	ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

	40 CFR Parts 52 and 81

[EPA-R03-OAR-2007-0174; FRL-     ]

Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
Pennsylvania; Attainment Determination, Redesignation of the Franklin
County Ozone Nonattainment Area to Attainment and Approval of the
Area’s Maintenance Plan and 2002 Base Year Inventory

AGENCY:  Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION:  Final rule.

SUMMARY:  EPA is approving a redesignation request and State
Implementation Plan (SIP) revisions submitted by the Commonwealth of
Pennsylvania.  The Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection
(PADEP) is requesting that the Franklin County nonattainment area
(“Franklin County Area” or “Area”) be redesignated as attainment
for the 8-hour ozone national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS).  In
conjunction with its redesignation request, the PADEP submitted SIP
revisions consisting of a maintenance plan for the Franklin County Area
that provides for continued attainment of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS for at
least 10 years after redesignation.  EPA is approving the 8-hour
maintenance plan.  PADEP also submitted a 2002 base-year inventory for
the Franklin County Area which EPA is approving.  In addition, EPA is
approving the adequacy determination for the motor vehicle emission
budgets (MVEBs) that are identified in the Franklin County Area
maintenance plan for purposes of transportation conformity, and is
approving those MVEBs.  EPA is approving the redesignation request, and
the maintenance plan, and the 2002 base-year emissions inventory as
revisions to the Pennsylvania SIP in accordance with the requirements of
the Clean Air Act (CAA).

EFFECTIVE DATE:  This final rule is effective on [insert date of
publication] pursuant to the authority of 5 USC 553(d)(1).

ADDRESSES:  EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket
ID Number EPA-R03-OAR-2007-0174.  All documents in the docket are listed
in the www.regulations.gov website.  Although listed in the electronic
docket, some information is not publicly available, i.e., confidential
business information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute.  Certain other material, such as copyrighted
material, is not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available
only in hard copy form.  Publicly available docket materials are
available either electronically through www.regulations.gov or in hard
copy for public inspection during normal business hours at the Air
Protection Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region III,
1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103.  Copies of the State
submittal are available at the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental
Protection, Bureau of Air Quality Control, P.O. Box 8468, 400 Market
Street, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17105.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:  Christopher Cripps,<PHONE_NUMBER>, or
by e-mail at   HYPERLINK<EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I.  Background

On May 30, 2007 (72 FR 29914), EPA published a notice of proposed
rulemaking (NPR) for the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.  The NPR proposed
approval of Pennsylvania’s redesignation request, a SIP revision that
establishes a maintenance plan for the Franklin County Area that
provides for continued attainment of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS for at least
10 years after redesignation, and a 2002 base-year emissions inventory.
The formal SIP revisions were submitted by PADEP on December 14, 2006.
Other specific requirements of Pennsylvania’s redesignation request
and SIP revision for the maintenance plan, and the rationale for EPA’s
proposed actions are explained in the NPR and will not be restated here.
 No public comments were received on the NPR.

On December 22, 2006, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of
Columbia Circuit vacated EPA’s Phase 1 Implementation Rule for the
8-hour Ozone Standard. (69 FR 23951, April 30, 2004).  South Coast Air
Quality Management Dist. v. EPA, 472 F.3d 882 (D.C.Cir. 2006).  On June
8, 2007, in South Coast Air Quality Management Dist. v. EPA, Docket No.
04-1201, in response to several petitions for rehearing, the D.C.
Circuit clarified that the Phase 1 Rule was vacated only with regard to
those parts of the rule that had been successfully challenged.
Therefore, the Phase 1 Rule provisions related to classifications for
areas currently classified under subpart 2 of Title I, part D of the Act
as 8-hour nonattainment areas, the 8-hour attainment dates, and the
timing for emissions reductions needed for attainment of the 8-hour
ozone NAAQS remain effective.  The June 8 decision left intact the
Court’s rejection of EPA’s reasons for implementing the 8-hour
standard in certain nonattainment areas under subpart 1 in lieu of
subpart 2.  By limiting the vacatur, the Court let stand EPA’s
revocation of the 1-hour standard and those anti-backsliding provisions
of the Phase 1 Rule that had not been successfully challenged.  The June
8 decision reaffirmed the December 22, 2006 decision that EPA had
improperly failed to retain four measures required for 1-hour
nonattainment areas under the anti-backsliding provisions of the
regulations:  (1) nonattainment area nonattainment New Source Review
(NSR) requirements based on an area’s 1-hour nonattainment
classification; (2) Section 185 penalty fees for 1-hour severe or
extreme nonattainment areas; and (3) measures to be implemented pursuant
to section 172(c)(9) or 182(c)(9) of the Act, on the contingency of an
area not making reasonable further progress toward attainment of the
1-hour NAAQS, or for failure to attain that NAAQS.  In addition the June
8 decision clarified that the Court’s reference to conformity
requirements for anti-backsliding purposes was limited to requiring the
continued use of 1-hour motor vehicle emissions budgets until 8-hour
budgets were available for 8-hour conformity determinations, which is
already required under EPA’s conformity regulations.  The Court thus
clarified that 1-hour conformity determinations are not required for
anti-backsliding purposes.

For the reasons set forth in the May 30, 2007 (72 FR 29914) proposed
rulemaking, EPA does not believe that the Court’s rulings alter any
requirements relevant to this redesignation action so as to preclude
redesignation, and do not prevent EPA from finalizing this
redesignation.  EPA believes that the Court’s December 22, 2006 and
June 8, 2007 decisions impose no impediment to moving forward with the
redesignation of the Franklin County Area to attainment, because even in
light of the Court’s decisions, redesignation is appropriate under the
relevant redesignation provisions of the Act and longstanding policies
regarding redesignation requests.

