[Federal Register: September 5, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 173)]
[Notices]
[Page 51867-51869]
[DOCID:fr05se08-87]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Investment Company Act Release No. 28370; 812-13381]

PIMCO Municipal Income Fund, et al.; Notice of Application

August 29, 2008.
AGENCY: Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'').

ACTION: Notice of an application for an order under section 6(c) of the
Investment Company Act of 1940 (the ``Act'') for an exemption from
section 19(b) of the Act and rule 19b-1 under the Act.

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

Summary of the Application: Applicants request an order to permit
certain registered closed-end management investment companies to make a
greater number of capital gains distributions to holders of shares of
their auction market preferred stock than is permitted by section 19(b)
of the Act and rule 19b-1 under the Act to the extent necessary to
comply with Internal Revenue Ruling 89-81, 1989-1 C.B. 226 (``Revenue
Ruling 89-81'') under the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (the ``Code'').

Applicants: PIMCO Municipal Income Fund, PIMCO Municipal Income Fund
II, PIMCO Municipal Income Fund III, PIMCO California Municipal Income
Fund, PIMCO California Municipal Income Fund II, PIMCO California
Municipal Income Fund III, PIMCO New York Municipal Income Fund, PIMCO
New York Municipal Income Fund II, PIMCO New York Municipal Income Fund
III, PIMCO Municipal Advantage Fund Inc., PIMCO Corporate Income Fund,
PIMCO Corporate Opportunity Fund, PIMCO High Income Fund, Nicholas-
Applegate Convertible & Income Fund, Nicholas-Applegate Convertible &
Income Fund II, PIMCO Floating Rate Income Fund, PIMCO Floating Rate
Strategy Fund (collectively, the ``Current Funds''), and Allianz Global
Investors Fund Management LLC (``AGIFM'').

Filing Dates: The application was filed on May 2, 2007 and amended on
January 10, 2008 and August 29, 2008.

Hearing or Notification of Hearing: An order granting the application
will be issued unless the Commission orders a hearing. Interested
persons may request a hearing by writing to the Commission's Secretary
and serving the applicants with a copy of the request, personally or by
mail. Hearing requests should be received by the Commission by 5:30
p.m. on September 26, 2008 and should be accompanied by proof of
service on the applicants in the form of an affidavit or, for lawyers,
a certificate of service. Hearing requests should state the nature of
the writer's interest, the reason for the request, and the issues
contested. Persons who wish to be notified of a hearing may request
notification by writing to the Commission's Secretary.

ADDRESSES: Secretary, U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F
Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090; Applicants, c/o AGIFM, 49th
Floor, 1345 Avenue of the Americas, New York, NY 10105.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Laura J. Riegel, Senior Counsel, at
(202) 551-6873 (Division of Investment Management, Office of Investment
Company Regulation).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The following is a summary of the
application. The complete application may be obtained for a fee from
the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street, NE., Washington,
DC 20549-1520 (telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>).

Applicants' Representations

    1. Each of the Current Funds is organized as a Massachusetts
business trust or Maryland corporation. Each of the Current Funds is
registered under the Act as a closed-end management investment company.
AGIFM, an investment adviser registered under the Investment Advisers
Act of 1940, serves as the investment adviser to each Current Fund.
Each Current Fund has outstanding one class of common stock that trades
on the New York Stock Exchange. Each Current Fund also has outstanding
one or more series of preferred stock that pays out distributions at a
rate generally set at periodic auctions (``Auction Market

