitting this filing in order to expand the
exception to NYSE Arca Equities Rules 3.10 to allow Arca Securities to
route orders to NYSE Arca, in its capacity as an order routing facility
of NYSE Alternext. Specifically, NYSE Regulation has agreed with the
Exchange that it will collect and maintain the following information of
which NYSE Regulation staff becomes aware--namely, all alerts,
complaints, investigations and enforcement actions where Arca
Securities (in its capacity as a facility of both the NYSE and NYSE
Alternext, routing orders to NYSE Arca) is identified as a participant
that has potentially violated NYSE Arca or applicable SEC rules--in an
easily accessible manner, so as to facilitate any review conducted by
the SEC's Office of Compliance Inspections and Examinations. NYSE
Regulation has further agreed with the Exchange that it will provide a
report to the Exchange's Chief Regulatory Officer, on at least a
quarterly basis, which: (i) Quantifies all alerts (of which NYSE
Regulation is aware in its tracking system) that identify Arca
Securities as a participant that has potentially violated NYSE Arca or
SEC rules and (ii) quantifies the number of all investigations that
identify Arca Securities as a participant that has potentially violated
NYSE Arca or SEC rules.\7\ In addition, the agreement between FINRA and
NYSE Arca pursuant to the provisions of Rule 17d-2 under the Act, as
well as the provisions of NYSE Arca Equities Rule 14.3(e) will apply to
routing by Arca Securities to NYSE Arca in its capacity as a facility
of NYSE Alternext.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ The Exchange, NYSE Regulation, and SEC staff may agree going
forward to reduce the number of applicable or relevant surveillances
that form the scope of the agreed upon report.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange proposes that the Commission authorize NYSE Arca to
receive inbound routes from Arca Securities (in its capacity as a
facility of NYSE Alternext, routing orders to NYSE Arca) on a pilot
basis. The Exchange requests that this pilot period run concurrently
with a twelve month pilot period for NYSE Arca's receipt of inbound
routes from Arca Securities, which commenced on September 29, 2008.\8\
The Exchange believes that this pilot period is of sufficient length to
permit both the Exchange and the Commission to assess the impact of the
rule change described herein.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See supra note 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b) \9\ of the
Act, in general, and furthers the objectives of Section 6(b)(5),\10\ in
particular, in that it is designed to prevent fraudulent and
manipulative acts and practices, to promote just and equitable
principles of trade, to foster cooperation and coordination with
persons engaged in facilitating transactions in securities, and to
remove impediments to and perfect the mechanisms of a free and open
market and a national market system. Specifically, the Exchange is
submitting this filing in order to expand the exception to NYSE Arca
Equities Rules 3.10 to allow Arca Securities to route orders to NYSE
Arca, in its capacity as an order routing facility of NYSE Alternext.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \10\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

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

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

III. 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 e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-NYSEArca-2008-130 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-2008-130.
This file number should be included on the subject line if e-mail 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 inspection
and copying in the Commission's Public Reference Room, on official
business days between the hours of 10 a.m. and 3 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-2008-130 and should be submitted on or before
December 23, 2008.

IV. Commission's Findings and Order Granting Accelerated Approval of a
Proposed Rule Change

    The Commission finds that the proposed rule change is consistent
with the requirements of the Act and the rules and regulations
thereunder applicable to a national securities exchange.\11\ In
particular, the

