Date:	February 7, 2013

Subject: 	Environmental and Energy Impacts for Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing NESHAP  -  Proposed RTR Amendments
	40 CFR 63, Subpart NNN  -  Supplemental Proposal
	EPA Contract No. EP-D-11-084; EPA Work Assignment No. 1-07
	RTI Project No. 0213199.001.007

From: 		Cindy Hancy
		Dave Reeves

To: 		Susan Fairchild, EPA/OAQPS/SPPD/MMG

   I. Introduction

The purpose of this memorandum is to document the estimated environmental and energy impacts associated with the proposed residual risk and technology review (RTR) amendments to 40 CFR 63, Subpart NNN - Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing.  Secondary impacts include the solid waste, water, wastewater generated and the electricity required to operate air pollution control devices, as well as, the resultant greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from controls or work practices required by the NESHAP.

   II. Water, Wastewater, and Solid Waste Impacts

The EPA estimates that three gas-fired glass-melting furnaces at wool fiberglass manufacturing facilities will need to install a caustic scrubber to meet the proposed chromium compound emission limit for Subpart NNN. The water required to operate the scrubber and the solid and wastewater generated by the effluent were calculated for the three units. The 2010 information collection request, sent to all wool fiberglass manufacturers, requested that facilities provide detailed information for each control device. For scrubbers, facilities were asked to provide gas and water flow rates, liquid to gas ratios, pressure drop, wastewater generation, and several other operating parameters for each of their existing scrubbers. Appendix 1 contains a complete list of all the information EPA requested for scrubbers, however, because the majority of facilities submitted this information as confidential business information (CBI), facility responses are not included in this memo. The EPA compiled these ICR responses, and using the operating parameters (also considered CBI) of the three furnaces estimated to need caustic scrubbers, estimated the amount of water needed to operate the scrubbers, as well as the wastewater and solid waste that would be generated. The calculated impact estimates are provided in Table 1.

      Table 1. Estimated Water and Solid Waste Impacts for Caustic Scrubbers on Furnaces

                             Impacts per facility
                            Total industry impacts
Water flow rate into scrubber (gpm)[1]
                                                                            194
                                                                            582
Percent of scrubber water from recycled facility wastewater[1]
                                                                             60
                                                                             60
Total non-recycled water necessary (gallons per year)[2]
                                                                            41M
                                                                          123 M
Total scrubber effluent rate (gpm)[1]
                                                                            6.1
                                                                            6.1
Percent scrubber wastewater recycled[1]
                                                                             50
                                                                             50
Total wastewater generated (gallons per year)[3]
                                                                           1.6M
                                                                           4.8M
Total solid waste collected (lb/yr)[1]
                                                                        468,000
                                                                           1.4M
(1)Estimates from ICR responses. (2) Calculation: 194 (gpm) x 60 (min/hr) x 8760 (hrs/yr) x (100%-60%). (3) Calculation: 6.1 (gpm) x 60 (min/hr) x 8760 (hrs/yr) x (100%-50%).

   III. Energy Impacts and GHG Emissions from Electricity Usage

The amount of electricity required to operate a control device (i.e., caustic scrubber) was calculated using the information summarized in Table 1. The electricity costs associated with operating a scrubber derive from fan requirements to overcome the pressure drop in the column, ductwork, and other parts of the control system, and pump requirements to re-circulate the water. According to the EPA's Air Pollution Control Cost Manual, fan and pump energy requirements can be calculated by using equation 3-1 and 3-2, respectively.
      Equation 3-1
Energyfan = 1.17 x 10-4x Gix Pe
      Equation 3-2
Energypump = 0.746 x 2.52 x 10-4 x Li x Pe
      Where Gi is the gas flow rate entering the scrubber, P is the total pressure drop, Li is the liquid flow rate entering the scrubber, P is the pressure of the pump which we assume to be 60 ft of water and e is the efficiency of the device.

The average gas flow rate entering the scrubber for the three furnaces is 26,000 acfm, the average estimated pressure drop for the scrubber is 9.8 inches of water, and the average estimated liquid flow is 194 gallons per minute. Using equations 3-1 and 3-2 and an estimated efficiency of 0.7 for both the pump and the fan, we estimated the energy required to be 43kWh for the fan, and 3kWh for the pump.

Energyfan = 1.17 x 10-4 x (26,000) x (9.8)0.7=43 kWh

Energypump = (0.746) x (2.52 x 10-4) x (60) x (194)0.7=3 kWh

Assuming operating hours is 8,760 per year, the total annual energy required for each scrubber is:

46kWhrx 8,760hrsyr=403,000 kW/yr

This results in 1.2 million kWh per year (1,200 megawatts) for all three scrubbers.  We used the natural gas emission factor (in kilograms [kg]/MMBtu) from the General Stationary Fuel Combustion Sources subpart (40 CFR part 98, subpart C) of the Greenhouse Gas Reporting Rule (listed in Table 2) to estimate the secondary emissions for CO2, CH4, and N2O.

  Table 2. Emission Factors from General Stationary Fuel Combustion Sources
                          (40 CFR part 98, subpart C)

                                     Fuel

                                  Default CH4
                                emission factor
                                (kg CH4/MMBtu)
                          Default N2O emission factor
                                (kg N2O/MMBtu)
                                  Default CO2
                                emission factor
                                (kg CO2/MMBtu)
                                  Natural Gas
                                1.0 x 10−03
                                1.0 x 10−04
                                     53.02

Global warming potentials of 1 for CO2, 21 for CH4, and 310 for N2O (from Table A-1 to subpart A of part 98) were used to estimate CO2 equivalent emissions (CO2eq). First we converted kWh to MMBtu as follows:
1,200,000 kWh x0.0034MMBtukWh=4,100 MMBtu

Using the values in Table 2 we estimated CH4, N20, and CO2, emissions as 4.1 kg/yr (9 lbs/yr), 0.41 kg/yr (0.9 lbs/yr), and 217,000 kg/yr (478,000 lbs/yr), respectively. We then calculated the CO2eq emissions based on the global warming potentials above as follows:

CO2eqlbyr=478,000lbCO2yr+ 21 x 9lb CH4yr+ (310 x 0.9lb N2Oyr)

This results in 478,500 lbs CO2eq per year for all three scrubbers.


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 166 (Monday, August 27, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Page 43730]
[FR Doc No: 2018-18496]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Railroad Administration

[Docket Number FRA-2018-0029]

Petition for Waiver of Compliance

    Under part 211 of Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations
(CFR), this provides the public notice that by a letter dated March 15,
2018, the Maryland Transit Administration (MTA-MARC), the Illinois
Department of Transportation (IDOT), and the California Department of
Transportation (Caltrans), have jointly petitioned the Federal Railroad
Administration (FRA) for a waiver of compliance from certain provisions
of the Federal railroad safety regulations contained at 49 CFR part
238, Passenger Equipment Safety Standards. FRA assigned the petition
docket number FRA-2018-0029.
    Specifically, Petitioners request relief from 49 CFR 238.131 and
238.133, pertaining to the exterior side door safety system interface
with the Siemens SC-44 diesel-electric locomotives to be used in
passenger service, when operating in a lite consist (locomotives only).
Petitioners found that in daily operation, the by-pass switch for the
door safety system must be put into ``by-pass'' to operate the
locomotive lite, causing an operational constraint for daily servicing,
maintenance, inspection, and fueling. The repeated unsealing and
resealing of the by-pass switch may cause premature failure of the
switch. MARC and Siemens worked jointly to develop a proposed ``Yard
Mode'' solution, which monitors the door summary circuit trainline,
along with other trainlines and locomotive operating parameters,
determining whether the locomotive is operating in a lite consist or a
passenger car consist. When ``Yard Mode'' is activated, it allows low
speed (10 miles per hour or less) operation of the locomotive without
placing the door by-pass device in by-pass. The ``Yard Mode'' solution
relies on a multi-step software verification, along with multiple
deliberate acts and confirmations by an operator, to enable the system.
    A copy of the petition, as well as any written communications
concerning the petition, is available for review online at
www.regulations.gov and in person at the Department of Transportation's
Docket Operations Facility, 1200 New Jersey Ave. SE, W12-140,
Washington, DC 20590. The Docket Operations Facility is open from 9
a.m. to 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal Holidays.
    Interested parties are invited to participate in these proceedings
by submitting written views, data, or comments. FRA does not anticipate
scheduling a public hearing in connection with these proceedings since
the facts do not appear to warrant a hearing. If any interested party
desires an opportunity for oral comment, they should notify FRA, in
writing, before the end of the comment period and specify the basis for
their request.
    All communications concerning these proceedings should identify the
appropriate docket number and may be submitted by any of the following
methods:
     Website: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online
instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: Docket Operations Facility, U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, W12-140, Washington, DC
20590.
     Hand Delivery: 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Room W12-140,
Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal Holidays.
    Communications received by October 11, 2018 will be considered by
FRA before final action is taken. Comments received after that date
will be considered if practicable.
    Anyone can search the electronic form of any written communications
and comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the
individual submitting the comment (or signing the document, if
submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). In
accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits comments from the public
to better inform its processes. DOT posts these comments, without edit,
including any personal information the commenter provides, to
www.regulations.gov, as described in the system of records notice (DOT/
ALL-14 FDMS), which can be reviewed at https://www.transportation.gov/privacy. See also http://www.regulations.gov/#!privacyNotice for the
privacy notice of regulations.gov.