Preferred Stock''). Applicants request that the order apply to any
registered closed-end management investment company currently advised
or to be advised in the future by AGIFM (including any successor in
interest) \1\ or by an entity controlling, controlled by, or under
common control (within the meaning of section 2(a)(9) of the Act) with
AGIFM that determines to rely on the requested relief in the future
(such investment companies, the ``Future Funds'' and together with the
Current Funds, the ``Funds'').\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ A successor in interest is limited to entities that result
from a reorganization into another jurisdiction or a change in the
type of business organization.
    \2\ All existing registered closed-end management investment
companies that currently intend to rely on the requested order are
named as applicants. Any Future Fund that relies on the order will
comply with the terms of the application.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    2. The board of directors or trustees of each Fund (a ``Board'')
has set or will set the initial dividend rate for each series of
Auction Market Preferred Stock. Subsequently, each Fund pays or will
pay dividends generally at seven day intervals (or at such other
interval or intervals as the Fund's organizational documents permit) on
its Auction Market Preferred Stock at a rate determined by auction or,
under certain circumstances, at the maximum rate.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The maximum rate for a series of Auction Market Preferred
Stock has been established or will be established in the
organizational documents creating the applicable series of Auction
Market Preferred Stock, by reference to independent lending rates.
The dividend rate will be the maximum rate when sufficient clearing
bids have not been made in an auction or an auction is unable to be
held for any reason on the date the auction is scheduled to occur.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    3. Each Fund will make annual distributions of realized long-term
capital gains, if any, to both the holders of its common stock and
Auction Market Preferred Stock. Distributions of long-term capital
gains are designed to comply with Revenue Ruling 89-81. Depending upon
the amount of long-term capital gains realized in a fiscal year, the
period of time between auctions, and the amount of the dividend as set
by auction, each Fund may be required to make a greater number of long-
term capital gains distributions to the holders of its Auction Market
Preferred Stock than is permitted by section 19(b) and rule 19b-1 to
comply with Revenue Ruling 89-81. Each Fund will make distributions of
long-term capital gains to common stockholders in compliance with
section 19(b) and rule 19b-1.
    4. Applicants apply for an order pursuant to section 6(c) of the
Act to exempt distributions of long-term capital gains that are made by
the Funds to the holders of their Auction Market Preferred Stock in any
one taxable year from the provisions of section 19(b) and rule 19b-1 to
the extent necessary to comply with Revenue Ruling 89-81; provided that
each Fund maintains in effect a distribution policy calling for
periodic distributions to the holders of its Auction Market Preferred
Stock (i.e., at seven day intervals or such other interval as specified
in the organizational document creating such Auction Market Preferred
Stock) at the rates determined by the Board at the time a series of
Auction Market Preferred Stock is issued initially, and, thereafter
pursuant to auction or at the maximum rate.