Commission finds that the proposed rule change consistent with Section
6(b)(5) of the Act,\12\ which requires, among other things, that the
rules of a national securities exchange be designed to prevent
fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices; to promote just and
equitable principles of trade; to foster cooperation and coordination
with persons engaged in regulating, clearing, settling, processing
information with respect to, and facilitating transactions in
securities; to remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a
free and open market and a national market system; and, in general, to
protect investors and the public interest; and are not designed to
permit unfair discrimination between customers, issuers, brokers, or
dealers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ In approving this proposed rule change, the Commission has
considered the proposed rule's impact on efficiency, competition,
and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).
    \12\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the past, the Commission has expressed concern that the
affiliation of an exchange with one of its members raises potential
conflicts of interest, and the potential for unfair competitive
advantage.\13\ The proposed use of Arca Securities as the outbound
routing facility of NYSE Alternext, which the Commission approved
today, will expand the activities of Arca Securities in routing orders
to NYSE Arca.\14\ Although the Commission continues to be concerned
about potential unfair competition and conflicts of interest between an
exchange's self-regulatory obligations and its commercial interests
when the exchange is affiliated with one of its members, the Commission
believes that it is consistent with the Act to permit Arca Securities
to provide inbound routing to NYSE Arca from NYSE Alternext on a pilot
basis, subject to the conditions described above.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ See, e.g., Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 54170 (July
18, 2006), 71 FR 42149 (July 25, 2006) (SR-NASDAQ-2006-006) (order
approving Nasdaq's proposal to adopt Nasdaq Rule 2140, restricting
affiliations between Nasdaq and its members); and 53382 (February
27, 2006), 71 FR 11251 (March 6, 2006) (SR-NYSE-2005-77) (order
approving the combination of the New York Stock Exchange, Inc. and
Archipelago Holdings) at 11255; see also Securities Exchange Act
Release No. 58681, supra note 3.
    \14\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 59009 (November 24,
2008) (notice of filing and order approving SR-NYSEALTR-2008-07 on
an accelerated basis). See also supra note 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NYSE Euronext, a Delaware Corporation (``NYSE Euronext'') currently
indirectly owns Arca Securities, a broker-dealer that is a member of
NYSE Arca. In addition, NYSE Euronext indirectly owns three registered
securities exchanges--NYSE Arca, the NYSE, and NYSE Alternext. Thus,
Arca Securities is an affiliate of each of these exchanges.
    NYSE Arca Equities Rule 3.10 prohibits: (1) An NYSE Arca member
from being affiliated with NYSE Group, Inc. (``NYSE Group''); \15\ and
(2) NYSE Group, or any entity with which it is affiliated, from
maintaining an ownership interest in a member. Thus, Arca Securities's
affiliation with NYSE Arca would violate NYSE Arca rules, absent
Commission approval.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ NYSE Arca is indirectly wholly owned by NYSE Group, which
is in turn wholly owned by NYSE Euronext.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission has approved Arca Securities affiliation with, and
operation as a facility of, NYSE Arca for the provision of outbound
routing from NYSE Arca to other market centers, subject to certain
conditions.\16\ Arca Securities's operation as a facility providing
outbound routing for NYSE Arca was (and continues to be) subject to the
conditions that: (1) Arca Securities continue to operate and be
regulated as a facility of NYSE Arca; (2) Arca Securities only provide
outbound routing services; (3) the primary regulatory responsibility
for Arca Securities would lie with an unaffiliated SRO; and (4) the use
of Arca Securities for outbound routing is available only to NYSE Arca
members and use of Arca Securities's routing function remains
optional.\17\ Arca Securities also operates as a facility of the NYSE
and similarly provides outbound routing from the NYSE to other market
centers, subject to conditions similar to those listed above; \18\ and
today the Commission also approved Arca Securities operation as a
facility of the NYSE Alternext to provide outbound routing from NYSE
Alternext under similar terms.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 52497 (September
22, 2005), 70 FR 56949 (September 29, 2005) (SR-PCX-2005-90) (order
approving proposed rule changes in connection with the acquisition
of the Pacific Exchange, Inc. (``PCX,'' n/k/a NYSE Arca) by
Archipelago Holdings, Inc.). See also Securities Exchange Act
Release No. 58681, supra note 3.
    \17\ Id.
    \18\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 58680 (September
29, 2008), 73 FR 58283 (October 6, 2008) (SR-NYSE-2008-76). See also
Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 55590, supra note 4 (order
filed for immediate effectiveness to among other things, establish a
mechanism to route orders from NYSE to away market centers).
    \19\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 59009, supra note
14. See also supra note 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The operation of Arca Securities as a facility of NYSE Alternext
providing outbound routing services from that exchange will be subject
to NYSE Alternext oversight, as well as Commission oversight. NYSE
Alternext will be responsible for ensuring that Arca Securities's
outbound routing function is operated consistent with Section 6 of the
Act and NYSE Alternext rules. In addition, NYSE Alternext must file
with the Commission rule changes and fees relating to Arca Securities's
outbound routing function.
    Recognizing that the Commission has previously expressed concern
regarding the potential for conflicts of interest in instances where a
member firm is affiliated with an exchange to which it is routing
orders, NYSE Arca previously proposed, and the Commission approved,
limitations and conditions on its acceptance of orders routed from its
affiliate, Arca Securities, in its capacity as a facility of the
NYSE.\20\ The Exchange now proposes to accept inbound orders that Arca
Securities routes in its capacity as a facility of NYSE Alternext,
subject to the same limitations and conditions:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 58681, supra note
3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     First, NYSE Arca states that the agreement between FINRA
and NYSE Arca pursuant to Rule 17d-2 under the Act will apply to
routing by Arca Securities to NYSE Arca in its capacity as a facility
of NYSE Alternext. Pursuant to this agreement, FINRA is allocated
regulatory responsibilities to review Arca Securities' compliance with
certain NYSE Arca rules.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ NYSE Arca also states that Arca Securities is subject to
independent oversight by FINRA, its Designated Examining Authority,
for compliance with financial responsibility requirements. See supra
section II.A.1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Second, NYSE Regulation \22\ will monitor Arca Securities
for compliance with NYSE Arca's trading rules, and will collect and
maintain certain related information.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ NYSE Regulation is a wholly owned subsidiary of the NYSE
that performs the regulatory functions of the NYSE pursuant to a
delegation agreement. NYSE Regulation also performs many of the
regulatory functions of NYSE Arca pursuant to a regulatory services
agreement. See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 53382 (February
27, 2006), 71 FR 11251 (March 6, 2006) (SR-NYSE-2005-77) (``NYSE/
Arca Order'') at 11255.
    \23\ Specifically, NYSE Regulation ``will collect and maintain
the following information of which NYSE Regulation staff becomes
aware--namely, all alerts, complaints, investigations and
enforcement actions where Arca Securities (in its capacity as a
facility of both the NYSE and NYSE Alternext, routing orders to NYSE
Arca) is identified as a participant that has potentially violated
NYSE Arca or applicable SEC rules--in an easily accessible manner so
as to facilitate any review conducted by the SEC's Office of
Compliance Inspections and Examination.'' See supra section II.A.1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Third, NYSE Arca states that NYSE Regulation has agreed
with NYSE Arca that it will provide a report to NYSE Arca's CRO, on a
quarterly basis, that: (i) Quantifies all alerts (of which NYSE
Regulation is aware) that identify Arca Securities as a participant
that has potentially violated NYSE Arca or Commission rules, and (ii)
quantifies the number of all investigations that identify Arca
Securities as a participant