    Issued in Washington, DC.
Robert C. Lauby,
Associate Administrator for Railroad Safety Chief Safety Officer.
[FR Doc. 2018-18496 Filed 8-24-18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-06-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 241 (Monday, December 18, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 60010-60011]
[FR Doc No: 2017-27173]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 12966-004]

Utah Board of Water Resources; Notice of Application Accepted for
Filing, Soliciting Motions To Intervene and Protests, Ready for
Environmental Analysis, and Soliciting Comments, Recommendations, Terms
and Conditions, and Prescriptions

    Take notice that the following hydroelectric application has been
filed with the Commission and is available for public inspection.
    a. Type of Application: Major Unconstructed Project.
    b. Project No.: 12966-004.
    c. Date Filed: May 2, 2016.
    d. Applicant: Utah Board of Water Resources.
    e. Name of Project: Lake Powell Pipeline Project.
    f. Location: The proposed project would be located in Washington
and Kane counties, Utah, and in Coconino and Mohave counties, Arizona.
The project would occupy 449 acres of federal land managed by the
Bureau of Land Management (BLM).
    g. Filed Pursuant to: Federal Power Act, 16 U.S.C. 791(a)-825(r).
    h. Applicant Contact: Applicant Contact: Joel Williams, Project
Manager, Utah Division of Water Resources; Telephone<PHONE_NUMBER> or
[email protected].
    i. FERC Contact: Jim Fargo,<PHONE_NUMBER> or [email protected].
    j. Deadline for filing motions to intervene and protests, comments,
recommendations, terms and conditions, and prescriptions: 60 days from
the issuance date of this notice; reply comments are due 105 days from
the issuance date of this notice.
    The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please file
motions to intervene and protests, comments, recommendations, terms and
conditions, and prescriptions using the Commission's eFiling system at
http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling.asp. Commenters can submit
brief comments up to 6,000 characters, without prior registration,
using the eComment system at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/ecomment.asp. You must include your name and contact information at the
end of your comments. For assistance, please contact FERC Online
Support at [email protected],<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free), or
(202) 502-8659 (TTY). In lieu of electronic filing, please send a paper
copy to: Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First
Street NE, Washington, DC 20426. The first page of any filing should
include docket number P-12966-004.
    The Commission's Rules of Practice require all intervenors filing
documents with the Commission to serve a copy of that document on each
person on the official service list for the project. Further, if an
intervenor files comments or documents with the Commission relating to
the merits of an issue that may affect the responsibilities of a
particular resource agency, they must also serve a copy of the document
on that resource agency.
    k. This application has been accepted for filing and is now is
ready for environmental analysis.
    l. The proposed 140-mile-long Lake Powell Pipeline Project would
convey water from the Bureau of Reclamation's Lake Powell through a
buried 69-inch diameter pipeline up to a high point within the Grand
Staircase-Escalante National Monument, after which it would flow for
about 87.5 miles through a series of hydroelectric turbines, ending at
Sand Hollow reservoir, near St. George, Utah.
    The proposed hydro facilities subject to the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission's jurisdiction under Part I of the Federal Power
Act include: (1) An inline single-unit, 1-megawatt (MW) facility at
Hydro Station 1 in the Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument; (2)
an inline single-unit, 1.7-MW facility at Hydro Station 2 east of
Colorado City, Arizona; (3) an inline single-unit, 1-MW facility in
Hildale City, Utah; (4) an inline single-unit, 1.7-MW facility above
the Hurricane Cliffs forebay reservoir; (5) a 2-unit, 300-MW (150-MW
each unit) hydroelectric pumped storage development at Hurricane
Cliffs, with the forebay and afterbay sized to provide ten hours of
continuous 300-MW output; (6) a single-unit, 35-MW conventional energy
recovery generation unit built within the Hurricane Cliffs development;
(7) a single-unit, 5-MW facility at the existing Sand Hollow Reservoir
and (8) related transmission lines.
    In its application, the applicant proposes to define the FERC-
licensed hydro system to include not only the power-generating
facilities noted above, but also approximately 89 miles of water
delivery pipelines that connect these facilities. The Commission has
not yet determined whether these water delivery pipelines will be
included as part of the licensed hydro facilities. If the Commission
licenses only the power generating facilities and excludes the
intervening pipelines, federal land-managing agencies will be
responsible for issuing rights-of-way permits for those parts of the
pipelines that are located on federal lands. If the Commission
determines that it should also license the intervening pipelines,
federal land-managing agencies may also be permitted to file conditions
under section 4(e) of the Federal Power Act for the protection and
utilization of any federal reservations that the pipelines will occupy,
depending on which pipeline route is selected.
    In particular, the applicant proposes to use the south alternative
route for the pipeline, which does not cross the Kaibab Reservation. In
Scoping Document 2, Commission staff stated that the environmental
impact statement for the Lake Powell Pipeline Project will include an
alternative pipeline route across the Kaibab Reservation. Depending on
the scope of the FERC-licensed hydro system, this alternative may or
may not be subject to section 4(e) of the Federal Power Act. To cover
both possibilities, Interior should provide preliminary section 4(e)
conditions for the Kaibab Reservation alternative, and should also
provide any proposed rights-of-way conditions for that route if those
conditions would differ from the section 4(e) conditions, in the event
that the Commission determines not to include the pipelines as part of
the licensed Hydro System. The applicant included unsigned rights-of-
way permit applications to the BLM, Bureau of Reclamation, and National
Park Service in its final license application.
    In compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969,
as amended, and the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, as
amended, the BLM, Arizona Strip Field Office, St. George, Utah, intends
to consider amending a portion of the Arizona Strip Field Office
Resource Management Plan (RMP) to allow development of the Lake Powell
Pipeline within the Kanab Creek Area of Critical Environmental Concern.
The EIS will analyze both the proposed Lake Powell Pipeline Project and
the proposed RMP amendment. The BLM

will conduct its own scoping process to solicit public comments and
identify issues.
    m. A copy of the application is available for review at the
Commission in the Public Reference Room or may be viewed on the
Commission's website at http://www.ferc.gov using the ``eLibrary''
link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three digits in the
docket number field to access the document. For assistance, contact
FERC Online Support. A copy is also available for inspection and
reproduction at the address in item h above.
    n. Anyone may submit comments, a protest, or a motion to intervene
in accordance with the requirements of Rules of Practice and Procedure,
18 CFR 385.210, .211, and .214. In determining the appropriate action
to take, the Commission will consider all protests or other comments
filed, but only those who file a motion to intervene in accordance with
the Commission's Rules may become a party to the proceeding. Any
comments, protests, or motions to intervene must be received on or
before the specified comment date for the particular application.
    All filings must (1) bear in all capital letters the title PROTEST,
MOTION TO INTERVENE, COMMENTS, REPLY COMMENTS, RECOMMENDATIONS, TERMS
AND CONDITIONS, or PRESCRIPTIONS; (2) set forth in the heading the name
of the applicant and the project number of the application to which the
filing responds; (3) furnish the name, address, and telephone number of
the person protesting or intervening; and (4) otherwise comply with the
requirements of 18 CFR 385.2001 through 385.2005. All comments,
recommendations, terms and conditions or prescriptions must set forth
their evidentiary basis and otherwise comply with the requirements of
18 CFR 4.34(b). Agencies may obtain copies of the application directly
from the applicant. A copy of any protest or motion to intervene must
be served upon each representative of the applicant specified in the
particular application. A copy of all other filings in reference to
this application must be accompanied by proof of service on all persons
listed in the service list prepared by the Commission in this
proceeding, in accordance with 18 CFR 4.34(b) and 385.2010.
    You may also register online at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp to be notified via email of new filings and issuances
related to this or other pending projects. For assistance, contact FERC
Online Support.
    o. A license applicant must file no later than 60 days following
the date of issuance of this notice: (1) A copy of the water quality
certification; (2) a copy of the request for certification, including
proof of the date on which the certifying agency received the request;
or (3) evidence of waiver of water quality certification.