Applicants' Legal Analysis

    1. Section 19(b) of the Act generally makes it unlawful for any
registered company to make long-term capital gains distributions more
than once each year. Rule 19b-1 under the Act limits the number of
capital gains dividends, as defined in the Code (``distributions''),
that a registered investment company may make with respect to any one
taxable year to one, plus a supplemental ``clean up'' distribution made
pursuant to section 855 of the Code not exceeding 10% of the total
amount distributed for the year, plus one additional capital gain
dividend made in whole or in part to avoid the excise tax under section
4982 of the Code.
    2. Revenue Ruling 89-81 requires a regulated investment company
that has two or more classes of stock to make designations of various
types of income in the same proportion as the total dividends
distributed to each class for the tax year. To satisfy the
proportionate designation requirements of Revenue Ruling 89-81,
whenever a Fund realizes a long-term capital gain with respect to a
given tax year, the Fund designates the required proportionate share of
such capital gain to be included in the dividends on its Auction Market
Preferred Stock and common stock. Each Fund calculates the ratio by
dividing the total dividends paid to holders of each series of its
Auction Market Preferred Stock during a taxable year by the total
dividends paid to all classes during that year. Each Fund then declares
and distributes designated long-term capital gains dividends to the
holders of its common stock and Auction Market Preferred Stock in
proportion to this ratio.
    3. Applicants state that under certain circumstances, a Fund will
be able to comply with both Revenue Ruling 89-81 and rule 19b-1. For
example, if the entire dividend payment set at auction distributes in a
single dividend the full amount of long-term capital gains required to
be distributed by Revenue Ruling 89-81, the Fund will comply with both
Revenue Ruling 89-81 and rule 19b-1. Applicants assert, however, that
depending upon the amount of a Fund's realized long-term capital gains
in a taxable year, the period of time between auctions, the number of
series of its Auction Market Preferred Stock outstanding, and the
amount of the dividend set pursuant to an auction, a Fund may be
required to make a greater number of long-term capital gains
distributions to the holders of its Auction Market Preferred Stock
under Revenue Ruling 89-81 than is permitted under section 19(b) and
rule 19b-1. Applicants explain that while rule 19b-1 does give
regulated investment companies some flexibility with respect to long-
term capital gains distributions, a Fund could have used all of the
exceptions provided by rule 19b-1 and, because it would need to make
additional distributions to the holders of series of its Auction Market
Preferred Stock, be unable to comply with Revenue Ruling 89-81, section
19(b) and rule 19b-1 with respect to its Auction Market Preferred
Stock.
    4. Applicants submit that one of the concerns leading to the
enactment of section 19(b) and the adoption of rule 19b-1 was that
investors might be unable to distinguish between regular distributions
of capital gains and distributions of investment income. In the case of
Auction Market Preferred Stock, applicants state there is little chance
for investor confusion since investors expect to receive only the cash
amount representing the specified dividend distribution for any
particular dividend period and the dividend rate is set through an
auction process. With respect to each distribution to the holders of
Auction Market Preferred Stock, applicants state that the Current Funds
have adopted, and any Future Fund will adopt, procedures designed to
comply with the disclosure requirements set forth in section 19(a) of
the Act and rule 19a-1 under the Act. Applicants state that in
accordance with such procedures, when the Current Funds or their
service providers determine or reasonably estimate that a distribution
will be comprised of a source other than the sources described in
sections 19(a)(1) and 19(a)(2) of the Act, the Current Funds or their
service providers include the source information required by rule 19a-1
on the wire confirmation that accompanies the electronic transfer of
funds, which represents payment of the distribution. The Current Funds
or their service

providers include a request that the recipient send the source
information to the beneficial shareholder if the recipient is other
than the beneficial shareholder of the stock to which the notice
relates.
    5. Another concern underlying section 19(b) and rule 19b-1 is that
frequent long-term capital gains distributions could facilitate
improper distribution practices, including, in particular, the practice
of urging an investor to purchase fund shares on the basis of an
upcoming dividend (``selling the dividend'') where the dividend results
in an immediate corresponding reduction in net asset value and would
be, in effect, a return of the investor's capital. Applicants state
that the ``selling the dividend'' concern is not applicable to Auction
Market Preferred Stock, which entitles a holder to a specified periodic
dividend and no more, and like a debt security, is initially sold at a
price based on its liquidation preference, credit quality, dividend
rate and frequency of payment.
    6. Applicants state that another concern leading to the adoption of
section 19 and rule 19b-1, an increase in administrative costs, is not
present because the Funds will make the same number of distributions
with respect to their Auction Market Preferred Stock regardless of
whether the characterization of such distributions is income or long-
term capital gains.
    7. Section 6(c) of the Act provides that the Commission may exempt
any person, security, or transaction or class or classes of any
persons, securities, or transactions from any provision of the Act, if
and to the extent that the exemption is necessary or appropriate in the
public interest and consistent with the protection of investors and the
purposes fairly intended by the policy and provisions of the Act. For
the reasons stated above, applicants believe that the requested relief
satisfies this standard.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Investment Management,
pursuant to delegated authority.
Florence E. Harmon,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. E8-20615 Filed 9-4-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010-01-P


[Federal Register: October 2, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 190)]
[Notices]
[Page 56122]
[DOCID:fr02oc07-96]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Railroad Administration

Draft Bay Area to Central Valley High-Speed Train Programmatic
Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact Statement

AGENCY: Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), U.S. Department of
Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Notice of extension of draft environmental impact statement
comment period.