In the May 30, 2007 (72 FR 29914) proposed rulemaking, EPA proposed to
find that the Franklin County Area had satisfied the requirements under
the 1-hour standard whether the 1-hour standard was deemed to be
reinstated or whether the Court’s decision on the petition for
rehearing was modified to require something less than compliance with
all applicable 1-hour requirements.  Because EPA proposed to find that
the Franklin County Area satisfied the requirements under either
scenario, EPA is proceeding to finalize the redesignation and to
conclude that the Franklin County Area met the requirements under the
1-hour standard applicable for purposes of redesignation under the
8-hour standard.  These include the provisions of EPA’s
anti-backsliding rules, as well as the additional anti-backsliding
provisions identified by the court in its rulings.  In its June 8, 2007
decision the Court limited its vacatur so as to uphold those provisions
of the anti-backsliding requirements that were not successfully
challenged.  Therefore, EPA finds that the Franklin County Area has met
the anti-backsliding requirements, see 40 CFR 51.900 et seq; 70 FR
30592, 30604 (May 26, 2005), which apply by virtue of the Franklin
County Area’s classification for the 1-hour ozone NAAQS, as well as
the four additional anti-backsliding provisions identified by the Court,
or alternatively, that such requirements are not applicable for purposes
of redesignation.  In addition, with respect to the requirement for
transportation conformity under the 1-hour standard, the Court in its
June 8 decision clarified that for those areas with 1-hour motor vehicle
emissions budgets, anti–backsliding requires only that those 1-hour
budgets must be used for 8-hour conformity determinations until replaced
by 8-hour budgets.  To meet this requirement, conformity determinations
in such areas must continue to comply with the applicable requirements
of EPA’s conformity regulations at 40 CFR Part 93.  The court
clarified that 1-hour conformity determinations are not required for
anti-backsliding purposes.

II.  Final Actions

EPA is approving the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania’s redesignation
request, maintenance plan, and the 2002 base-year emissions inventory
because the requirements for approval have been satisfied.  EPA has
evaluated Pennsylvania’s redesignation request that was submitted on
December 14, 2006, and determined that it meets the redesignation
criteria set forth in section 107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA.  EPA believes
that the redesignation request and monitoring data demonstrate that the
Franklin County Area has attained the 8-hour ozone standard.  The final
approval of this redesignation request will change the designation of
the Franklin County Area from nonattainment to attainment for the 8-hour
ozone standard.  EPA is approving the maintenance plan for the Franklin
County Area submitted on December 14, 2006 as a revision to the
Pennsylvania SIP.  EPA is also approving the MVEBs submitted by PADEP in
conjunction with its redesignation request.  In addition, EPA is
approving the 2002 base-year emissions inventory submitted by PADEP on
December 14, 2006 as a revision to the Pennsylvania SIP.  In this final
rulemaking, EPA is notifying the public that we have found that the
MVEBs for nitrogen oxides (NOx) and volatile organic compounds (VOCs) in
the Franklin County Area for the 8-hour ozone maintenance plan are
adequate and approved for conformity purposes.  As a result of our
finding, the Franklin County Area must use the MVEBs from the submitted
8-hour ozone maintenance plan for future conformity determinations.  The
adequate and approved MVEBs are provided in the following table:

Adequate and Approved Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets in Tons Per Day
(TPD) –  Rounded upward to one decimal place

Budget Year	NOx	VOC

2009	12.7	7.3

2018	6.7	5.1

With respect to the 1-hour ozone NAAQS, EPA has determined pursuant to
section 181(b)(2) of the CAA that the Franklin County Area has attained
the 1-hour NAAQS for ozone.   On the basis of this determination, EPA is
also determining that the following nonattainment area requirements of
part D to Title 1 of the CAA are not applicable to the Franklin County
Area for so long as it continues to attain the 1-hour NAAQS for ozone:
The requirements of section 172(c)(1) concerning the submission of the
ozone attainment demonstration and reasonably available control measure
requirements, the requirements of section 172(c)(2) concerning
reasonable further progress (RFP), and the requirements of section
172(c)(9) concerning contingency measures for RFP or attainment.  If a
violation of the 1-hour ozone NAAQS is monitored in the Franklin County
1-hour ozone nonattainment area, these determinations shall no longer
apply.

III.  Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

General Requirements

Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this action
is not a "significant regulatory action" and therefore is not subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget.  For this reason, this
action is also not subject to Executive Order 13211, "Actions Concerning
Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or
Use" (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001).  This action merely approves state law
as meeting Federal requirements and imposes no additional requirements
beyond those imposed by state law.  Redesignation of an area to
attainment under section 107(d)(3)(e) of the Clean Air Act does not
impose any new requirements on small entities.  Redesignation is an
action that affects the status of a geographical area and does not
impose any new regulatory requirements on sources.  Accordingly, the
Administrator certifies that this rule will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the
Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.).  Because this rule
approves pre-existing requirements under state law and does not impose
any additional enforceable duty beyond that required by state law, it
does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely
affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform
Act of 1995 (Public Law 104-4).  This rule also does not have tribal
implications because it will not have a substantial direct effect on one
or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal
Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, as
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).
Because this action affects the status of a geographical area, does not
impose any new requirements on sources, or allows the state to avoid
adopting or implementing other requirements, this action also does not
have Federalism implications because it does not have substantial direct
effects on the States, on the relationship between the national
government and the States, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various levels of government, as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999).  This action
merely approves a state rule implementing a Federal requirement, and
does not alter the relationship or the distribution of power and
responsibilities established in the Clean Air Act.  This rule also is
not subject to Executive Order 13045 (Protection of Children from
Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks( (62 FR 19885, April 23,
1997), because it approves a state rule implementing a Federal standard.

In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA(s role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act.  In this
context, in the absence of a prior existing requirement for the State to
use voluntary consensus standards (VCS), EPA has no authority to
disapprove a SIP submission for failure to use VCS.  It would thus be
inconsistent with applicable law for EPA, when it reviews a SIP
submission, to use VCS in place of a SIP submission that otherwise
satisfies the provisions of the Clean Air Act.  Redesignation is an
action that affects the status of a geographical area and does not
impose any new requirements on sources.  Thus, the requirements of
section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of
1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply.  This rule does not impose an
information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).

B.   Submission to Congress and the Comptroller General

The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating the
rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, to
each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United
States.  EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other
required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register.  This rule is not a
(major rule( as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

C.  Petitions for Judicial Review

Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for judicial
review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of
Appeals for the appropriate circuit by [insert date 60 days from date of
publication of this document in the Federal Register].  Filing a
petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule
does not affect the finality of this rule for the purposes of judicial
review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial
review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such
rule or action.