    Dated: December 11, 2017.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2017-27173 Filed 12-15-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 99 (Friday, May 22, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Page 29719]
[FR Doc No: 2015-12399]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2014-N-0639]

Agency Information Collection Activities; Announcement of Office
of Management and Budget Approval; Requests for Inspection by an
Accredited Person Under the Inspection by Accredited Persons Program

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing that a
collection of information entitled ``Requests for Inspection by an
Accredited Person under the Inspection by Accredited Persons Program''
has been approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under
the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: FDA PRA Staff, Office of Operations,
Food and Drug Administration, 8455 Colesville Rd., COLE-14526, Silver
Spring, MD 20993-0002<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On December 3, 2014, the Agency submitted a
proposed collection of information entitled ``Requests for Inspection
by an Accredited Person under the Inspection by Accredited Persons
Program'' to OMB for review and clearance under 44 U.S.C. 3507. 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. OMB has now approved the information
collection and has assigned OMB control number 0910-0569.
    The approval expires on April 30, 2018. A copy of the supporting
statement for this information collection is available on the Internet
at http://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain.

    Dated: May 15, 2015.
Leslie Kux,
Associate Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2015-12399 Filed 5-21-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4164-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 105 (Thursday, June 1, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Pages 35871-35872]
[FR Doc No: 2023-11587]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[FRL-10942-01-R6]

Underground Injection Control Program; Hazardous Waste Injection
Restrictions; Petition for Exemption Reissuance--Class I Hazardous
Waste Injection; Dow Beaumont Aniline Plant, Texas

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of a final decision on a no migration petition
reissuance.

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

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that a reissuance of an exemption to
the land disposal restrictions, under the 1984 Hazardous and Solid
Waste Amendments to the Resource

Conservation and Recovery Act, is granted to Dow Beaumont Texas
Operations for two Class I hazardous waste injection wells at the Dow
Beaumont Aniline Plant located in Nederland, Texas.

DATES: This action was effective as of May 9, 2023.

ADDRESSES: Copies of the petition reissuance and pertinent information
relating thereto are on file at the following location: Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA), Region 6, Water Division, Safe Drinking Water
Branch (6WD-D), 1201 Elm Street, Suite 500, Dallas, Texas 75270-2102.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lauren Ray, Physical Scientist, Ground
Water/UIC Section, EPA--Region 6, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: As required by 40 CFR part 148, Dow
adequately demonstrated to the EPA by the petition reissuance
application and supporting documentation that, to a reasonable degree
of certainty, there will be no migration of hazardous constituents from
the injection zone for as long as the waste remains hazardous. This
final decision allows the underground injection by the Dow Beaumont
Aniline Plant, of the specific restricted hazardous wastes identified
in this exemption reissuance, into Class I hazardous waste injection
Wells WDW-188 and WDW-391 until December 31, 2040, unless EPA
terminates this exemption under provisions of 40 CFR 148.24. Additional
conditions included in this final decision may be reviewed by
contacting the Region 6 Ground Water/UIC Section. As required by 40 CFR
148.22(b) and 124.10, a public notice comment period started on January
26, 2023, and closed on March 13, 2023. No comments were received. EPA
made inconsequential edits to the fact sheet after the public comment
period. This decision constitutes final Agency action, and there is no
Administrative appeal.

    Dated: May 25, 2023.
Charles W. Maguire,
Director, Water Division, Region 6.
[FR Doc. 2023-11587 Filed 5-31-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register: July 10, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 133)]
[Notices]
[Page 39740-39741]
[DOCID:fr10jy08-105]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Proposed Collection; Comment Request

Upon written request, copies available from: Securities and Exchange
Commission, Office of Investor Education and Advocacy, Washington, DC
20549-0213.

Extension:
    Rule 17f-2(d); SEC File No. 270-36; OMB Control No. 3235-0028.

    Notice is hereby given that pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act
of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.) the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') is soliciting comments on the collection of
information summarized below. The Commission plans to submit this
existing collection of information to the Office of Management and
Budget for extension and approval.
     Rule 17f-2(d) (17 CFR 240.17f-2(d)).
    Rule 17f-2(d) was adopted on March 16, 1976, and was last amended
on November 18, 1982. Paragraph (d) of the

rule (i) requires that records produced pursuant to the fingerprinting
requirements of Section 17(f)(2) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Exchange Act'') be maintained, (ii) permits the designated examining
authorities of broker-dealers or members of exchanges, under certain
circumstances, to store and maintain records required to be kept by
this rule, and (iii) permits the required records to be maintained on
microfilm.
    The general purpose for Rule 17f-2 is: (i) To identify security
risk personnel; (ii) to provide criminal record information so that
employers can make fully informed employment decisions; and (iii) to
deter persons with criminal records from seeking employment or
association with covered entities.
    Retention of fingerprint records, as required under paragraph (d)
of the Rule, enables the Commission or other examining authority to
ascertain whether all required persons are being fingerprinted and
whether proper procedures regarding fingerprints are being followed.
Retention of these records for the term of employment of all personnel
plus three years ensures that law enforcement officials will have easy
access to fingerprint cards on a timely basis. This in turn acts as an
effective deterrent to employee misconduct.
    Approximately 5,984 respondents are subject to the recordkeeping
requirements of the rule. Each respondent keeps approximately 62 new
records per year, which takes approximately 2 minutes per record for
the respondent to maintain, for an annual burden of approximately 2
hours per respondent or a total annual burden of approximately 11,968
hours on all respondents, collectively. All records subject to the rule
must be retained for the term of employment plus 3 years.
    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 control number. Written comments are invited on: (a)
Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the
proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether
the information will have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the
agency's estimate of the burden of the collection of information; (c)
ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information
collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of
information on respondents, including through the use of automated
collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Consideration will be given to comments and suggestions submitted in
writing within 60 days of this publication.
    Please direct your written comments to Lewis W. Walker, Acting
Director/Chief Information Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission,
c/o Shirley Martinson, 6432 General Green Way, Alexandria, Virginia,
22312; or send an e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
    Dated: July 7, 2008.
Florence E. Harmon,
Acting Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E8-15683 Filed 7-9-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 61 (Friday, March 31, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Page 16035]
[FR Doc No: 2017-06325]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OECA-2013-0317; FRL-9960-33-OEI]

Information Collection Request Submitted to OMB for Review and
Approval; Comment Request; NESHAP for Gold Mine Ore Processing
(Renewal)

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency has submitted an
information collection request (ICR), ``NESHAP for Gold Mine Ore
Processing (Renewal)'' (EPA ICR No. 2383.04, OMB Control No. 2060-
0659), to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and
approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act. This is a
proposed extension of the ICR, which is currently approved through
March 31, 2017. Public comments were previously requested via the
Federal Register (81 FR 26546) on May 3, 2016 during a 60-day comment
period. This notice allows for an additional 30 days for public
comments. A fuller description of the ICR is given below, including its
estimated burden and cost to the public. An Agency may neither conduct
nor sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection
of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.

DATES: Additional comments may be submitted on or before May 1, 2017.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, referencing Docket ID Number EPA-HQ-
OECA-2013-0317, to: (1) EPA online using www.regulations.gov (our
preferred method), or by email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or by mail to:
EPA Docket Center, Environmental Protection Agency, Mail Code 28221T,
1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460; and (2) OMB via email
to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Address comments to OMB Desk Officer
for EPA.
    EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the
public docket without change including any personal information
provided, unless the comment includes profanity, threats, information
claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI), or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Patrick Yellin, Monitoring,
Assistance, and Media Programs Division, Office of Compliance, Mail
Code 2227A, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave.
NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax
number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Supporting documents which explain in detail
the information that the EPA will be collecting are available in the
public docket for this ICR. The docket can be viewed online at
www.regulations.gov or in person at the EPA Docket Center, WJC West,
Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC. The telephone
number for the Docket Center is<PHONE_NUMBER>. For additional
information about EPA's public docket, visit: http://www.epa.gov/dockets.
    Abstract: Owners and operators of affected facilities are required
to comply with reporting and record keeping requirements for the
General Provisions (40 CFR part 63, subpart A), as well as for the
specific requirements at 40 CFR part 63, subpart EEEEEEE. This includes
submitting initial notifications, performance tests and periodic
reports and results, and maintaining records of the occurrence and
duration of any startup, shutdown, or malfunction in the operation of
an affected facility, or any period during which the monitoring system
is inoperative. These reports are used by EPA to determine compliance
with these standards.
    Form Numbers: None.
    Respondents/Affected Entities: Gold mine ore processing and
production facilities.
    Respondent's Obligation To Respond: Mandatory (40 CFR part 63
Subpart EEEEEEE).
    Estimated Number of Respondents: 21 (total).
    Frequency of Response: Initially, occasionally, semiannually, and
annually.
    Total Estimated Burden: 2,840 hours (per year). Burden is defined
at 5 CFR 1320.3(b).
    Total Estimated Cost: $227,000 in either annualized capital/startup
or operation & maintenance costs.
    Changes in the Estimates: There is an adjustment increase in the
respondent labor hours as currently identified in the OMB Inventory of
Approved Burdens. This increase is not due to any program changes. The
change in the respondent labor hour estimates occurred for two reasons.
First, a labor burden estimate for completing Method 29 testing was
added based on comments from the Nevada Mining Association (note: This
activity was already required by the rule; however, the previous ICR
did not estimate the labor burden for completing the testing). Second,
this ICR assumes all existing respondents will have to familiarize with
the regulatory requirements each year.
    There is a small adjustment decrease of $130 in the total capital
and O&M costs as currently identified in the OMB Inventory of Approved
Burdens. This decrease occurred because this ICR rounds totals to three
significant figures. There is no change in methodology for calculating
O&M costs.