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

SUMMARY: On July 2, 2007, FRA approved for release and agency and
public review the Draft Program Environmental Impact Report/
Environmental Impact Statement (EIR/EIS) for the Bay Area to Central
Valley portion of the California High Speed Rail Authority's
(Authority) proposed High Speed Train Program for the State of
California. FRA is the lead federal agency on the environmental review
in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and the
Authority is the project sponsor and lead agency for the California
Environmental Quality Act review. In releasing the Draft Program EIR/
EIS, FRA and the Authority established a 70-day public comment period
that was scheduled to end on September 28, 2007. The public was
notified of the 70-day comment period through a variety of avenues,
including newspaper publications, information included on both
agencies' Web sites, at public hearings held throughout the affected
area, and through the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's weekly
Federal Register publication (72 FR 39808, July 20, 2007), which noted
the availability of the Draft Program EIR/EIS, identified as EIS No.
20070303.
    At its September 26, 2007 board meeting, the Authority considered a
number of public requests to extend the comment period and decided to
accept comments until noon on October 26, 2007. FRA agrees with the
Authority that this extension will facilitate public participation and
is extending the comment period for NEPA purposes to October 26, 2007
as well.

DATES: The comment period on the Draft Bay Area to Central Valley HST
Program EIR/EIS is extended until October 26, 2007.

ADDRESSES: Comments may be submitted to the California High-Speed Rail
Authority, EIR/EIS Comments, 925 L Street, Suite 1425, Sacramento, CA
95814.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For further information regarding the
programmatic environmental review, please contact: Mr. Dan Leavitt,
Deputy Director of the California High-Speed Rail Authority, 925 L
Street, Suite 1425, Sacramento, CA 95814 (telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>); or
Mr. David Valenstein, Environmental Program Manager, Office of
Passenger Programs, Federal Railroad Administration, 1120 Vermont
Avenue (Mail Stop 20), Washington, DC 20590 (telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: More information about the proposed HST
system, the first-tier Program EIR/EIS addressing the HST system and
the Draft Bay Area to Central Valley HST EIS are available at http://www.cahighspeedrail.ca.gov
.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on September 26, 2007.
Mark E. Yachmetz,
Associate Administrator for Railroad Development.
[FR Doc. 07-4854 Filed 9-27-07; 1:10 pm]

BILLING CODE 4910-06-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 222 (Friday, November 18, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Page 69269]
[FR Doc No: 2022-25194]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[FRL OP-OFA-044]

Environmental Impact Statements; Notice of Availability

    Responsible Agency: Office of Federal Activities, General
Information<PHONE_NUMBER> or https://www.epa.gov/nepa.

Weekly receipt of Environmental Impact Statements (EIS) Filed November
4, 2022 10 a.m. EST Through November 14, 2022 10 a.m. EST Pursuant to
40 CFR 1506.9.

    Notice: Section 309(a) of the Clean Air Act requires that EPA make
public its comments on EISs issued by other Federal agencies. EPA's
comment letters on EISs are available at: https://cdxapps.epa.gov/cdx-enepa-II/public/action/eis/search.

EIS No. 20220164, Draft, FHWA, LA, I-10 Calcasieu River Bridge
Improvements, Comment Period Ends: 01/03/2023, Contact: Daniel Suarez
225-757-7615.
EIS No. 20220165, Draft, USFWS, OR, Elliott State Research Forest
Habitat Conservation Plan, Comment Period Ends: 01/03/2023, Contact:
Shauna Everett<PHONE_NUMBER>.
EIS No. 20220166, Final, EPA, IBWC, CA, United States-Mexico-Canada
Agreement Mitigation of Contaminated Transboundary Flows Project,
Review Period Ends: 12/19/2022, Contact: Steven Smith<PHONE_NUMBER>.
EIS No. 20220167, Draft, USFS, CA, North Yuba Landscape Resilience
Project, Comment Period Ends: 01/03/2023, Contact: John I Brokaw 530-
265-4531.
EIS No. 20220168, Final, NMFS, PRO, Programmatic Environmental Impact
Statement for the Marine Mammal Health and Stranding Response Program,
Review Period Ends: 12/19/2022, Contact: Stephen Manley<PHONE_NUMBER>.
EIS No. 20220169, Final, BLM, USFS, ID, Husky 1 North Dry Ridge
Phosphate Mine, Review Period Ends: 12/19/2022, Contact: Wes Gilmer
208-478-6369.
EIS No. 20220170, Draft Supplement, FHWA, WI, I-94 East--West (16th
Street--70th Street) Milwaukee County, WI, Comment Period Ends: 01/17/
2023, Contact: Bethaney Bacher-Gresock<PHONE_NUMBER>.
EIS No. 20220171, Draft, BOEM, NY, Empire Offshore Wind, Comment Period
Ends: 01/17/2023, Contact: Brandi Sangunett<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: November 14, 2022.
Cindy S. Barger,
Director, NEPA Compliance Division, Office of Federal Activities.
[FR Doc. 2022-25194 Filed 11-17-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 92 (Monday, May 13, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Page 27962]
[FR Doc No: 2013-11276]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 14496-000]