This action, approving the redesignation of the Franklin County Area to
attainment for the 8-hour ozone NAAQS, the associated maintenance plan,
the 2002 base-year emissions inventory, and the MVEBs identified in the
maintenance plan, may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce
its requirements.  (See section 307(b)(2).)

List of Subjects

40 CFR Part 52

Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Nitrogen dioxide,
Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements,Volatile organic
compounds.

40 CFR Part 81

Air Pollution Control, National Parks, Wilderness Areas.

                                    /s/

__________________
_______________________________

Dated:    July 18, 2007           				James W. Newsom, Acting
                     							Regional Administrator,

                                  					Region III.

40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:

Part 52 – [AMENDED]

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

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

Subpart NN-Pennsylvania

2.  In §52.2020, the table in paragraph (e)(1) is amended by adding an
entry for the 8-hour Ozone  Maintenance Plan and the 2002 Base Year
Emissions Inventory for the Franklin County, Pennsylvania Area at the
end of the table to read as follows:

§ 52.2020	Identification of plan.

*	*	*	*	*

(e) ***

     (1) * * *

Name of non-regulatory SIP revision	Applicable

Geographic area	State submittal

Date	EPA approval

date	Additional

explanation

*           *               *            *               *           *
          *

8-Hour Ozone Maintenance Plan and 2002 Base Year Emissions Inventory
Franklin County Area (Franklin County)	9/20/06

11/08/06	[Insert Federal Register publication date] [Insert page number
where the document begins]

3.  Section 52.2037 is amended by adding paragraph (m) to read:

(m)  Determination--EPA has determined that, as of [insert date of
publication], the Franklin County ozone nonattainment area has attained
the 1-hour ozone standard and that the following requirements of section
172(c)(2) of the Clean Air Act do not apply to this area for so long as
the area does not monitor any violations of the 1-hour ozone standard of
40 CFR 50.9:  the attainment demonstration and reasonably available
control measure requirements of section 172(b)(1), the reasonable
further progress requirement of section 172(b)(2), and the related
contingency requirements of section 172(c)(9).  If a violation of the
1-hour ozone NAAQS is monitored in the Franklin County 1-hour ozone
nonattainment area, these determinations shall no longer apply.

PART 81- [AMENDED]

The authority citation for Part 81 continues to read as follows:

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

In §81.339, the table entitled “Pennsylvania- Ozone (8-Hour
Standard)” is amended by revising the entry for the Franklin County,
PA Area to read as follows:

§81.339                    Pennsylvania

*          *          *          *          *

Pennsylvania – Ozone (8-Hour Standard)

Designated Area	Designationa	Category/Classification

	Date1	Type	Date1	Type

*           *           *           *           *           *
*

Franklin Co., PA:

Franklin County	[Insert date of publication]	Attainment

*           *           *           *           *           *
*

aIncludes Indian County located in each county or area, except otherwise
noted.

1This date is June 15, 2004, unless otherwise noted.

*           *           *           *           *

 PAGE

 PAGE   2

 PAGE  13


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 26 (Wednesday, February 10, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 8920-8921]
[FR Doc No: 2021-02752]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Docket ID FEMA-2020-0033; OMB No. 1660-0026]

Agency Information Collection Activities: Submission for OMB
Review; Comment Request; State Administrative Plan for the Hazard
Mitigation Program

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: 30-Day notice and request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), as part of its
continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites
the general public to take this opportunity to comment on a
reinstatement, without change, of a previously approved information
collection for which approval has expired. FEMA will submit the
information collection abstracted below to the Office of Management and
Budget for review and clearance in accordance with the requirements of
the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The submission will describe the
nature of the information collection, the categories of respondents,
the estimated burden (i.e., the time, effort and resources used by
respondents to respond) and cost, and the actual data collection
instruments FEMA will use.

DATES: Comments must be submitted on or before March 12, 2021.

ADDRESSES: Written comments and recommendations for the proposed
information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of
this notice to www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain. Find this particular
information collection by selecting ``Currently under 30-day Review--
Open for Public Comments'' or by using the search function.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Requests for additional information or
copies of the information collection should be made to Director,
Information Management Division, 500 C Street SW, Washington, DC 20472,
email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or
Roselyn Brown-Frei, Section Chief, Hazard Mitigation Division, Federal
Insurance and Mitigation Administration, FEMA<EMAIL_ADDRESS>202-924-7198.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This proposed information collection
previously published in the Federal Register on November 9, 2020, at 85
FR 71351 with a 60 day public comment period. FEMA received two
comments (see https://beta.regulations.gov/comment/FEMA-2020-0033-0002). One comment was unrelated to the information collection or
hazard mitigation. The second comment related to hazard mitigation
generally but was not specific to this information collection. The
commenter urged that States should address potentially disastrous and
readily recognizable conditions in a plan and have the condition
corrected before a disaster occurs. The commenter also urged that
States do so before underwriting any disaster relief plan. The
commenter concluded that any State applying for relief should, at a
minimum, submit a plan, which should also be subject to review of basic
stewardship verification principals outside the written plan documents.
    In response, FEMA reiterates that FEMA regulations in 44 CFR
206.437 require development and updates to the State Administrative
Plan by State Applicants/Recipients as a condition of receiving HMGP
funding under section 404 of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and
Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5170c. The State Administrative
Plan is a procedural guide that details how the State administers the
HMGP. The State, Territory, or Indian Tribal government (who acts as a
recipient) must have a current administrative plan approved by the
appropriate FEMA Regional Administrator before receiving HMGP funds.
The administrative plan may take any form including a chapter within a
comprehensive State mitigation program strategy. Additionally, States,
Territories, and Indian Tribal governments are required to have an
approved hazard mitigation plan as outlined in 44 CFR part 201. This
hazard mitigation planning process

identifies risks and vulnerabilities associated with natural disasters
and establishes a long-term strategy for protecting people and property
in future hazard events.
    This information collection expired on January 31, 2021. FEMA is
requesting a reinstatement, without change, of a previously approved
information collection for which approval has expired. The purpose of
this notice is to notify the public that FEMA will submit the
information collection abstracted below to the Office of Management and
Budget for review and clearance.