Courtney Kerwin,
Director, Collection Strategies Division.
[FR Doc. 2017-06325 Filed 3-30-17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 232 (Monday, December 3, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 71658-71665]
[FR Doc No: 2012-29077]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-68302; File No. SR-NYSE-2012-65]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; New York Stock Exchange LLC;
Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change
Moving the Rule Text That Provides for Pegging on the Exchange From
Supplementary Material .26 of NYSE Rule 70 to NYSE Rule 13 and Amending
Such Text to (i) Permit Designated Market Maker Interest To Be Set as
Pegging Interest; (ii) Change References From National Best Bid,
National Best Offer and National Best Bid or Offer to Best Protected
Bid, Best Protected Offer and Best Protected Bid or Offer,
Respectively; (iii) Permit Pegging Interest To Peg to the Opposite Side
of the Market; and (iv) Provide for An Offset Value To Be Specified for
Pegging Interest

November 27, 2012.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the ``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given
that on November 13, 2012, New York Stock Exchange LLC (the
``Exchange'' or ``NYSE'') filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission (the ``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described
in Items I and II below, which Items have been prepared by the
Exchange. The Exchange filed the proposal as a ``non-controversial''
proposed rule change pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act
\3\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder.\4\ 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.
    \3\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(iii).
    \4\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange proposes to move the rule text that provides for
pegging on the Exchange from Supplementary Material .26 of NYSE Rule 70
(``Rule

70.26'') to NYSE Rule 13 (``Rule 13'') and amend such text to (i)
permit Designated Market Maker (``DMM'') interest to be set as pegging
interest; (ii) change references from national best bid (``NBB''),
national best offer (``NBO'') and national best bid or offer (``NBBO'')
to best protected bid (``PBB''), best protected offer (``PBO'') and
best protected bid or offer (``PBBO''), respectively; (iii) permit
pegging interest to peg to the opposite side of the market; and (iv)
provide for an offset value to be specified for pegging interest. 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 the
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to move the rule text that provides for
pegging on the Exchange from Rule 70.26 (Pegging for d-Quotes and e-
Quotes) \5\ to Rule 13 and amend such text to (i) permit DMM interest
to be set as pegging interest; (ii) change references from NBB, NBO and
NBBO to PBB, PBO and PBBO, respectively; (iii) permit pegging interest
to peg to the opposite side of the market; and (iv) provide for an
offset value to be specified for pegging interest. In moving this text
to Rule 13, the Exchange proposes to make several other changes to the
rule text, so that the proposed substantive changes described above can
be incorporated in a logical and transparent manner and to streamline
the rule in a non-substantive manner.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ E-Quotes are Floor broker agency interest files. D-Quotes
are e-Quotes for which a Floor broker has entered discretionary
instructions as to size and/or price.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Background
    The Exchange adopted Rule 70.26 as part of its Hybrid Market
initiative to provide the ability for Floor brokers to add pegging
instructions to e-Quotes.\6\ Since its original adoption, the pegging
functionality has been amended a number of times to, among other
things, include d-Quotes and change the pegging functionality from
pegging to the Exchange best bid or offer to pegging to the NBBO.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 54577 (October 5,
2006), 71 FR 60208 (October 12, 2006) (SR-NYSE-2006-36).
    \7\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 61072 (November 30,
2009), 74 FR 64103 (December 7, 2009) (SR-NYSE-2009-106).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As set forth in Rule 70.26(i), e-Quotes, other than tick-sensitive
e-Quotes, may be set to peg to the NBB (for pegging interest to buy) or
to the NBO (for pegging interest to sell) as the NBBO changes, so long
as the NBBO is at or within the limit price. Rule 70.26(ii) specifies
that d-Quotes may also employ pegging. Rule 70.26(iii) provides that
pegging is active only when auto-quoting is active and that Exchange
systems will reject e-Quotes that employ pegging that are entered 10
seconds or less before the scheduled close of trading. Rule 70.26(iv)
provides that pegging e-Quotes and d-Quotes trade on parity with other
interest at the NBBO after interest entitled to priority is executed,
and Rule 70.26(vi) provides that a pegging e-Quote or d-Quote that sets
the Exchange best bid or offer is entitled to priority.
    Rule 70.26(v) provides that pegging is reactive, and that an e-
Quote or d-Quote will not establish the NBBO as a result of pegging.
Rule 70.26(vii) provides that pegging e-Quotes will only peg to non-
pegging interest that is within the pegging range selected by the Floor
broker, and that such non-pegging interest may be available on the
Exchange or be a protected bid or offer on an away market. Rule
70.26(viii) provides that an e-Quote or d-Quote will not sustain the
NBBO as a result of pegging if there is no other non-pegged interest at
that price, and such price is not the e-Quote's or d-Quote's limit
price. Rule 70.26(viii)(A) and (B) provide that if a buy (sell) pegging
e-Quote reaches its lowest (highest) quotable price and it is the NBB
(NBO), such interest will remain displayed at the NBB (NBO) even if all
other interest at that price cancels. Rule 70.26(ix) further provides
detail of definitions of the price range that a Floor broker may
designate for pegging e-Quotes, which is a price range that a Floor
broker can add that is in addition to the limit price for the pegging
e-Quote, provided that it is not inconsistent with the order's limit
price.
    Rule 70.26(x) provides that pegging interest will join the NBB or
NBO provided that it is within the e-Quote's pegging range. As noted in
Rule 70.26(x)(A), a pegging e-Quote will not join the NBBO if it is
locking or crossing the Exchange best bid or offer, in which case the
pegging e-Quote would peg to the next available best-priced non-pegging
interest. Rule 70.26(x)(B) further provides that if the NBBO is not
within the price range specified for the pegging e-Quote, it will peg
to the next available best-priced non-pegging interest within the price
range selected by the Floor broker.
    Rule 70.26(xi) also provides that if a pegging range has not been
included, the pegging e-Quote will peg to the NBBO so long as the NBBO
is within the limit price of the e-Quote. Rule 70.26(xii) provides that
the discretionary price range of a d-Quote will move with a pegging d-
Quote, subject to any floor or ceiling set by the Floor broker. Rule
70.26(xii)(A)-(C) then set forth that if the NBBO moves out of the
range of the pegging e-Quote, the pegging e-Quote will remain at the
best price to which there may be non-pegging interest to peg, and that
once the NBBO returns to within the price range designated for the
pegging e-Quote, it will once again peg to the NBBO. Finally, Rule
70.26(xiii) provides that a Floor broker may establish a minimum size
of same-side volume to which the e-Quote or d-Quote will peg.
Summary of Proposed Rule Changes
    As noted above, the Exchange proposes to permit DMM interest to be
set as pegging interest. Because pegging for DMM interest would
generally be the same as pegging for e-Quotes and d-Quotes, the
Exchange proposes to amend the existing text, as described in more
detail below, to define the term ``pegging interest'' to include e-
Quotes, d-Quotes, and DMM interest.\8\ The Exchange believes that it is
appropriate to expand the availability of pegging interest to DMM
interest because it will assist DMMs in meeting their obligations
pursuant to NYSE Rule 104(a)(1) to maintain a continuous, two-sided
quote at or near the NBBO throughout the trading day.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ Trading interest that has been set to peg, i.e., e-Quotes,
d-Quotes, and DMM interest, will be referred to collectively as
``pegging interest.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In particular, the Exchange notes that other markets have recently
been approved to provide market makers with pegging order functionality
so that