 Archon Energy 1, Inc. Notice of Preliminary Permit Application
Accepted for Filing and Soliciting Comments, Motions To Intervene, and
Competing Applications

    On February 11, 2013, the Archon Energy 1, Inc., filed an
application for a preliminary permit, pursuant to section 4(f) of the
Federal Power Act (FPA), proposing to study the feasibility of the
Upper Alamo River Hydroelectric Project (Upper Alamo River
Hydroelectric Project or project) to be located on the Alamo River,
near the cities of Calipatria, Brawley, and Holtville in Imperial
County, California. The sole purpose of a preliminary permit, if
issued, is to grant the permit holder priority to file a license
application during the permit term. A preliminary permit does not
authorize the permit holder to perform any land-disturbing activities
or otherwise enter upon lands or waters owned by others without the
owners' express permission.
    The proposed project would consist of six river drop developments.
Each of the proposed in-stream installations would consist of the
following: (1) a VLH 4000 turbo-generator; (2) a 10-by-10-foot
electrical shack; and (3) appurtenant facilities. The proposed project
would have a total installed capacity of 3 megawatts and generate an
estimated average annual energy production of 21 gigawatt-hours.
    Applicant Contact: Mr. Paul Grist, Archon Energy 1, Inc., 101 E.
Kennedy Blvd., Suite 2800, Tampa, Florida 33602, phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    FERC Contact: Corey Vezina; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>, email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    Deadline for filing comments, motions to intervene, competing
applications (without notices of intent), or notices of intent to file
competing applications: 60 Days from the issuance of this notice.
Competing applications and notices of intent must meet the requirements
of 18 CFR 4.36. Comments, motions to intervene, notices of intent, and
competing applications may be filed electronically via the Internet.
See 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's
Web site 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_ADDRESS>or toll free at 1-866-208-3676,
or for TTY,<PHONE_NUMBER>. Although the Commission strongly encourages
electronic filing, documents may also be paper-filed. To paper-file,
mail an original and five copies to: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary,
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington,
DC 20426.
    More information about this project, including a copy of the
application, can be viewed or printed on the ``eLibrary'' link of
Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/elibrary.asp.
Enter the docket number (P-14496) in the docket number field to access
the document. For assistance, contact FERC Online Support.

    Dated: May 6, 2013.
 Kimberly D. Bose,
 Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2013-11276 Filed 5-10-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 227 (Tuesday, November 25, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 70253-70256]
[FR Doc No: 2014-27845]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-73648; File No. SR-NASDAQ-2014-108]