that has potentially violated NYSE Arca or Commission rules.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ See supra section II.A.1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Fourth, NYSE Arca Equities Rule 14.3(e), which requires
NYSE Euronext, as the holding company owning both NYSE Arca and Arca
Securities, to establish and maintain procedures and internal controls
reasonably designed to ensure that Arca Securities does not develop or
implement changes to its system, based on non-public information
obtained regarding planned changes to the NYSE Arca systems as a result
of its affiliation with NYSE Arca, until such information is available
generally to similarly situated members of NYSE Arca, in connection
with the provision of inbound order routing to NYSE Arca, will
apply.\25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ See id. See also NYSE Arca Equities Rule 14.3(e).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Fifth, NYSE Arca proposes that routing from Arca
Securities to NYSE Arca, in Arca Securities's capacity as a facility of
NYSE Alternext, be authorized for a pilot period to run concurrently
with a twelve month pilot period for NYSE Arca's receipt of inbound
routes from Arca Securities, which commenced on September 29, 2008.\26\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ See supra note 8 and accompanying text.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission believes that these conditions mitigate its concerns
about potential conflicts of interest and unfair competitive advantage.
In particular, the Commission believes that FINRA's oversight of Arca
Securities,\27\ combined with NYSE Regulation's monitoring of Arca
Securities' compliance with NYSE Arca's trading rules and quarterly
reporting to NYSE Arca's CRO, will help to protect the independence of
NYSE Arca's regulatory responsibilities with respect to Arca
Securities. Furthermore, the Commission believes that NYSE Arca's
proposal to allow Arca Securities to route orders inbound to NYSE Arca
from NYSE Alternext, on a pilot basis, will provide NYSE Arca and the
Commission an opportunity to assess the impact of any conflicts of
interest of allowing an affiliated member of NYSE Arca to route orders
inbound to NYSE Arca and whether such affiliation provides an unfair
competitive advantage.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ This oversight will be accomplished through the 17d-2
agreement between FINRA and NYSE Arca.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NYSE Arca has asked the Commission to accelerate approval of the
proposed rule change. NYSE Arca states in part that the proposed
changes are ``required due to NYSE Alternext's planned implementation
of a new trading system and the use of Arca Securities as its outbound
routing facility.'' \28\ NYSE Arca also states that accelerated
approval ``will permit the Exchange to amend its mechanisms that are
designed to address the Commission's concerns regarding affiliated
members in time to provide these protections at the time of NYSE
Alternext's implementation of its new trading system, which is targeted
for December 1, 2008.'' \29\ The Commission finds good cause for
approving the proposed rule change before the thirtieth day after the
date of publication of notice of filing thereof in the Federal
Register. The Commission notes that the protections proposed by NYSE
Arca, which are designed to address conflicts of interest concerns
identified by the Commission in connection with the inbound routing of
orders to an exchange when the routing broker-dealer is an affiliate of
that exchange, are substantially the same as the conditions the
Exchange currently has in place to address inbound routing from NYSE,
which were previously approved by the Commission.\30\ The Commission
also notes that no comments were received in connection with SR-
NYSEArca-2008-90. Accordingly, the Commission finds good cause,
consistent with Section 19(b)(2) of the Act,\31\ to approve the
proposed rule change on an accelerated basis for a pilot period
expiring September 29, 2009.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ See SR-NYSEArca-2008-130, Item 7.
    \29\ Id.
    \30\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 58681, supra note
3. See also Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 58673, supra note
5, and 58680, supra note 18 (establishing similar protections for
inbound routing from Arca Securities to Alternext and the NYSE,
respectively).
    \31\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

V. Conclusion

    It is therefore ordered, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act,
that the proposed rule change (SR-NYSEArca-2008-130) is hereby approved
on an accelerated basis for a pilot period to expire on September 29,
2009.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\32\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \32\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Jill M. Peterson,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. E8-28530 Filed 12-1-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 82 (Monday, April 29, 2013)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 25011-25013]
[FR Doc No: 2013-10048]

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

 ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R09-OAR-2012-0853; FRL-9806-4]

Revisions to the California State Implementation Plan, Antelope
Valley Air Quality Management District, Santa Barbara County Air
Pollution Control District, South Coast Air Quality Management District
and Ventura County Air Pollution Control District

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve revisions to the Antelope Valley
Air Quality Management District (AVAQMD), Santa Barbara County Air
Pollution Control District (SBCAPCD), South Coast Air Quality
Management District (SCAQMD) and Ventura County Air Pollution Control
District (VCAPCD) portions of the California State Implementation Plan
(SIP). These revisions concern Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC)
emissions from motor vehicle and mobile equipment coating operations
and from graphic arts operations. We are approving local rules that
regulate 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 May 29, 2013.