market makers may automatically track the NBBO in compliance with the
market-wide market maker quoting requirements.\9\ The rules adopted or
proposed by those markets set the pegging functionality to
automatically track the designated percentages set forth in the market-
wide quoting rule (i.e., NYSE Rule 104(a)(1)(B)(iii) designated
percentages). While the Exchange's expansion of pegging functionality
to DMMs would not include those set percentages, the Exchange believes
that providing DMMs with the flexibility to engage in same-side or
opposite-side pegging with offset values of their own choosing, as
discussed in more detail below, will enable DMMs to set their market-
making quoting interest to automatically track the PBBO at a tighter
ratio than the quoting requirements contemplated by NYSE Rule
104(a)(1)(B).\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See, e.g., Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 67584 (Aug.
2, 2012), 77 FR 47472 (Aug. 8, 2012) (SR-NASDAQ-2012-066) (approving
The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC (``Nasdaq'') Rule 4751(f)(15), which
establishes a ``Market Maker Peg Order''); 67756 (Aug. 29, 2012), 77
FR 54633 (Sept. 5, 2012) (SR-BATS-2012-026) (approving The BATS
Exchange, Inc. (``BATS'') Rule 11.8(e), which establishes a ``Market
Maker Peg Order''); and 67755 (Aug. 29, 2012), 77 FR 54630 (Sept. 5,
2012) (SR-BYX-2012-012) (approving BATS-Y Exchange, Inc. (``BYX'')
Rule 11.8(e), which establishes a Market Maker Peg Order).
    \10\ Member organizations are responsible for determining
whether their trading activity qualifies as bona fide market making
for purposes of the ``locate'' exception and close-out requirements
of Regulation SHO under the Exchange Act. Compliance with the
quoting requirements of NYSE Rule 104(a)(1)(B), or any other rules
of the Exchange, does not necessarily mean that the DMM, or other
form of Exchange-registered market maker, is engaged in bona fide
market making for purposes of Regulation SHO. See 17 CFR
242.203(b)(2)(iii); 17 CFR 242.204(a)(3). The Commission adopted a
narrow exception to Regulation SHO's ``locate'' requirement for
market makers that may need to facilitate customer orders in a fast
moving market without possible delays associated with complying with
such requirement. Only market makers engaged in bona fide market
making in the security at the time they effect the short sale are
excepted from the ``locate'' requirement. See Exchange Act Release
No. 50103 (July 28, 2004), 69 FR 48008, 48015 (August 6, 2004)
(providing guidance as to what does not constitute bona fide market
making for purposes of claiming the exception to Regulation SHO's
``locate'' requirement). See also Exchange Act Release No. 58775
(October 14, 2008), 73 FR 61690, 61698-9 (October 17, 2008)
(providing guidance regarding what is bona fide market making for
purposes of complying with the market maker exception to Regulation
SHO's ``locate'' requirement including without limitation whether
the market maker incurs any economic or market risk with respect to
the securities, continuous quotations that are at or near the market
on both sides and that are communicated and represented in a way
that makes them widely accessible to investors and other broker-
dealers and a pattern of trading that includes both purchases and
sales in roughly comparable amounts to provide liquidity to
customers or other broker-dealers).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange also proposes to change references to NBB, NBO and
NBBO throughout Rule 70.26 to PBB, PBO and PBBO, respectively. The
Exchange believes that these changes are more consistent with the
requirements of the Regulation NMS Order Protection Rule \11\ and the
related definition of protected bid and offer, as set forth in
Regulation NMS Rule 600(b)(57),\12\ which defines a protected bid or
protected offer as a quote in an NMS stock that is (i) displayed by an
automated trading center; (ii) disseminated pursuant to an effective
national market system plan; and (iii) an automated quotation that is
the best bid or best offer of a national stock exchange or a national
securities association. Exchange systems monitor the PBBO for purposes
of the Order Protection Rule and, in this respect, Exchange systems
also move pegging interest based on moves to the PBBO, not the
NBBO.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 17 CFR 242.611.
    \12\ 17 CFR 242.600(b)(57).
    \13\ In most instances, the PBBO and the NBBO are the same.
However, if the NBBO is based on a quote that is no longer
protected, i.e., a stale quote, the PBBO may change before the NBBO
changes. In this regard, the Exchange notes that current Rule
70.26(vii) already specifies that pegging interest may peg to
interest available on the Exchange or a protected bid or offer on an
away market.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange further proposes to expand the pegging functionality
to permit pegging to the opposite side of the market. The existing
functionality, for which pegging interest to buy (sell) pegs to the PBB
(PBO), would be renamed in the rule as a ``Primary Pegging Interest.''
\14\ The proposed new functionality, whereby pegging interest would peg
to the opposite side of the market (buy (sell) pegs to the PBO (PBB))
would be referred to in the proposed rule as a ``Market Pegging
Interest.'' \15\ The Exchange believes that adding Market Pegging
Interest functionality would contribute to narrower spreads for
securities and is consistent with approved rules of other markets.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ See proposed paragraph (c) of the pegging interest text of
Rule 13.
    \15\ See proposed paragraph (d) of the pegging interest text of
Rule 13.
    \16\ See, e.g., Nasdaq Rule 4751(f) and BATS Rule 11.9(c)(8).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange also proposes to provide for an offset value, which
would be a specified amount by which the price of pegging interest
would differ from the price of the interest to which it pegs.\17\ The
Exchange proposes to specify that an offset value would be optional for
Primary Pegging Interest,\18\ but would be required for Market Pegging
Interest.\19\ As proposed, when applying an offset value to Primary
Pegging Interest, the adjusted price for buy (sell) pegging interest
would be the PBB (PBO) minus (plus) the offset value. When applying the
offset value to Market Pegging Interest, the adjusted price for buy
(sell) pegging interest would be the PBO (PBB) minus (plus) the offset
value.\20\ If the offset value of pegging interest to buy (sell) would
result in a price that is greater than $1.00 in an increment smaller
than $0.01, the price of the pegging interest to buy (sell) would be
rounded down (up) to the nearest permissible minimum price variation,
consistent with NYSE Rule 61.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ See proposed paragraph (b) of the pegging interest text of
Rule 13.
    \18\ See proposed paragraph (c)(4) of the pegging interest text
of Rule 13.
    \19\ See proposed paragraph (d)(4) of the pegging interest text
of Rule 13. Because an offset value would be required for Market
Pegging Interest, Exchange systems would reject Market Pegging
Interest that does not include an offset value.
    \20\ For example, if the PBB is $2.00 and the PBO is $2.05,
pegging interest to buy that is set to peg to the same side of the
market with an offset of $0.01 would be priced at $1.99 (i.e., $2.00
PBB minus $0.01 offset). Pegging interest to sell that is set to peg
to the same side of the market with an offset of $0.01 would be
priced at $2.06 (i.e., $2.05 PBO plus $0.01 offset). In contrast,
pegging interest to buy that is set to peg to the opposite side of
the market with an offset of $0.05 would be priced at $2.00 (i.e.,
$2.05 PBO minus $0.05 offset). Pegging interest to sell that is set
to peg to the opposite side of the market with an offset of $0.05
would be priced at $2.05 (i.e., $2.00 PBB plus $0.05 offset).
    \21\ Continuing with the example above, if the PBB is $2.00 and
the PBO is $2.05, pegging interest to buy that is set to peg to the
same side of the market with an offset of $0.015 would be priced at
$1.98 (i.e., $2.00 PBB minus $0.015 offset equals $1.985 and rounded
down to nearest permissible minimum price variation). Pegging
interest to sell that is set to peg to the same side of the market
with an offset of $0.015 it would be priced at $2.07 (i.e., $2.05
PBO plus $0.015 offset equals $2.065 and rounded up to nearest
permissible minimum price variation). In contrast, pegging interest
to buy that is set to peg to the opposite side of the market with an
offset of $0.015 would be priced at $2.03 (i.e., $2.05 PBO minus
$0.015 offset equals $2.035 and rounded down to nearest permissible
minimum price variation). Pegging interest to sell that is set to
peg to the opposite side of the market with an offset of $0.015
would be priced at $2.02 (i.e., $2.00 PBB plus $0.015 offset equals
$2.015 and rounded up to nearest permissible minimum price
variation).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that adding Market Pegging functionality
would enable pegging interest to potentially establish a better price
than is currently available, thereby reducing the size of the spread
for a security. For example, if the PBBO in a security is $10.05-
$10.07, and the buy pegging interest is pegged to the PBO with an
offset of $0.01, the buy pegging interest would post on the Exchange as
a $10.06 bid, which would be a new PBB that reduces the spread and
creates a tighter market. The Exchange notes that unlike Primary
Pegging Interest, which currently cannot establish or sustain the PBBO
as a result of pegging, Market Pegging Interest can establish or
sustain a PBB or PBO.