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

November 19, 2014.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that
on November 12, 2014, The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC (``NASDAQ'' or the
``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') a proposed rule change as described in Items I, II,
and III below, which Items have been prepared by the Exchange. The
Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the
proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    NASDAQ is proposing to modify NASDAQ Rule 7018 fees assessed for
execution and routing securities listed on NASDAQ, the New York Stock
Exchange (``NYSE'') and on exchanges other than NASDAQ and NYSE.
    The text of the proposed rule change is available at
nasdaq.cchwallstreet.com at NASDAQ's principal office, and at the
Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    NASDAQ is proposing to amend NASDAQ Rule 7018(1), (2) and (3) to
modify fees assessed for execution and routing securities listed on
NASDAQ (``Tape C''), NYSE (``Tape A'') and on exchanges other than
NASDAQ and the NYSE (``Tape B''), respectively, (together, the
``Tapes'') as well as the opening and closing crosses (``Opening and
Closing Crosses'') in NASDAQ Rule 7018(d) and (e).
    The Exchange is proposing across all of the tapes (the ``Tapes'')
an increase to the fee for a firm that executes against resting
midpoint liquidity from $0.0027 per share executed to $0.0030 per share
executed. NASDAQ is seeking to harmonize the remove rate for orders
whether or not they execute against the midpoint so that the remove
rate for orders is certain before the order is entered. Therefore, the
Exchange is proposing to increase the charge from $0.0027 to $0.0030
per share executed across all the tapes.
    NASDAQ is also proposing to eliminate across all of the tapes the
current $0.00293 per share executed rebate for a member with shares of
liquidity provided in all securities through one or more of its Nasdaq
Market Center MPIDs that represent more than 0.10% of Consolidated
Volume during the month, with shares executed in the Opening and
Closing Cross that represent more than 0.20% of Consolidated Volume and
orders entered through a single Nasdaq Market Center MPID that
represent more than 0.50% of Consolidated Volume during the month.
NASDAQ believes that the elimination of this rebate is warranted since
it has failed to increase liquidity in Tape A, B or C securities or to
provide members with additional incentive to improve market quality.
    The Exchange is also proposing to modify and add new rebates across
all of the tapes. Specifically, NASDAQ is proposing to expand and
modify the credit for non-displayed orders (other than Supplemental
Orders) that provide liquidity. The rebate will now include a $0.0025
per share executed for midpoint orders. It will be offered provided
that