ADDRESSES: Submit comments, identified by docket number R09-OAR-2012-
0853, by one of the following methods:
    1. Federal eRulemaking Portal: www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-
line 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: Adrianne Borgia, EPA Region IX, (415)
972-3576<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, ``we,'' ``us'' and
``our'' refer to EPA.

Table of Contents

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

I. The State's Submittal

A. What rules did the State submit?

    Table 1 lists the rules addressed by this proposal with the dates
that they were amended or revised 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/revised     Submitted
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
AVAQMD............................         1151     Motor Vehicle and Mobile   Amended 6/19/12.....      9/21/12
                                                     Equipment Coating
                                                     Operations.

SBCAPCD...........................          339     Motor Vehicle and Mobile   Revised 6/19/08.....     10/20/08
                                                     Equipment Coating
                                                     Operations.
SCAQMD............................         1151     Motor Vehicle and Mobile   Amended 12/2/05.....       4/6/09
                                                     Equipment Non-Assembly
                                                     Line Coating Operations.
VCAPCD............................           74.18  Motor Vehicle and Mobile   Revised 11/11/08....      3/17/09
                                                     Equipment Coating
                                                     Operations.
VCAPCD............................           74.19  Graphic Arts.............  Revised 6/14/11.....      9/27/11
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On October 11, 2012 for AVAQMD Rule 1151, November 18, 2008 for
SBCAPCD Rule 339, May 13, 2009 for SCAQMD Rule 1151, April 20, 2009 for
VCAPCD Rule 74.18 and October 24, 2011 for VCAPCD Rule 74.19, EPA
determined that the submittals 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 these rules?

    We approved an earlier version of the following rules into the SIP:
AVAQMD Rule 1151 on April 10, 2000 (65 FR 18901), SBCAPCD Rule 339 on
November 13, 1998 (63 FR 63410), SCAQMD Rule 1151 on May 26, 2000 (65
FR 34101), VCAPCD Rule 74.18 on April 19, 2001 (66 FR 20086) and VCAPCD
Rule 74.19 on October 25, 1005 (70 FR 61561).

C. What is the purpose of the submitted rules?

    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. AVAQMD rule 1151,
SBCAPCD rule 339, SCAQMD rule 1151 and VCAPCD rule 74.18 are rules that
regulate VOC emissions from automotive and mobile equipment coating
operations. VCAPCD rule 74.19 regulates VOC emissions from graphic arts
operations. EPA's technical support documents (TSDs) have more
information about these rules.

II. EPA's Evaluation and Action

A. How is EPA evaluating the rules?

    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). AVAQMD, SCQAMD and VCAPCD
regulate ozone nonattainment areas (see 40 CFR part 81), so Rules
AVAQMD 1151, SCQAMD 1151, VCAPCD 74.18 and VCAPCD 74.19 must fulfill
RACT.
    Guidance and policy documents that we use to evaluate
enforceability and RACM/RACT requirements consistently include the
following:
    1. ``Issues Relating to VOC Regulation Cutpoints, Deficiencies, and
Deviations; Clarification to Appendix D of November 24, 1987 Federal
Register Notice,'' (Blue Book), notice of availability published in the
May 25, 1988 Federal Register.
    2. ``Guidance Document for Correcting Common VOC & Other Rule
Deficiencies,'' EPA Region 9, August 21, 2001 (the Little Bluebook).
    3. ``State Implementation Plans; General Preamble for the
Implementation of Title I of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990,'' 57
FR 13498 (April 16, 1992); 57 FR 18070 (April 28, 1992).
    3. ``Control Technique Guidelines for Emissions from Automobile
Refinishing'' (EPA-450/3-88-009), October 1988.
    4. CARB Suggested Control Measure (SCM) for ``Automotive Coatings''
as approved by the Board on October 20, 2005.
    5. ``Control Techniques Guidelines for Offset Lithographic Printing
and Letterpress Printing,'' EPA 453/R-06-002, September 2006.
    6. ``Control Techniques Guidelines for Industrial Cleaning
Solvents,'' EPA 453/R-06-001, September 2006.

B. Does the rule meet the evaluation criteria?

    We believe these rules are consistent with the relevant policy and
guidance regarding enforceability, RACM/RACT, and SIP relaxations. The
TSDs have more information on our evaluation.

C. EPA Recommendations to Further Improve the Rule

    The TSDs describe additional rule revisions that we recommend for
the next time the local agencies modify the rules. However, these
recommendations are not currently the basis for rule disapproval.