Proposed Specific Rule Changes
    As noted above, the Exchange proposes to delete Rule 70.26 in its
entirety and move the text that provides for pegging to Rule 13.
Because pegging interest is being expanded to include DMM interest, the
Exchange believes that Rule 70, which concerns Floor broker interest
only, is no longer the proper rule within which to provide for pegging.
Rather, because pegging is a type of modifier, the Exchange believes it
is more appropriate to provide for pegging within Rule 13 as a defined
term referred to as ``pegging interest.'' The Exchange notes that Rule
13 is currently titled ``Definition of Orders.'' However, Rule 13
currently provides for orders and order modifiers.\22\ Accordingly, the
Exchange proposes to change the title of Rule 13 to ``Orders and
Modifiers.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ For example, a sell ``plus'' or buy ``minus'' order is not
an order type per se, but is instead an order modifier.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As proposed, the new pegging interest section of Rule 13 would
replace the existing text of Rule 70.26, with numerous non-substantive
changes, as well as add new rule text to incorporate the elements
proposed above, i.e., permitting DMM interest to be set as pegging
interest, changing NBBO to PBBO, adding the Market Pegging Interest
functionality, and providing for an offset value to be specified. The
Exchange believes that the proposed changes to the rule text, as
incorporated in Rule 13, result in a more streamlined rule that
eliminates redundancy in the current rule while also incorporating the
new elements in a logical and comprehensive manner. For example, rather
than referring to ``pegging e-Quotes'' or ``pegging d-Quotes''
throughout the rule, the Exchange proposes to use the term ``pegging
interest,'' unless the rule is specific only to a particular type of
interest. In addition, the Exchange proposes to combine concepts that
are currently addressed separately or in multiple locations within Rule
70.26, but that can be logically combined into streamlined rule text
(e.g., the text discussing the permissible price range and how it
impacts pegging).
    The following sets forth the proposed rule changes (all references
to proposed paragraphs are to the proposed new pegging interest text of
Rule 13):
     Proposed paragraph (a) provides that ``pegging interest''
means displayable or non-displayable interest to buy or sell at a price
set to track the PBB or PBO as the PBBO changes. The proposed rule text
would replace the general description of pegging in Rule 70.26(i), with
certain changes. As discussed above, from a substantive perspective,
the Exchange proposes to replace references to the NBB, NBO, and NBBO
with references to the PBB, PBO, and PBBO. The Exchange proposes to
delete the reference to the limit price of an e-Quote as that concept
will now be part of proposed paragraph (a)(4), relating to the
specified price range of pegging interest. In addition, the Exchange
proposes a clarifying rule change to add that pegging interest may be
for displayable or non-displayable interest. The current pegging
functionality is available for all e-Quotes and d-Quotes, whether
intended for display or not, and the Exchange proposes a clarifying
rule change to make clear that pegging interest is available for both
displayable and non-displayable interest.
     Proposed paragraph (a)(1) provides that pegging interest
can be an e-Quote, d-Quote, or DMM Interest. The proposed rule text
would replace without any substantive change rule text from Rule
70.26(i) referencing e-Quotes and Rule 70.26(ii), which references d-
Quotes. The proposal to add DMM interest is new rule text, as described
in more detail above.
     Proposed paragraph (a)(1)(A) provides that pegging
interest may not include a sell ``plus'' or buy ``minus'' instruction,
which replaces without any substantive change the current text in Rule
70.26(i) that a tick-sensitive e-Quote is not permitted to peg. A
``tick sensitive'' e-Quote is one that includes a sell ``plus'' or buy
``minus'' instruction, which are existing defined terms in Rule 13.
Therefore, the Exchange proposes to use the sell ``plus'' or buy
``minus'' terminology instead of the current ``tick sensitive''
language, which is not a defined term in Exchange rules.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ This change does not alter the meaning of the current rule
text.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Proposed paragraph (a)(1)(B) would replace without any
substantive change the second sentence of Rule 70.26(iii), which
provides that Exchange systems shall reject a pegging e-Quote or d-
Quote that is entered 10 seconds or less before the scheduled close of
trading.\24\ The Exchange notes that the rationale for excluding
pegging e-Quotes and d-Quotes 10 seconds prior to the close is to
assist the DMM with arranging the close, and because the DMM is aware
of DMM interest, this prohibition is not necessary for DMM interest.
The Exchange notes that this does not confer any additional benefit to
the DMM because the DMM may be required to supply additional liquidity
as needed as part of the closing transaction in order to meet the
obligation set forth in Rule 104(a)(3) to facilitate the close of
trading for each of the securities in which the DMM is registered.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ The current rule text only refers to e-Quotes, but since d-
Quotes are a subset of e-Quotes, Exchange systems currently reject
both pegging e-Quotes and d-Quotes that are entered 10 seconds or
less before the scheduled close of trading.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Proposed paragraph (a)(1)(C) would replace without any
substantive change Rule 70.26(xii) by specifying that discretionary
instructions associated with a pegging d-Quote would move as the d-
Quote pegs to the PBBO, subject to any price range and limit price that
may be specified. The Exchange does not propose to include the
reference to e-Quote that is currently in Rule 70.26(xii) because a d-
Quote is an e-Quote with discretionary instructions.\25\ Also, the
Exchange proposes to refer to the specified price range instead of the
current reference to floor or ceiling price in Rule 70.26(xii).
Finally, the Exchange proposes to include a reference to the pegging
interest's limit price. The Exchange notes that the textual differences
between proposed paragraph (a)(1)(C) and current Rule 70.26(xii) do not
make any substantive changes to the rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ See supra note 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Proposed paragraph (a)(2) would replace without any
substantive change the first sentence of Rule 70.26(iii), by specifying
that pegging is only active when auto-quoting is active.
     Proposed paragraph (a)(3) would replace the rule text in
Rule 70.26(vii) by specifying that pegging interest shall peg to a
price that is based on either (A) a protected bid or offer, which may
be available on the Exchange or an away market, or (B) interest that
establishes a price on the Exchange, which may include Primary or
Market Pegging Interest that has established a price as a result of an
offset value. The current rule provides that pegging interest only pegs
to other non-pegging interest, which may be available on the Exchange
or a protected bid or offer on an away market. The proposed rule text
modifies the existing rule text to take into consideration the
possibility that either Primary Pegging Interest or Market Pegging
Interest may establish a price on the Exchange and therefore pegging
interest may peg to other pegging interest.\26\ The circumstances where
pegging interest may establish a price is as a result of the proposed
new offset function, which is why the Exchange

proposes to change this aspect of the rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ See proposed paragraph (d)(2) of the pegging interest text
of Rule 13.

    Example 1: Assume that the Exchange best bid and offer, which is
also the PBBO, is $10.05-$10.07, and there is buy Market Pegging
Interest pegged to the PBO with an offset value of $0.01, such
Market Pegging Interest would establish a new PBB and Exchange best
bid of $10.06. Because the Market Pegging Interest established a new
PBB, Primary Pegging Interest to buy could peg to that $10.06 price
and therefore would be pegging to pegging interest.
    Example 2: Assume again that the Exchange best bid or offer,
which is also the PBBO, is $10.05-$10.07, with 100 shares at the
bid, and there is buy Primary Pegging Interest ``A'' of 500 shares
with an offset of $0.01, which would be at a priced at $10.04, and
that is the only Exchange interest priced at $10.04. Assume further
there is buy Primary Pegging Interest ``B'' that will only peg if
there is minimum same-side volume of 500 shares.\27\ Because the
Exchange best bid is only 100 shares, Primary Pegging Interest ``B''
would peg to the price that meets the minimum size requirement,
which in this case would be the price established by the Primary
Pegging Interest ``A'' at $10.04. In this scenario, because of the
offset value associated with Primary Pegging Interest ``A'', that
interest has established a price and as a result, Primary Pegging
Interest ``B'' is pegging to pegging interest.