Collection of Information

    Title: State Administrative Plan for the Hazard Mitigation Grant
Program.
    Type of information collection: Reinstatement, without change, of a
previously approved information collection for which approval has
expired.
    OMB Number: 1660-0026.
    Form Titles and Numbers: None.
    Abstract: The State Administrative Plan is a procedural guide that
details how the State administers the HMGP. The State, Territory, or
Indian Tribal government (who acts as a recipient) must have a current
administrative plan approved by the appropriate FEMA Regional
Administrator before receiving HMGP funds. The administrative plan may
take any form including a chapter within a comprehensive State
mitigation program strategy.
    Affected Public: States, Territories, and Tribal governments.
    Estimated Number of Respondents: 35.
    Estimated Number of Responses: 70.
    Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 560.
    Estimated Total Annual Respondent Cost: $32,704.
    Estimated Respondents' Operation and Maintenance Costs: None.
    Estimated Respondents' Capital and Start-Up Costs: None.
    Estimated Total Annual Cost to the Federal Government: $23,930.

Comments

    Comments may be submitted as indicated in the ADDRESSES caption
above. Comments are solicited to (a) evaluate whether the proposed data
collection is necessary for the proper performance of the agency,
including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b)
evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the
proposed collection of information, including the validity of the
methodology and assumptions used; (c) enhance the quality, utility, and
clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) minimize the burden
of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including
through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or
other technological collection techniques or other forms of information
technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses.

Millicent L. Brown,
Sr. Manager, Records Management Branch, Office of the Chief
Administrative Officer, Mission Support, Federal Emergency Management
Agency, Department of Homeland Security.
[FR Doc. 2021-02752 Filed 2-9-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111-BW-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 2 (Monday, January 5, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 272-274]
[FR Doc No: 2014-30801]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-73948; File No. SR-NASDAQ-2014-124]

 Self-Regulatory Organizations; The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC;
Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To
Modify NASDAQ Rule 7018 Fees

December 29, 2014.
    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 December 16, 2014, The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC (``NASDAQ'' or the
``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') a proposed rule change as described in Items I, II and
III 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \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

    NASDAQ is proposing to modify NASDAQ Rule 7018 fees assessed for
execution and routing securities listed on execution and routing
securities listed on the New York Stock Exchange (``NYSE'') as well as
a few minor clarifications to NASDAQ Rules 7018(a)(2) and (3).
    While the changes proposed herein are effective upon filing, the
Exchange has designated that the amendments be operative on January 1,
2015.
    The text of the proposed rule change is available at
nasdaq.cchwallstreet.com at NASDAQ'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, NASDAQ included statements
concerning the purpose of, and basis for,

the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the
proposed rule change. The text of those statements may be examined at
the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared
summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most
significant parts of such statements.

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

1. Purpose
    NASDAQ is proposing to amend NASDAQ Rule 7018(a)(2) to modify fees
assessed for execution and routing securities listed on the NYSE, as
well as a few minor clarifications to NASDAQ Rules 7018(a)(2) and (3).
    Specifically, the Exchange is proposing to increase the charge for
DOT or LIST orders that execute in the NYSE closing process from
$0.00095 per share executed to $0.0010 per share executed. The Exchange
is proposing to increase the charge for DOT or LIST orders that execute
in the NYSE opening process or reopening process from $0.0005 per share
executed to $0.0015 per share executed.
    The Exchange is raising both of the above fees for DOT or LIST
orders routed to NYSE because NASDAQ is seeking to cover the cost of
routing and to reflect recent increases in the fees charged by NYSE
with respect to orders routed to it by NASDAQ. Each time NES executes
an order at an away market, NES is charged a clearing fee and, in the
case of certain exchanges, a transaction fee is also charged in certain
symbols, which fees are passed through to the Exchange.
    The Exchange currently recoups clearing and transaction charges
incurred by the Exchange as well as certain other costs incurred by the
Exchange when routing to away markets, such as administrative and
technical costs associated with operating NES, membership fees at away
markets, staffing and technical costs associated with routing orders.
The Exchange assesses the actual away market fee at the time that the
order was entered into the Exchange's trading system. This transaction
fee is calculated on an order-by-order basis since different away
markets charge different amounts. The Exchange desires to recoup
additional costs at this time.
    Additionally, NASDAQ Rules 7018(d) and (e) set forth fees assessed
for executions received in the Opening and Closing Crosses. The rule
provides a fee of $0.0004 per share executed assessed for all other
quotes and orders not otherwise noted under the rules. The Exchange is
proposing to increase the fee from $0.0004 to $0.0006 per share
executed for imbalance-only and continuous book orders in the Opening
and Closing Crosses. The proposed increases to the fees assessed for
executions in the Closing and Opening Crosses will help the Exchange
recapture some of the costs it incurs operating the cross system, while
maintaining very low fees for the execution of orders in these crosses.
    The Exchange is also eliminating NASDAQ Rule 7018(g), the
subsection concerning retail price improvement program (the
``Program'') pricing for retail orders and retail price improvement
orders, because the pilot program expires at the end of 2014.
    Finally, the Exchange is clarifying in two places in each of NASDAQ
Rule 7018(a)(2) and NASDAQ Rule 7018(a)(3) that the language regarding
DOT or LIST orders explicitly refers to a charge. These changes are
being made solely for the purpose of adding additional clarity.
2. Statutory Basis
    NASDAQ believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with
the provisions of Section 6 of the Act,\3\ in general, and with
Sections 6(b)(4) and 6(b)(5) of the Act,\4\ in particular, in that it
provides for the equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees and
other charges among members and issuers and other persons using any
facility or system which NASDAQ operates or controls, and is not
designed to permit unfair discrimination between customers, issuers,
brokers, or dealers. This proposal is reasonable, equitable and not
unfairly discriminatory for the reasons noted below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ 15 U.S.C. 78f.
    \4\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4) and (5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that increasing the fees for DOT or LIST
orders that execute in the NYSE closing from $0.00095 per share
executed to $0.0010 per share executed, as well as increasing the fees
for DOT or LIST orders that execute in the NYSE opening or reopening
processes from $0.0005 per share executed to $0.0015 per share
executed, are reasonable because the Exchange would apply such fees
uniformly and desires to recoup an additional portion of the cost it
incurs when routing such orders that execute in the NYSE closing,
opening or reopening processes.
    The Exchange believes that increasing these fees for DOT or LIST
orders that execute in the NYSE closing, opening or reopening processes
are equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because the Exchange
would assess the same increased fees to all market participants
utilizing routing for DOT or LIST orders that execute in the NYSE
opening or reopening processes.
    When routing orders to non-NASDAQ OMX exchanges such as NYSE, the
Exchange incurs costly connectivity charges related to
telecommunication lines, membership and access fees, and other related
costs when routing orders. The Exchange believes that the proposed fee
increases for DOT or LIST orders that execute in the NYSE closing,
opening or reopening processes will enable Nasdaq to recover the costs
it incurs to route such orders to NYSE. Each destination market's
transaction charge varies and there is a cost incurred by the Exchange
when routing orders to away markets, including administrative and
technical costs associated with operating NES, as well as membership
fees at away markets.
    NASDAQ also believes that the changes to the fees assessed for
participation in the Opening and Closing Crosses are consistent with an
equitable allocation of a reasonable fee and not unfairly
discriminatory. Specifically, the Exchange is proposing to increase the
fee from $0.0004 to $0.0006 per share executed for imbalance-only and
continuous book orders in the Opening and Closing Crosses. The Exchange
believes that the fees are reasonable because supporting the crosses
requires capital investment to maintain a system that facilitates an
orderly auction process, and the proposed increases are designed to
offset the costs the Exchange incurs in operating the crosses.
Moreover, the proposed fees are equitably allocated because they apply
a fee on all members that benefit from participation in the Opening and
Closing Crosses, and are based on the type of order entered and
contribution to market quality. Similarly, the proposed fees are not
unfairly discriminatory because they are based on the type of order
executed in the crosses and the benefit to market quality that such
orders provide. NASDAQ believes that the proposal to increase the
charges assessed for executions in the crosses is reasonable, equitably
allocated and not unfairly discriminatory because the increased fees
are identical in amount and apply to all members that elect to
participate in the crosses and receive an execution. Moreover, NASDAQ
does not believe that the increased fees will negatively impact
participation in the crosses as current rates assessed for the open and
closing cross continue to be materially