D. Public Comment and Final Action

    Because EPA believes the submitted rules fulfill all relevant
requirements, we are proposing to fully approve them 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 these rules into the federally
enforceable SIP.

III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve a
SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and
applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a).
Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve State
choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act.
Accordingly, this action merely approves State law as meeting Federal
requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those
imposed by State law. For that reason, this action:
     Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
     does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or

safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23,
1997);
     is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the Clean Air Act; and
     does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address 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, these rules do 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, Volatile organic
compounds, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

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

    Dated: April 12, 2013.
Jared Blumenfeld,
Regional Administrator, Region IX.
[FR Doc. 2013-10048 Filed 4-26-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register: December 27, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 248)]
[Notices]
[Page 77844-77845]
[DOCID:fr27de06-118]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-54958; File No. SR-NSCC-2006-13]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; National Securities Clearing
Corporation; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed
Rule Change Relating to Harmonizing Administrative Provisions With
Affiliated Clearing Agencies

December 18, 2006.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act''),\1\ notice is hereby given that on November 3, 2006, the
National Securities Clearing Corporation (``NSCC'') filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'') the proposed rule
change as described in Items I, II, and III below, which Items have
been prepared primarily by NSCC. NSCC filed the proposed rule change
pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act \2\ and Rule 19b-
4(f)(4) \3\ thereunder so that the proposal was effective upon filing
with the Commission. 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. 78s(b)(3)(A)(iii).
    \3\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The purpose of this filing is to harmonize various administrative
aspects of NSCC's rules with the rules of its clearing agency
affiliates, the Fixed Income Clearing Corporation (``FICC'') and The
Depository Trust Company (``DTC'').

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

    In its filing with the Commission, NSCC included statements
concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and
discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The
text of these statements may be examined at the places specified

in Item IV below. NSCC has prepared summaries, set forth in Sections A,
B, and C below of the most significant aspects of such statements.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ The Commission has modified the text of the summaries
prepared by NSCC.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

1. OFAC Status and Securities Eligibility
    NSCC's Rule 3 sets forth criteria relating to the eligibility of
securities and other financial instruments that underlie contracts that
may be cleared through NSCC. NSCC proposes to add new Section 11 to
this rule that will contain language that is similar to language in
FICC's and DTC's rules. Specifically, the revised rule would provide
that securities or other financial instruments of an issuer listed on
the Office of Foreign Assets Control (``OFAC'') list of specially
designated nationals distributed by the U.S. Department of the Treasury
or of an issuer that is incorporated in a country that is on the OFAC
list of countries subject to comprehensive sanctions may not be: (a)
Submitted to NSCC by a member for processing or (b) requested by
members for inclusion on lists of securities or other financial
instruments maintained by NSCC pursuant to Rule 3.
2. Forms
    Currently, NSCC's Rule 28 states that the delivery of forms of
lists, notices, and other documents may be delivered by the use of any
media, such as magnetic tape, discs, or cards, as shall be prescribed
in NSCC's Procedures. NSCC proposes to remove the language ``such as
magnetic tape, discs or cards'' because such modes of delivery are
outdated.
3. Signatures
    NSCC proposes to amend Rule 32 with respect to acceptable forms of
signatures. Currently, this rule permits NSCC to accept documents from
members that have been executed using mechanically reproduced facsimile
signatures. The proposed rule change modernizes this rule by permitting
NSCC, at its option, to rely on any other electronic, optical, or other
similar forms of signatures in lieu of original signatures. The new
language is adapted from similar language contained in the rule of DTC
and both of FICC's divisions (the Government Securities Division and
the Mortgage-Backed Securities Division). In addition, NSCC will revise
the title of this rule from ``Facsimile Signatures'' to ``Signatures''
in order to remain consistent with the above-mentioned changes.
    NSCC believes that the proposed rule changes are consistent with
the requirements of the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder
because they are concerned solely with the administration of NSCC and
do not affect the safeguarding of securities or funds in the custody or
control of NSCC or for which it is responsible.

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

    NSCC believes that the proposed rule change will have no impact or
impose any burden on competition.

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

    NSCC has not solicited or received written comments relating to the
proposed rule change. NSCC will notify the Commission of any written
comments it receives.

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

    The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A)(iii) \5\ of the Act and Rule 19b-4(f)(4) \6\ thereunder
because it effects a change in an existing service of a registered
clearing agency that does not adversely affect the safeguarding of
securities or funds in the custody or control of the clearing agency or
for which it is responsible and does not significantly affect the
respective rights or obligations of the clearing agency or person using
the service. At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed
rule change, the Commission may summarily abrogate such rule change if
it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or
appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or
otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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 e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include

File No. SR-NSCC-2006-13 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

     Send paper comments in triplicate to Nancy M. Morris,
Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street, NE.,
Washington DC 20549-1090.
    All submissions should refer to File No. SR-NSCC-2006-13. This file
number should be included on the subject line if e-mail 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 inspection and copying
in the Commission's Public Reference Section, 100 F Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20549. Copies of such filing also will be available for
inspection and copying at NSCC's principal office and on NSCC's Web
site at http://www.nscc.com/legal/index.html. 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 submission
should refer to File No. SR-NSCC-2006-13 and should be submitted on or
before January 17, 2007.