    \27\ See proposed paragraph (c)(5) of the pegging interest text
of Rule 13.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Proposed paragraph (a)(4) provides that pegging interest
shall peg only within the specified price range for the pegging
interest. The Exchange notes that while the proposed language is new
rule text, the proposed paragraph does not make any substantive changes
to the current rule, but rather consolidates rule text from separate
parts of the existing rule in a streamlined format. In particular, the
proposed rule would replace the remaining text in Rules 70.26(i) (that
pegging interest must be within the e-Quote's limit price), 70.26(vii)
(that pegging interest pegs to interest within the price range selected
by the Floor broker), and 70.26(ix), including (A) through (D) of that
subsection, by replacing the detailed ``price range'' discussion within
current Rule 70.26(ix) by specifying instead that pegging interest
shall peg only within the specified price range for the pegging
interest. For example, Rule 70.26(ix)(D) currently specifies that the
price to which pegging interest pegs cannot be higher (lower) than the
limit price of the buy (sell) pegging interest, which is also currently
covered in Rule 70.26(i).\28\ In this regard, the Exchange proposes not
to include the text of current Rule 70.26(ix)(A), (B) and (C), which
refer to the ``quote price,'' ``ceiling price'' and ``floor price,''
respectively, of pegging interest. The Exchange does not consider these
terms necessary and believes that proposed paragraph (a)(4) is clearer
and more streamlined without their inclusion.\29\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ This addition would not result in a substantive change to
pegging. Also, the Exchange notes that Rule 70.26(ix) currently says
that the price may not be ``inconsistent with'' the limit price. The
Exchange believes that using ''specified price range'' would be
clearer than the current ``inconsistent with'' text because the
specified price range concept is broad enough to include the limit
price of the order as well as any other pricing instructions that
may be included with the pegging interest.
    \29\ The Exchange considers it inherent that a price ``range''
will have upper and lower bounds and therefore does not consider
these terms necessary.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Proposed paragraph (a)(4)(A) specifies that if the PBBO,
combined with any offset value, is not within the specified price
range, the pegging interest would instead peg to the next available
best-priced interest that is within the specified price range. Other
than addressing how the offset value impacts the pegging interest, the
reference to NBBO changing to PBBO, replacing the phrase ``the price
range selected by the Floor broker'' with ``the specified price
range,'' this text is substantively the same and replaces current Rule
70.26(x)(B).\30\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \30\ The Exchange notes that Rule 70.26(x)(B) provides that
pegging interest will ``join'' the interest to which it pegs. The
Exchange believes that using ``peg to'' terminology would be more
precise than the current ``join'' language.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Proposed paragraph (a)(4)(B) would replace without any
substantive change the current Rule 70.26(xii)(A), (B) and (C) by
specifying that pegging interest that has reached its specified price
range will remain at that price if the PBBO goes beyond such price
range and that if the PBBO returns to a price within the specified
price range, it shall resume pegging. The Exchange notes that this text
is substantively the same as in current Rule 70.26(xii)(A), (B), and
(C), albeit in a streamlined format. The Exchange further notes that
the proposed rule text replaces without any substantive change concepts
set forth in Rule 70.26(x) (that pegging interest will peg to the NBBO
so long as it is in the specified price range) and 70.26(xi) (pegging
interest without a specified price range will peg based on the limit
price of the order).
     Proposed paragraph (b) defines the ``offset value,'' as
discussed in more detail above.
     Proposed paragraph (c) defines the term ``Primary Pegging
Interest,'' as discussed in more detail above.
     Proposed paragraph (c)(1) would replace Rule 70.26(x)(A)
by specifying that Primary Pegging Interest shall not peg to a price
that is locking or crossing the Exchange best offer (bid), but instead
would peg to the next available best-priced interest that would not
lock or cross the Exchange best offer (bid). In moving the text from
Rule 70.26(x)(A), the Exchange proposes two minor changes: to change
the reference from the NBB (NBO) to the term ``price'' and to delete
the term ``non-pegging interest.'' The Exchange proposes these
modifications because, as discussed above in connection with proposed
paragraph (a)(3), there may be circumstances where because of the
offset value, pegging interest may peg to a price established by
pegging interest, which in some cases, may not be the PBBO.
     Proposed paragraph (c)(2) would replace without
substantive change Rules 70.26(v), (viii), (viii)(A), and (viii)(B) by
specifying that Primary Pegging Interest will not establish a PBB (PBO)
or sustain a PBB (PBO) as a result of pegging.\31\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \31\ The Exchange believes that the proposed rule text ``as a
result of pegging'' clarifies that the only time that Primary
Pegging Interest will not establish or sustain the PBBO is if it is
following its pegging instructions. When a Primary Pegging Interest
is at a price because it is the limit price of the Primary Pegging
Interest, such interest will not have established or sustained the
PBBO ``as a result of pegging'' and the Exchange believes that it is
no longer necessary to specifically state that pegging interest at
its limit price may remain displayed at the PBBO, as currently set
forth in Rules 70.26(viii)(A) and (B). In addition, the Exchange
proposes not to replace the statement in Rule 70.26(v) that pegging
is reactive because that concept was intended to mean that pegging
interest cannot create a PBB or PBO. However, because proposed
Market Pegging Interest can establish a new PBB or PBO, the
limitation to ``reactive'' is no longer relevant and the Exchange
believes that the proposed rule text that Primary Pegging Interest
cannot establish or sustain the PBBO obviates the need to separately
say that pegging is reactive. The Exchange also proposes to delete
the term ``new'' as being redundant of the concept of establishing a
PBB or PBO.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Proposed paragraph (c)(3) would replace without any
substantive change Rule 70.26(vi) by specifying that Primary Pegging
Interest may establish an Exchange best bid or offer. The Exchange
proposes to replace the rule text set forth in Rule 70.26(vi) that
pegging interest that sets the Exchange best bid or offer is entitled
to priority by adding to Rule 72 that pegging interest may have
priority interest.\32\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \32\ The Exchange proposes to further amend Rule 72 to change a
reference to current Rule 70.26 to the proposed new pegging interest
text within Rule 13 and change a reference to e-Quotes to ``pegging
interest,'' generally.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Proposed paragraph (c)(4) provides that Primary Pegging
Interest may include an offset value for which the adjusted price for
buy (sell) pegging interest shall be the PBB (PBO) minus (plus) the
offset value, which is new rule text, as discussed in greater detail
above.

     Proposed paragraph (c)(5) would replace without any
substantive change Rule 70.26(xiii) by specifying that Primary Pegging
Interest may be designated with a minimum size of same-side volume to
which such pegging interest shall peg. Other than the references to NBB
and NBO changing to PBB and PBO, respectively, this text is
substantively the same as in current Rule 70.26(xiii).
     Proposed paragraph (d) provides for new rule text related
to the new Market Pegging Interest, which is discussed in greater
detail above. More specifically, proposed paragraph (d)(1) would
provide that Market Pegging Interest shall not peg to a price that is
locking or crossing the Exchange best offer (bid), but instead shall
peg to a price one minimum price variation lower (higher) than the
Exchange best bid or offer. This proposed functionality is intended to
prevent Market Pegging Interest from locking or crossing the Exchange
best bid or offer.\33\ Proposed paragraph (d)(2) would provide that
Market Pegging Interest to buy (sell) may establish or sustain a PBB
(PBO). Proposed paragraph (d)(3) would mirror paragraph (c)(3) by
specifying that Market Pegging Interest may establish an Exchange best
bid or offer. Finally, proposed paragraph (d)(4), would require Market
Pegging Interest to include an offset value, as discussed in more
detail above.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \33\ A potential scenario when Market Pegging Interest could
lock or cross the Exchange best bid or offer could be if a liquidity
replenishment point (``LRP'') is reached pursuant to NYSE Rule 1000,
and automatic executions on one side of the market are suspended at
the Exchange. In such scenario, assume that the Exchange best bid is
$10.04, an LRP is reached and the Exchange is slow on the buy side,
a new PBB is published at $10.03, and there is Market Pegging
Interest to sell with a $0.01 offset. Because the Market Pegging
Interest to sell would peg to the PBB priced at $10.03, with a penny
offset, and lock the Exchange's best bid at $10.04, the Exchange
proposes to reprice the Market Pegging Interest to sell to $10.05 so
that it does not lock the Exchange best bid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange proposes to delete without replacing Rule 70.26(iv),
which provides that pegging interest trades on parity with other
interest at the NBBO after interest entitled to priority is executed.
The Exchange believes that this text is superfluous, in that pegging
interest is not treated differently than non-pegging interest for
purposes of determining parity, as set forth in Rule 72, and Rule 72
governs the allocation of executions and priority.\34\ The Exchange
therefore is not proposing to address this concept in new pegging
interest section of Rule 13.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \34\ The Exchange proposes to amend Rule 72(a)(i) and (ii) to
specify that displayable interest may include pegging interest.
Because pegging interest would be included as ``displayable
interest,'' the description of allocation of orders would not
include pegging interest with any reference to displayable interest.
The Exchange also proposes conforming edits to Rule 72(a)(ii)(G) to
replace references to Rule 70.26 and e-Quotes with references to
Rule 13 and ``pegging interest.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange further proposes to add new subsection (xii) to Rule
72(c) to codify how Exchange systems treat modifications to orders for
purposes of time sequencing. Specifically, if an order is modified
solely to reduce the size of the order, Exchange systems accept such a
modification without changing the time stamp of original order
entry.\35\ Accordingly, the Exchange proposes to codify in Rule
72(c)(xii) that an order that is modified to reduce the size of the
order shall retain the time stamp of original order entry.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \35\ The manner by which a member organization may reduce the
size of an order without impacting the time stamp is to submit a
partial cancellation message. For example, if a member organization
has entered an order for 400 shares to buy at $10.00 and wants to
reduce it to 200 shares to buy at $10.00, the member organization
would submit a cancel message for 200 shares to buy at $10.00, which
would leave the remaining 200 shares of the buy order with the time
stamp of original order entry.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Currently, any other modification to an order, including increasing
the size of the order or changing the price of the order, results in
the order receiving a new time stamp. Accordingly, the Exchange
proposes to codify that any other modification of an order, such as
increasing the size or changing the price of an order, shall receive a
new time stamp. The Exchange notes that the proposed rule language
covers any modification of an order, whether directed by a member
organization that entered the order or entered by Exchange systems
pursuant to rule.\36\ For example, Exchange systems may re-price an
order if the interest is being re-priced because it is pegging
interest, pursuant to Rule 13, or because it is a short sale order
during a Short Sale Period, pursuant to Rule 440B(e).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \36\ To change the price of an order or increase the size of an
order, a member organization would need to enter a ``cancel/
replace'' message, which serves to cancel the original order and
replace it with a new order. The replacement order receives a new
time stamp. The ``cancel/replace'' message can also be used to
change the order marking under Regulation SHO of a pending sell
order (i.e., from ``long'' to ``short''). For example, if a seller
increases the size of a pending sell order, the resulting modified
order is considered a new order and must be marked by the broker-
dealer to reflect the seller's net position at the time of order
modification pursuant to Rule 200 of Regulation SHO. The Exchange
notes that if a member organization uses a ``cancel/replace''
message to reduce the size of the order, rather than a partial
cancellation, because the ``cancel/replace'' message cancels the
original order in its entirety, the replacement order would receive
a new time stamp, even if the replacement order represents only a
reduction in size of the order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed changes to Rule 72(c)(xii) will be effective on the
operative date of this filing. The Exchange will announce the
implementation date of the proposed rule change as it relates to
pegging interest changes in a Trader Update to be published no later
than 90 days publication of the notice in the Federal Register. The
implementation date will be no later than 90 days following publication
of the Trader Update announcing publication of the notice in the
Federal Register.
2. Statutory Basis
    The proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the ``Act''),\37\ in general, and
furthers the objectives of Section 6(b)(5),\38\ in particular, because
it is designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and
practices, to promote just and equitable principles of trade, to foster
cooperation and coordination with persons engaged in facilitating
transactions in securities, to remove impediments to, and perfect the
mechanism of, a free and open market and a national market system and,
in general, to protect investors and the public interest. The proposed
rule change is also not designed to permit unfair discrimination.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \37\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \38\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that expanding the pegging functionality to
DMM interest is consistent with the Act because it will remove
impediments to, and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and
national market system and, in general, protect investors and the
public interest by providing a mechanism for DMMs to assist them with
meeting their market-making obligations to maintain quoting interest at
or near the NBBO. The Exchange notes that two other markets have been
approved to offer pegging functionality expressly for market markers
for a similar purpose.\39\ The Exchange's proposal differs because as
proposed, the DMM would be able to select whether to enter Primary
Pegging Interest or Market Pegging Interest, and would be able to
select the offset value, thereby providing the DMM with flexibility to
track the PBBO at a tighter ratio than contemplated by the rules of
other exchanges that offer a market maker pegging functionality.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \39\ See supra note 9.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange further notes that expanding pegging functionality to
DMM interest is not designed to permit unfair discrimination. The
Exchange believes that expanding the functionality to DMMs is
consistent