less than the standard fee for accessing liquidity.
    The Exchange believes that removing NASDAQ Rule 7018(g), the
subsection concerning pricing for the Program, is reasonable because
the Program is a pilot that is not being renewed so the related pricing
is made moot. The Exchange also believes that this change is consistent
with an equitable allocation of a reasonable fee and not unfairly
discriminatory because the ending of the pilot for this Program and
associated pricing applies uniformly across all Exchange members.
    The Exchange also believes that the proposed rule change
clarifications to DOT or LIST orders in two places in each of NASDAQ
Rule 7018(a)(2) and NASDAQ Rule 7018(a)(3) is consistent with the
provisions of Section 6 of the Act,\5\ in general, and with Sections
6(b)(5) of the Act \6\ in particular, in that it is designed to remove
impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and
a national market system, and, in general to protect investors and the
public interest. Specifically, this is achieved through clarifications
to the language regarding DOT or LIST orders that will now explicitly
refer to a charge and thereby promote market participants' improved
understanding of the rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ 15 U.S.C. 78f.
    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    NASDAQ does not believe that the proposed rule changes will result
in any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act, as amended.\7\ NASDAQ notes
that it operates in a highly competitive market in which market
participants can readily favor competing venues if they deem fee levels
at a particular venue to be excessive, or rebate opportunities
available at other venues to be more favorable. In such an environment,
NASDAQ must continually adjust its fees to remain competitive with
other exchanges and with alternative trading systems that have been
exempted from compliance with the statutory standards applicable to
exchanges. Because competitors are free to modify their own fees in
response, and because market participants may readily adjust their
order routing practices, NASDAQ believes that the degree to which fee
changes in this market may impose any burden on competition is
extremely limited.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(8).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In this instance, the changes to routing fees do not impose a
burden on competition because NASDAQ's routing services are optional
and are the subject of competition from other exchanges and broker-
dealers that offer routing services, as well as the ability of members
to develop their own routing capabilities. The increased fees for DOT
or LIST orders that execute in the NYSE closing, opening or reopening
processes are reflective of the Exchange's need to recover the costs it
incurs to route such orders to NYSE. In sum, if the changes proposed
herein are unattractive to market participants, it is likely that
NASDAQ will lose market share or routable order flow as a result.
Additionally, the modestly increased fees for execution in the NASDAQ
crosses are reflective of a need to support and improve NASDAQ systems,
which in turn benefit market quality, and ultimately, competition.
    Accordingly, NASDAQ does not believe that the proposed changes will
impair the ability of members or competing order execution venues to
maintain their competitive standing in the financial markets.

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

    Written comments were neither solicited nor received.

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

    The foregoing change has become effective pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act.\8\ At any time within 60 days of the filing
of the proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily
suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such
action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the
protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of
the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-NASDAQ-2014-124 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NASDAQ-2014-124. This
file number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of
10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of such filing also will be available
for inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All
comments received will be posted without change; 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-NASDAQ-2014-124 and should
be submitted on or before January 26, 2015.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Brent J. Fields,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2014-30801 Filed 1-2-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 138 (Wednesday, July 18, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 42343-42345]
[FR Doc No: 2012-17418]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-67419; File No. SR-NYSEArca-2012-71]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE Arca, Inc.; Notice of Filing
and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Relating to
Amendments to the NYSE Arca Options Fee Schedule To Increase the Posted
Liquidity Credit for Market Makers