    For the Commission by the Division of Market Regulation,
pursuant to delegated authority.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E6-22084 Filed 12-26-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 114 (Thursday, June 13, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 35656-35658]
[FR Doc No: 2013-14001]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-69719; File No. SR-NASDAQ-2013-031]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC; Order
Granting Approval to Proposed Rule Change To Amend the Attestation
Requirement of Rule 4780 To Allow a Retail Member Organization To
Attest That ``Substantially All'' Orders Submitted to the Retail Price
Improvement Program Will Qualify as ``Retail Orders''

June 7, 2013.

I. Introduction

    On February 19, 2013, The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC (``NASDAQ'' or
``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ a
proposed rule change to allow Retail Member Organizations (``RMOs'') to
attest that ``substantially all,'' rather than all, orders submitted to
the Exchange's Retail Price Improvement Program (``Program'') qualify
as ``Retail Orders.'' The proposed rule change was published for
comment in the Federal Register on March 11, 2013.\3\ The Commission
received one comment on the proposal.\4\ NASDAQ submitted a response to
the comment letter on April 24, 2013.\5\ On April 25, 2013, the
Commission extended the time for Commission action on the proposed rule
change until June 9, 2013.\6\ This order approves the proposed rule
change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 69039 (March 5,
2013), 78 FR 15392.
    \4\ See Letter to the Commission from Theodore R. Lazo, Managing
Director and Associate General Counsel, Securities Industry and
Financial Markets Association (SIFMA), dated March 11, 2013.
    \5\ See Letter to the Commission from Jonathan F. Cayne,
Associate General Counsel, NASDAQ OMX, dated April 24, 2013
(``Exchange's Response Letter'').
    \6\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 69450, 78 FR 25501
(May 1, 2013).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Description of the Proposal

    The Exchange began operating the Program after it was approved by
the Commission on a pilot basis in February, 2013.\7\ Under the current
rules, a member organization that wishes to participate in the Program
as an RMO must submit: (A) An application form; (B) supporting

documentation; and (C) an attestation that ``any order'' submitted as a
Retail Order\8\ will qualify as such under NASDAQ Rule 4780.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 68937 (February 15,
2013), 78 FR 12397 (February 22, 2012) (``RPI Approval Order'').
    \8\ A Retail Order is defined in NASDAQ Rule 4780(a)(2) as ``an
agency or riskless principal order that originates from a natural
person and is submitted to NASDAQ by a Retail Member Organization,
provided that no change is made to the terms of the order with
respect to price (except in the case that a market order is changed
to a marketable limit order) or side of market and the order does
not originate from a trading algorithm or any other computerized
methodology.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposal seeks to lessen the attestation requirements of RMOs
that submit ``Retail Orders'' eligible to receive potential price
improvement through participation in the Program. Specifically, the
Exchange proposes to amend NASDAQ Rule 4780 to provide that an RMO may
attest that ``substantially all''--rather than all--of the orders it
submits to the Program are Retail Orders as defined in Rule 4780(a)(2).
NASDAQ states that the current ``any order'' attestation requirement is
effectively preventing certain significant retail brokers from
participating in the Program due to operational constraints.
    The Exchange makes clear in its proposal that the ``substantially
all'' standard is meant to allow only de minimis amounts of orders to
participate in the Program that do not meet the definition of a Retail
Order in NASDAQ Rule 4780(a)(2) and that cannot be segregated from bona
fide Retail Orders due to systems limitations. Under the proposal, the
Exchange would require that RMOs retain in their books and records
adequate substantiation that substantially all orders sent to the
Exchange as Retail Orders met the strict definition and that those
orders not meeting the strict definition are agency orders that cannot
be segregated from Retail Orders due to system limitations, and are de
minimis in terms of the overall number of Retail Orders sent to the
Exchange.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ NASDAQ notes that the Financial Industry Regulatory
Authority, Inc. (``FINRA''), on behalf of the Exchange, will review
a member organization's compliance with these requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Comment Letter and the Exchange's Response