with the existing approved rules, as well as consistent with the Act
because the expansion is narrowly tailored to offer the functionality
to a class of participants that has an affirmative obligation to
maintain a quote at or near the NBBO.\40\ The Exchange notes that
another class of member organizations, Supplemental Liquidity Providers
(``SLP''), provide liquidity to the Exchange, and certain SLPs can
register as market makers at the Exchange.\41\ While the Market Pegging
Interest functionality will not be available to SLPs at this time, the
Exchange does not believe that this is discriminatory because there is
no requirement that a security be assigned to an SLP, and a member
organization's participation in the SLP program is voluntary. By
contrast, all securities traded at the Exchange must be assigned to a
DMM, and a DMM unit cannot withdraw from registration in securities
assigned to it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \40\ See NYSE Rule 104(a)(1)(A).
    \41\ See NYSE Rule 107B.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As discussed above, rather than adding the concepts for the Market
Peg functionality, the offset value, and expansion to DMM interest in
Rule 70.26, the Exchange proposes to restructure the text of Rule 70.26
and move it to Rule 13. The Exchange believes that this will more
appropriately address how pegging operates and consolidates rule text
relating to orders and modifiers in single location in the rules. In
this regard, the proposal to change references to NBB, NBO and NBBO to
PBB, PBO and PBBO, respectively, would add greater specificity
regarding the interest to which pegging interest may peg. The Exchange
also believes that these changes are more consistent with the
requirements of the Regulation NMS Order Protection Rule \42\ and the
related definition of protected bid and offer, as set forth in
Regulation NMS Rule 600(b)(57).\43\ As noted above, Exchange systems
monitor the PBBO for purposes of the Order Protection Rule and, in this
respect, Exchange systems also move pegging interest based on moves to
the PBBO, not the NBBO.\44\ The Exchange believes that this increased
specificity would perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a
national market system and, in general, would protect investors and the
public interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \42\ See supra note 10.
    \43\ See supra note 11.
    \44\ See supra note 12.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Additionally, use of the proposed Market Pegging Interest with an
offset value, as well as the proposed offset functionality for Primary
Pegging Interest, would provide greater flexibility with respect to the
price to which pegging interest may peg and would encourage tighter
spreads that move as the PBBO moves. The Exchange believes that this
would remove impediments to, and perfect the mechanism of, a free and
open market and a national market system. Additionally, requiring an
offset value to be specified for pegging interest that pegs to the
opposite side of the market would prevent fraudulent and manipulative
acts and practices, promote just and equitable principles of trade, and
foster cooperation and coordination with persons engaged in
facilitating transactions in securities by preventing pegging interest
from locking or crossing the opposite side of the market. The Exchange
further believes that the proposal fosters competition as other markets
already offer similar functionality.
    The Exchange also believes that the proposed rule change would
promote clarity and transparency by adding greater specificity with
respect to the interest to which pegging interest may peg. In this
regard, the proposed realignment and consolidation of existing rule
text would result in a clearer rule, which would benefit all member
organizations as well as others that read the rule.
    The Exchange further believes that the proposed rule change would
promote clarity and transparency by removing superfluous rule text that
merely describes the manner in which all trading interest is treated,
regardless of whether it is pegging interest. For example, removing the
text within current Rule 70.26(iv), which provides that pegging
interest trades on parity with non-pegging interest, would eliminate
potential confusion regarding whether pegging interest is treated
differently than non-pegging interest with respect to determining
parity.
    Finally, the Exchange believes that the proposed change to Rule 72
to codify which modifications to an order that Exchange systems accept
and time stamp treatment for such modified orders would promote clarity
and transparency and therefore remove impediments to, and perfect the
mechanism of, a free and open market and a national market system
because the proposed rule change makes clear when a modification to an
order results in a new time stamp for that order.

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

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

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

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

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

    Because the foregoing proposed rule does not (i) significantly
affect the protection of investors or the public interest; (ii) impose
any significant burden on competition; and (iii) become operative for
30 days from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as
the Commission may designate if consistent with the protection of
investors and the public interest, provided that the self-regulatory
organization has given the Commission written notice of its intent to
file the proposed rule change at least five business days prior to the
date of filing of the proposed rule change or such shorter time as
designated by the Commission, the proposed rule change has become
effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \45\ and Rule 19b-
4(f)(6) thereunder.\46\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \45\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \46\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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-NYSE-2012-65 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-NYSE-2012-65. 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-NYSE-2012-65 and should be
submitted on or before December 24, 2012.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\47\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \47\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-29077 Filed 11-30-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 63 (Friday, April 1, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 18849-18850]
[FR Doc No: 2016-07344]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 2503-154]

Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC; Notice of Availability of Final
Environmental Assessment

    In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's (Commission)
regulations, 18 CFR part 380 (Order No. 486, 52 FR 47897), the Office
of Energy Projects has reviewed the application for a new license for
the Keowee-Toxaway Hydroelectric Project, located on the Toxaway,
Keowee, and Little Rivers in Oconee County and Pickens County, South
Carolina and Transylvania County, North Carolina, and has prepared a
final Environmental Assessment (EA) for the project. The project does
not occupy federal land.
    The final EA contains staff's analysis of the potential
environmental impacts of the project and concludes that

relicensing the project, with appropriate environmental measures, would
not constitute a major federal action that would significantly affect
the quality of the human environment.
    A copy of the final EA is on file with the Commission and is
available for public inspection. The final EA may also be viewed on the
Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov using the ``eLibrary''
link. Enter the docket number, excluding the last three digits in the
docket number field, to access the document. For assistance, contact
FERC Online Support at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or toll-free at 1-
866-208-3676, or for TTY,<PHONE_NUMBER>. You may also register online
at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp to be notified via
email of new filings and issuances related to this or other pending
projects. For assistance, contact FERC Online Support.
    For further information, contact Rachel McNamara at<PHONE_NUMBER>
or<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
    Dated: March 28, 2016.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2016-07344 Filed 3-31-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P