July 12, 2012.
    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 June 29, 2012, NYSE Arca, Inc. (the ``Exchange'' or ``NYSE Arca'')
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 by the self-regulatory organization. The
Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the
proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange proposes to amend the NYSE Arca Options Fee Schedule
(``Fee Schedule'') to increase the posted liquidity credit for Market
Makers who achieve certain average electronic execution thresholds per
day in Penny Pilot issues, including an additional credit for posting
liquidity in options on the SPDR S&P 500 ETF (``SPY''), and to amend
the fees for certain broker-dealer transactions. The Exchange proposes
to make the changes operative on July 1, 2012. The text of the proposed
rule change is available on the Exchange's Web site at www.nyse.com, at
the principal office of the Exchange, and at the Commission's Public
Reference Room.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to amend the Fee Schedule to increase the
posted liquidity credit for Market Makers who achieve certain average
electronic execution thresholds per day in Penny Pilot issues,\3\
including an additional credit for posting liquidity in options on SPY,
and to amend fees for certain broker-dealer transactions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Under NYSE Arca Options Rule 6.72, options on certain issues
have been approved to trade with a minimum price variation of $0.01
as part of a pilot program that is currently scheduled to expire on
December 31, 2012. See SR-NYSEArca-2012-65.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Penny Pilot Issues
    Currently, Market Makers receive a $0.32 per contract credit for
posted electronic executions in Penny Pilot issues, regardless of the
number of electronic executions per day. The Exchange proposes to
increase the credit for posted electronic executions based on certain
volume thresholds in Penny Pilot issues, with an additional credit for
posted electronic executions in SPY, as follows:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                   Credit applied to
                                        Qualification basis        posted electronic        Credit applied to
               Tier                     (average electronic     market maker executions     posted electronic
                                        executions per day)      in penny pilot issues   market maker executions
                                                                      (except SPY)                in SPY
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Base..............................  ..........................                  ($0.32)                  ($0.34)
Tier 1............................  30,000 Contracts from                       ($0.34)                  ($0.36)
                                     Market Maker Posted
                                     Orders in Penny Pilot
                                     Issues.
Tier 2............................  80,000 Contracts from                       ($0.38)                  ($0.40)
                                     Market Maker Posted
                                     Orders in Penny Pilot
                                     Issues.
Tier 3............................  150,000 Contracts from                      ($0.40)                  ($0.42)
                                     Market Maker Posted
                                     Orders in Penny Pilot
                                     Issues.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For example, if a Market Maker has average electronic executions
per day of 40,000 contracts from posted orders in Penny Pilot issues,
the Market Maker would receive a credit of $0.34 per contract for
posted electronic executions in non-SPY Penny Pilot issues, and a
credit of $0.36 per contract for posted electronic executions in SPY.
Manual Broker-Dealer Fees
    Currently, broker-dealers are charged a fee of $0.25 per contract
for manual standard executions. There is no charge for Customer \4\
electronic executions in non-Penny Pilot issues or Customer manual
executions or a manual Firm facilitation \5\ of a Customer order. The
Exchange believes that a transaction in which a broker-dealer clearing
in the customer range facilitates a Customer order should be treated in
the same manner as a manual Firm Facilitation transaction, and
therefore proposes that there be no charge for such transactions under
the Fee Schedule. On occasion, broker-dealers will facilitate orders on
behalf of Customers. The broker-dealer may or may not be an Options
Trading Permit (``OTP'') Holder or OTP Firm, but places both the
Customer order and the broker-dealer's order with a Floor Brokerage
firm for execution in open outcry. If, for instance, the broker-dealer
is executing on behalf of its foreign subsidiary, the order will be
marked as broker-dealer but must clear in the customer range at OCC. To
qualify for the free execution, the broker-dealer's proprietary trade
must be handled by an OTP Holder or an OTP Firm on an agency basis and
the broker-dealer and the Customer must both clear through the same
clearing firm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ The term ``Customer'' excludes a broker-dealer. See NYSE
Arca Rule 6.1A(a)(4).
    \5\ The term ``Firm'' means a broker-dealer that is not
registered as a dealer-specialist or market maker on a registered
national securities exchange or association. See NYSE Arca Rule
6.1(b)(36). The fee for a manual Firm Facilitation transaction
applies to any transaction involving a Firm proprietary trading
account that has a customer of that same Firm on the contra side of
the transaction. See endnote 7 of the Fee Schedule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Fee Cap
    Currently, there is a $75,000 per month fee cap on Firm manual
executions, which excludes Strategy Executions, Royalty Fees, and firm
trades executed via a Joint Back Office agreement.\6\ The Exchange
proposes also to apply the same $75,000 cap (with the same exclusions)
on broker-dealer fees for manual executions clearing in the customer
range. For example a broker-dealer who trades in the customer range and
does not have a Customer on the contra side of the manual transaction
would continue to be subject to a $0.25 manual broker-dealer charge. In
said instances, those trades would continue to get billed at the $0.25
rate but would benefit from the new $75,000 cap.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ The Fee Schedule currently does not specify that such cap is
applied monthly; the Exchange proposes to specify that in the Fee
Schedule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange proposes to make all of the changes described above
operative on July 1, 2012.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with Section 6(b) of the Act,\7\ in general, and furthers the
objectives of Section 6(b)(4) of the Act,\8\ in particular, because it
provides for the equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees, and
other charges among its members, issuers and other persons using its
facilities and does not unfairly discriminate between customers,
issuers, brokers or dealers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that the increase in credits for Market
Makers' posted electronic executions in Penny Pilot issues and SPY is
reasonable because it would incent Market Makers to post higher volumes
on the Exchange, which will promote liquidity. In addition, the
increased credit for electronic executions in SPY is reasonable because
it is comparable to rate differentials applied to certain symbols
offered on at least one other exchange,\9\ and it will attract
additional order flow in SPY to the Exchange. Moreover, the Exchange
believes that it is reasonable, equitable, and not unfairly
discriminatory to pay Market Makers a higher credit because Market
Makers have higher obligations than other market participants, and the
Exchange would allocate the higher credit to Market Makers that make
significant contributions to market quality by providing more liquidity
at the National Best Bid and Offer.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See NASDAQ OMX PHLX LLC Pricing Schedule as of June 1, 2012,
Rebates and Fees for Adding and Removing Liquidity in Select
Symbols, available at http://nasdaqomxphlx.cchwallstreet.com/NASDAQOMXPHLXTools/PlatformViewer.asp?selectednode=chp%5F1%5F4%5F1&manual=%2Fnasdaqomxphlx%2Fphlx%2Fphlx%2Drulesbrd%2F.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that not charging a broker-dealer that clears
in the customer range for facilitating a Customer order is reasonable
because it will encourage this type of broker-dealer to facilitate
Customer orders and increase participation in open outcry, which will
in turn promote liquidity on the Exchange. In addition, the proposed
rule change is reasonable, equitable, and not unfairly discriminatory
because broker-dealers facilitating Customer orders that clear in the
customer range are performing essentially the same business as Firm
facilitation orders, in addition to maintaining Customer margin on the
account, and it is open to all broker-dealers on an equal basis.
    The Exchange also believes that including broker-dealer
transactions that clear in the customer range in the $75,000 limit on
fees for open outcry transactions for both Firms and broker-dealers is
reasonable, equitable, and not unfairly discriminatory because broker-
dealers entering orders that clear in the customer range are performing
essentially the same business as Firm proprietary orders, in addition
to maintaining Customer margin on the account.
    The Exchange notes that it operates in a highly competitive market
in which market participants can readily favor competing venues if they
deem fee levels at a particular venue to be excessive. In such an
environment, the Exchange must continually adjust its fees to remain
competitive with other exchanges.