    The Commission received one comment on the proposal. The comment
letter expressed concern over the proposed ``substantially all''
attestation requirement primarily for four reasons.
    First, the comment letter questioned whether the proposal would
undermine the rationale on which the Commission approved the Retail
Price Improvement Program. According to the commenter, when the
Commission granted approval to the Program, along with exemptive relief
in connection with the operation of the Program, it did so with the
understanding that the Program would service ``only'' retail order
flow. To the extent the proposal would potentially allow non-Retail
Orders to receive price improvement in the Program, the commenter
suggested that the Commission should reexamine its rationale for
granting the exemptive relief relating to the Program.
    In response, NASDAQ noted that the proposed amendment is designed
to permit isolated and de minimis quantities of agency or riskless
principal orders that do not qualify as Retail Orders to participate in
the Program, because such orders cannot be segregated from Retail
Orders due to systems limitations. The Exchange also noted that several
significant retail brokers choose not to participate in the Program
currently because of the categorical ``any order'' standard, and that
the proposed ``substantially all'' standard would allow the significant
amount of retail order flow represented by these brokers the
opportunity to receive the benefits of the Program. Additionally, the
Exchange noted that the Program is designed to replicate the existing
practices of broker-dealers that internalize much of the market's
retail order flow off-exchange, and that the Program, as modified by
the ``substantially all'' proposal, would offer a competitive and more
transparent alternative to internalization.
    Second, the commenter expressed its belief that the Exchange did
not sufficiently explain why retail brokers are not able to separate
all Retail and non-Retail Orders and thereby satisfy the current
attestation requirement. The commenter expressed its belief that the
Commission should require additional explanation as to how retail
brokers could satisfy the proposed ``substantially all'' standard if
they could not satisfy the current standard, including an analysis of
the costs and benefits to retail brokers of implementing technology
changes to identify orders as Retail or non-Retail. Furthermore, the
commenter suggested that the Exchange's proposal is at odds with the
situation found in options markets where exchanges and brokers
distinguish between public and professional customers--a distinction
the commenter analogized to the Retail versus non-Retail distinction.
    The Exchange responded that several retail brokers have explained
that their order flow is routed in aggregate for retail execution
purposes and that a de minimis amount of such flow may have been
generated electronically, thus not meeting the strict Retail Order
definition. According to NASDAQ, these retail brokers have chosen not
to direct any of their significant shares of retail order flow to the
Program because the cost of complying with the current ``any order''
standard, such as implementing any necessary systems changes, is too
high. The Exchange represented that the retail brokers have indicated
their willingness to comply with the proposed ``substantially all''
standard, as well as their ability to implement the proposed standard
on their systems with confidence. The Exchange further responded that
the distinction between public and professional customers in the
options market is not like distinction between Retail and non-Retail
Orders; the former distinction turns on volume and is thus an easier
bright-line threshold to implement, while the distinction between
Retail and non-Retail Orders turns on whether the order originated from
a natural person, which imposes a higher threshold for order flow
segmentation purposes.
    Third, the commenter contended that the proposed ``substantially
all'' standard is overly vague. According to the commenter, the
Exchange's proposed guidance on what constitutes ``substantially all''
is so vague that it could allow a material amount of non-retail order
flow to qualify for the Program. The commenter suggested that, should
the Commission approve the proposal, it should first establish a
bright-line rule to define what constitutes ``substantially all''
retail order flow.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ The commenter cited one example where a ``de minimis''
transaction is defined in 17 CFR 242.101(b)(7), in connection with a
distribution of securities, as ``less than 2%.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NASDAQ responded that the proposal represents only a modest
modification of the attestation requirement. In this respect, the
Exchange noted that the proposal would permit only isolated and de
minimis quantities of agency orders to participate in the Program that
do not satisfy the strict definition of a Retail Order but that cannot
be segregated from Retail Orders due to systems limitations.
Furthermore, the Exchange noted that an RMO's compliance with this
requirement would be monitored and subject to books and record-keeping
requirements.
    Fourth, the commenter stated that the proposal may cause an
exponential increase in monitoring and recordkeeping burdens associated
with the Program. The commenter expressed its belief that it could be
especially difficult for the Exchange not just to

identify non-retail order flow, but also to monitor whether such flow
exceeded a de minimis amount. The commenter also questioned whether the
potential difficulty of the Exchange monitoring the Program might
increase the likelihood that members may be subject to unfair
discrimination in the Program's approval and disqualification process.
    In response, the Exchange noted that it will issue Equity Trader
Alerts to provide clear guidance on how the ``substantially all''
standard will be implemented and monitored. The Exchange also noted
that the Program is designed to attract as much retail order flow as
possible, and that, should RMOs begin submitting substantial amounts of
non-retail order flow, liquidity providers would become less willing to
participate in the Program. Finally, the Exchange disagreed with the
commenter's statement that a standard that provides a de minimis number
of exceptions would be any harder to enforce that a standard that
permitted no exceptions.