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

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

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

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

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

    The foregoing rule change is effective upon filing pursuant to
Section 19(b)(3)(A) \10\ of the Act and subparagraph (f)(2) of Rule
19b-4 \11\ thereunder, because it establishes a due, fee, or other
charge imposed by the NYSE Arca.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \11\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-NYSEArca-2012-71 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NYSEArca-2012-71. This
file number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of
10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of such filing also will be available
for inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All
comments received will be posted without change; 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-2012-71 and should
be submitted on or before August 8, 2012.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-17418 Filed 7-17-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: April 26, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 80)]
[Notices]
[Page 24670-24672]
[DOCID:fr26ap06-65]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-SFUND-2006-0361; FRL-8162-3]

Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed Collection;
Comment Request; Trade Secret Claims for Community Right-To-Know and
Emergency Planning (EPCRA Section 322); EPA ICR No. 1428.07, OMB
Control No. 2050-0078

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) (44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), this document announces that EPA is planning to
submit a request to renew an existing approved Information Collection
Request (ICR) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). This ICR is
scheduled to expire on October 31, 2006. Before submitting the ICR to
OMB for review and approval, EPA is soliciting comments on specific
aspects of the proposed information collection as described below.

DATES: Comments must be submitted on or before June 26, 2006.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-
SFUND-2006-0361, by one of the following methods:
     http://www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line

instructions for submitting comments.
     E-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Mail: Superfund Docket, Environmental Protection Agency, Mailcode:
5305T, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460.
     Hand Delivery: EPA West Building, 1301 Constitution
Avenue, NW., Washington, DC. Such deliveries are only accepted during
the Docket's normal hours of operation, and special arrangements should
be made for deliveries of boxed information.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-SFUND-
2006-0361. EPA's policy is that all comments

received will be included in the public docket without change and may
be made available online at http://www.regulations.gov, including any

personal information provided, unless the comment includes information
claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit
information that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through
http://www.regulations.gov or e-mail. The http://www.regulations.gov
Web site is an ``anonymous access'' system, which means EPA will not
know your identity or contact information unless you provide it in the
body of your comment. If you send an e-mail comment directly to EPA
without going through http://www.regulations.gov, your e-mail address

will be automatically captured and included as part of the comment that
is placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If
you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your
name and other contact information in the body of your comment and with
any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to
technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA
may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid
the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of
any defects or viruses. For additional information about EPA's public
docket, visit the EPA Docket Center homepage at http://www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm
.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sicy Jacob, Office of Emergency
Management, 5104A, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania
Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax
number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

How Can I Access the Docket and/or Submit Comments?

    EPA has established a public docket for this ICR under Docket ID
No. EPA-HQ-SFUND-2006-0361 which is available for online viewing at
http://www.regulations.gov, or in person viewing at the Superfund

Docket in the EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC), EPA West, Room B102, 1301
Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC. The EPA/DC Public Reading Room
is open from 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding
legal holidays. The telephone number for the Reading Room is 202-566-
1744, and the telephone number for the Superfund Docket is 202-566-
0276.
    Use http://www.regulations.gov to obtain a copy of the draft

collection of information, submit or view public comments, access the
index listing of the contents of the docket, and to access those
documents in the public docket that are available electronically. Once
in the system, select ``search,'' then key in the docket ID number
identified in this document.

What Information Is EPA Particularly Interested in?

    Pursuant to section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA, EPA specifically
solicits comments and information to enable it to:
    (i) Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is
necessary for the
    (ii) Proper performance of the functions of the Agency, including
whether the information will have practical utility;
    (iii) Evaluate the accuracy of the Agency's estimate of the burden
of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of
the methodology and assumptions used; enhance the quality, utility, and
clarity of the information to be collected; and
    (iv) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those
who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated
electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or
other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic
submission of responses. In particular, EPA is requesting comments from
very small businesses (those that employ less than 25) on examples of
specific additional efforts that EPA could make to reduce the paperwork
burden for very small businesses affected by this collection.

What Should I Consider When I Prepare My Comments for EPA?

    You may find the following suggestions helpful for preparing your
comments:
    1. Explain your views as clearly as possible and provide specific
examples.
    2. Describe any assumptions that you used.
    3. Provide copies of any technical information and/or data you used
that support your views.
    4. If you estimate potential burden or costs, explain how you
arrived at the estimate that you provide.
    5. Offer alternative ways to improve the collection activity.
    6. Make sure to submit your comments by the deadline identified
under DATES.
    7. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, be sure to identify the docket
ID number assigned to this action in the subject line on the first page
of your response. You may also provide the name, date, and Federal
Register citation.

What Information Collection Activity or ICR Does This Apply to?