IV. Discussion and Commission Findings

    After careful review of the proposal, the comment letter received,
and the Exchange's response, the Commission finds that the proposed
rule change is consistent with the requirements of the Act and the
rules and regulations thereunder that are applicable to a national
securities exchange.\11\ In particular, the Commission finds that the
proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b)(5) of the Act,\12\
which requires, among other things, that the rules of a national
securities exchange be designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative
acts and practices, to promote just and equitable principles of trade,
to foster cooperation and coordination with persons engaged in
regulating, clearing, settling, processing information with respect to,
and facilitating transactions in securities, to remove impediments to
and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national
market system, and, in general, to protect investors and the public
interest; and not be designed to permit unfair discrimination between
customers, issuers, brokers or dealers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ In approving the proposal, the Commission has considered
the proposed rule's impact on efficiency, competition, and capital
formation. See 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).
    \12\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission finds that the proposed ``substantially all''
standard is a limited and sufficiently-defined modification to the
Program's current RMO attestation requirements that does not constitute
a significant departure from the Program as initially approved by the
Commission.\13\ The proposal makes clear that to comply with the
standard, RMOs may submit only isolated and de minimis amounts of
agency orders that cannot be segregated from Retail Orders due to
systems limitations.\14\ Furthermore, as the Exchange notes, RMOs will
need to adequately document their compliance with the ``substantially
all'' standard in their books and records. Specifically, an RMO would
need to retain adequate documentation that substantially all orders
sent to the Exchange as Retail Orders met that definition, and that
those orders not meeting that definition are agency orders that cannot
be segregated from Retail Orders due to system limitations, and are de
minimis in terms of the overall number of Retail Orders sent to the
Exchange. The Commission also notes that FINRA will monitor an RMO's
compliance with this requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ The Commission notes that it approved the Program on a
pilot basis subject to ongoing Commission review. The Commission
notes further that it recently approved nearly identical proposals
submitted by NYSE, NYSE MKT, and BATS-Y concerning those exchanges'
respective retail programs. See Securities Exchange Act Release Nos.
69513 (May 3, 2013), 78 FR 27261 (May 9, 2013) (NYSE and NYSE MKT),
and 69643 (May 28, 2013), 78 FR 33136 (June 3, 2013) (BATS-Y).
    \14\ While the Commission recognizes the potential benefit of
the commenter's suggestion concerning a bright-line definition of de
minimis, see supra note 10, the Commission believes that, in light
of the facts surrounding the instant proposal, the proposal, and the
guidance that the Exchange will provide to its members on this
point, is sufficiently clear. The Commission also notes that the
example the commenter cites is found in Regulation M, which governs
different circumstances than those at issue here.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Additionally, the Commission finds that the Exchange has provided
adequate justification for the proposal. The Exchange represented that,
as explained to it by several significant retail brokers, the current
``any order'' standard is effectively prohibitive, given the brokers'
order flow aggregation and management systems. The Exchange further
represented that these retail brokers indicated their systems would
allow them to comply with the ``substantially all'' standard, as
proposed. By allowing these retail brokers to participate in the
Program, the proposal could bring the potential benefits of the
Program, including price improvement and increased transparency,\15\ to
the retail order flow that these brokers represent.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ For a more detailed discussion of the Program's potential
benefits, see RPI Approval Order, supra note 7.
    \16\ The commenter also expressed concern that this proposal may
increase the Exchange's burden monitoring compliance with the
Program. The Commission finds that any potential concerns raised by
this assertion, which is disputed by the Exchange, are outweighed by
the potential benefits of the proposal; namely, that the proposal
may allow more retail orders the opportunity to participate in the
Program and to receive the attendant benefits of the Program. With
respect to the commenter's concern that members may be subject to
unfair discrimination in the approval and disqualification process
for participation in the Program, the Commission notes that it
previously found that the Program's provisions concerning the
certification, approval, and potential disqualification of RMOs are
not inconsistent with the Act. See RPI Approval Order, supra note 7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

V. Conclusion

    It is therefore ordered, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the
Act,\17\ that the proposed rule change (SR-NASDAQ-2013-031) be, and
hereby is, approved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

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

Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2013-14001 Filed 6-12-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 83 (Tuesday, May 2, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Page 20472]
[FR Doc No: 2017-08796]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings #2

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

    Docket Numbers: ER10-3145-008; ER10-3116-008; ER10-3120-008; ER11-
2036-008; ER13-1544-005; ER10-3128-008; ER10-1800-009; ER10-3136-008;
ER11-2701-010; ER10-1728-008; ER16-930-002.
    Applicants: AES Alamitos, LLC, AES Energy Storage, LLC, AES
Huntington Beach, L.L.C., AES Laurel Mountain, LLC, AES ES Tait, LLC,
AES Redondo Beach, L.L.C., Indianapolis Power & Light Company, Mountain
View Power Partners, LLC, Mountain View Power Partners IV, LLC, The
Dayton Power and Light Company, AES Ohio Generation, LLC.
    Description: Supplement to December 21, 2016 Triennial Market Power
Analysis for Northeast Region of AES MBR Affiliates.
    Filed Date: 4/25/17.
    Accession Number: 20170425-5206.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/16/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-1469-000.
    Applicants: Northern States Power Company, a Wisconsin corporation.
    Description: Notice of cancellation of Transmission Line
Coordinating Agreement No. 57 of Northern States Power Company, a
Wisconsin corporation.
    Filed Date: 4/25/17.
    Accession Number: 20170425-5145.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/16/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-1470-000.
    Applicants: Duke Energy Progress, LLC.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: DEP-Revised PPAs RS Nos.
174-177 to be effective 7/1/2017.
    Filed Date: 4/25/17.
    Accession Number: 20170425-5246.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/16/17.

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

    Dated: April 25, 2017.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2017-08796 Filed 5-1-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P