    Trade Secret Claims for Community Right-to-Know and Emergency
Planning (EPCRA Section 322)--EPA No. 1428.07 Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-
SFUND-2006-0361.
    Affected entities: Entities potentially affected by this action are
manufacturers or non-manufacturers subject to reporting under sections
303, 311/312 or 313 of the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-
Know Act (EPCRA).
    Title: Trade Secret Claims for Community Right-to-Know and
Emergency Planning (EPCRA Section 322).
    ICR number: EPA ICR No. 1428.07, OMB Control No. 2050-0078.
    ICR status: This ICR is currently scheduled to expire on October
31, 2006. An Agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not
required to respond to, a collection of information, unless it displays
a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's
regulations in title 40 of the CFR, after appearing in the Federal
Register when approved, are listed in 40 CFR part 9, are displayed
either by publication in the Federal Register or by other appropriate
means, such as on the related collection instrument or form, if
applicable. The display of OMB control numbers in certain EPA
regulations is consolidated in 40 CFR part 9.
    Abstract: This information collection request pertains to trade
secrecy claims submitted under section 322 of the Emergency Planning
and Community Right-to-Know Act of 1986 (EPCRA). EPCRA contains
provisions requiring facilities to report to State and local
authorities, and EPA, the presence of extremely hazardous substances
(described in section 302), inventory of hazardous chemicals (described
in sections 311 and 312) and manufacture, process and use of toxic
chemicals (described in section 313). Section 322 of EPCRA allows a
facility to withhold the specific chemical identity from these EPCRA
reports if the facility asserts a claim of trade secrecy for that
chemical identity. The provision establishes the requirements and
procedures that facilities must follow to request trade secrecy
treatment of chemical identities, as well as the procedures for
submitting public

petitions to the Agency for review of the ``sufficiency'' of trade
secrecy claims.
    Trade secrecy protection is provided for specific chemical
identities contained in reports submitted under each of the following
EPCRA sections: (1) 303(d)(2)--Facility notification of changes that
have or are about to occur, (2) 303(d)(3)--Local Emergency Planning
Committee (LEPC) requests for facility information to develop or
implement emergency plans, (3) 311--Material Safety Data Sheets (MSDSs)
submitted by facilities, or lists of those chemicals submitted in place
of the MSDSs, (4) 312--Tier II emergency and hazardous chemical
inventory forms, and (5) 313--Toxic chemical release inventory forms.
    An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required
to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a
currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's
regulations are listed in 40 CFR part 9 and 48 CFR chapter 15.
    Burden Statement: The annual public reporting and recordkeeping
burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 9.8
hours per claim. Burden means the total time, effort, or financial
resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or
disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency. This
includes the time needed to review instructions; develop, acquire,
install, and utilize technology and systems for the purposes of
collecting, validating, and verifying information, processing and
maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information;
adjust the existing ways to comply with any previously applicable
instructions and requirements which have subsequently changed; train
personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information; search
data sources; complete and review the collection of information; and
transmit or otherwise disclose the information.
    The ICR provides a detailed explanation of the Agency's estimate,
which is only briefly summarized here:
    Estimated total number of potential respondents: 1,050.
    Frequency of response: Annual.
    Estimated total average number of responses for each respondent:
10.
    Estimated total annual burden hours: 3,483 hours.
    Estimated total annual costs: $147,543. No capital or operation and
maintenance costs associated with this collection.
    The burden and cost reported here are from the current approved
ICR. The costs will change in the package that is submitted to OMB
which will be based on the most recent labor and wage rate information
reported in the Bureau of Labor and Statistics. EPA contacted few
facilities that submitted trade secret claims for the reporting years
2002 through 2004. These facilities have reported that they take an
average of 5 hours per claim. It is lower than the Agency estimate in
the previous ICR, which is 9.8 hours per claim. To be conservative, the
Agency may continue to use the same estimate for this ICR.

What Is the Next Step in the Process for This ICR?

    EPA will consider the comments received and amend the ICR as
appropriate. The final ICR package will then be submitted to OMB for
review and approval pursuant to 5 CFR 1320.12. At that time, EPA will
issue another Federal Register notice pursuant to 5 CFR
1320.5(a)(1)(iv) to announce the submission of the ICR to OMB and the
opportunity to submit additional comments to OMB. If you have any
questions about this ICR or the approval process, please contact the
technical person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

    Dated: April 18, 2006.
Deborah Y. Dietrich,
Director, Office of Emergency Management.
 [FR Doc. E6-6253 Filed 4-25-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 44 (Monday, March 7, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Page 11872]
[FR Doc No: 2016-04908]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-77266; File No. SR-BX-2016-008]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NASDAQ OMX BX, Inc.; Notice of
Withdrawal of Proposed Rule Change To Adopt Limit Order Protection and
Market Order Protection

March 1, 2016.
    On January 21, 2016, NASDAQ OMX BX, Inc. (the ``Exchange'') filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the ``Commission''),
pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 \1\
and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ a proposed rule change to adopt a Limit
Order Protection and a Market Order Protection feature for members
accessing the Exchange. The proposed rule change was published for
comment in the Federal Register on February 5, 2016.\3\ The Commission
received no comment letters on the proposal. On February 26, 2016, the
Exchange withdrew 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. 77006 (February 1,
2016), 81 FR 6308.
    \4\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\4\
Robert W. Errett,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2016-04908 Filed 3-4-16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: February 9, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 26)]
[Notices]
[Page 6377-6378]
[DOCID:fr09fe10-57]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[ Docket No. ER10-505-000]

Dynegy Services Plum Point; Notice of Filing

February 2, 2010.
    Take notice that, on February 1, 2010, Dynegy Services Plum Point
filed to supplement its filing in the above captioned docket with
information required under the Commission's regulations. Such filing
served to reset the filing date in this proceeding.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to
be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the
proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of
intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices,
motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date.
Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of
that document on the Applicant and all the parties in this proceeding.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://
www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an
original and 14 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC
20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the
``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription''
link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail
notification when a

document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with any
FERC Online service, please e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call
(866) 208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on February 22, 2010.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-2725 Filed 2-8-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P