the member adds an average daily volume of 5 million or more shares
through midpoint orders during the month and either adds Customer and/
or Professional liquidity in Penny Pilot Options and/or Non- Penny
Pilot Options of 1.40% or more of national customer volume in multiply-
listed equity and exchange-traded fund (``ETF'') options classes in a
month as pursuant to Chapter XV, Section 2 of the Nasdaq Options Market
(``NOM'') rules or adds 8 million shares of non-displayed liquidity
(excluding retail price improvement orders). NASDAQ believes that this
proposed credit will incentivize members to post more liquidity at the
midpoint, which should improve price discovery for the benefit of
investors.
    NASDAQ also proposes to also modify this rebate for Tape C
securities only. Specifically, the credit of $0.0014 per share executed
tier for midpoint orders if the member provides an average daily volume
of less than 5 million shares through midpoint orders during the month
is proposed to be modified by decreasing it to $0.0010 per share
executed. The Exchange believes that is no longer necessary to pay a
higher rebate for adding liquidity in Tape C.
    The Exchange is also proposing to modify across all of the tapes
the existing credit for displayed Designated Retail Orders. The
existing rebate of $0.0033 per share will remain, but the rebate will
increase slightly to $0.0034 per share executed if the member adds
Customer and/or Professional liquidity in Penny Pilot Options and/or
Non- Penny Pilot Options of 1.40% or more of national customer volume
in multiply-listed equity and ETF options classes in a month as
pursuant to Chapter XV, Section 2 of the NOM rules. The Exchange
believes that increasing the rebate will attract additional retail
order flow.
    NASDAQ also is proposing to modify an existing fee for Tape A and
Tape B securities. The proposed fee cap of $5,000 per month pertains to
both a DOT or LIST Order that executes in the NYSE opening or re-
opening process combined with a LIST Order that executes in the
NYSEArca and NYSEAmex opening or re-opening process if a member adds
Customer and/or Professional liquidity in Penny Pilot Options and/or
Non-Penny Pilot Options of 1.40% or more of national customer volume in
multiply-listed equity and ETF options classes in a month as pursuant
to Chapter XV, Section 2 of the NOM Rules. The Exchange believes that
this will encourage firms that route options customer order flow and
equity order flow that would qualify as retail to send more order flow
to both NOM and NASDAQ. Additionally, NASDAQ is proposing to combine
for Tape B securities the LIST order that executes in an exchange's re-
opening process with the language noted above regarding the LIST order
that executes in an exchange's opening process. Aside from simplifying
the rule language by combining it for a LIST order that executes in the
opening or re-opening process, this also serves to reduce and harmonize
the fee for a LIST order that executes in an exchange's re-opening
process from $0.001 to $0.0005 per share executed in the NYSEArca re-
opening process.
    NASDAQ Rules 7018(d) and (e) set forth fees assessed for executions
received in the Opening and Closing Crosses. The rule provides a fee of
$0.0003 per share executed assessed for all other quotes and orders not
otherwise noted under the rules. The Exchange is proposing to increase
the fee from $0.0003 to $0.0004 per share executed in the Opening and
Closing Crosses. The proposed increases to the fees assessed for
executions in the Closing and Opening Crosses will help the Exchange
recapture some of the costs it incurs operating the cross system, while
maintaining very low fees for the execution of orders in these crosses.
2. Statutory Basis
    NASDAQ believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with
the provisions of Section 6 of the Act,\3\ in general, and with
Sections 6(b)(4) and 6(b)(5) of the Act,\4\ in particular, in that it
provides for the equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees and
other charges among members and issuers and other persons using any
facility or system which NASDAQ operates or controls, and is not
designed to permit unfair discrimination between customers, issuers,
brokers, or dealers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    NASDAQ believes that the increase across all of the tapes to the
fee for a member that executes against resting midpoint liquidity from
$0.0027 per share executed to $0.0030 per share executed is reasonable,
equitably allocated and not unfairly discriminatory and will harmonize
the remove rate for orders whether or not they execute against the
midpoint so that the remove rate for orders is certain before the order
is entered. The Exchange believes the increase is reasonable because
the rate is consistent with the standard remove rate and members
receive significant price improvement when accessing midpoint
liquidity. The fee increase is equitably allocated and not unfairly
discriminatory because the increase is being uniformly assessed across
all of the tapes on all members that execute against resting midpoint
liquidity. Further, the Exchange believes that the reduced remove rate
for receiving a midpoint execution is no longer necessary because the
reduction did not result in a meaningful change in midpoint activity.
    The Exchange believes that the elimination across all of the tapes
of the current $0.00293 per share executed rebate for a member with
shares of liquidity provided in all securities through one or more of
its Nasdaq Market Center MPIDs that represent more than 0.10% of
Consolidated Volume during the month, with shares executed in the
Opening and Closing Cross that represent more than 0.20% of
Consolidated Volume and orders entered through a single Nasdaq Market
Center MPID that represent more than 0.50% of Consolidated Volume
during the month is consistent with an equitable allocation of a
reasonable fee and not unfairly discriminatory. Specifically, the
Exchange believes it is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory
because this tier is being eliminated for all members and across all
tapes so no members are being disadvantaged. Additionally, only one
member qualified for the rebate in October and removing the rebate will
impact their total rebates received by less than 1%.
    NASDAQ believes that the change across all tapes to the credit for
non-displayed orders (other than Supplemental Orders) that provide
liquidity is reasonable, equitably allocated and not unfairly
discriminatory. The new tier for the rebate of $0.0025 per share
executed for midpoint orders when the member adds an average daily
volume of 5 million or more shares through midpoint orders during the
month and either adds Customer and/or Professional liquidity in Penny
Pilot Options and/or Non- Penny Pilot Options of 1.40% or more of
national customer volume in multiply-listed equity and ETF options
classes in a month as pursuant to Chapter XV, Section 2 of the NOM
rules or adds 8 million shares of non-displayed liquidity (excluding
retail price improvement orders) is equitably allocated and not
unfairly discriminatory because it treats all members uniformly since
it is available to all members and across all tapes. The

Exchange believes that the proposed change is reasonable because it
does not unfairly burden competition, but rather it will promote
competition among member organizations to provide more meaningful non-
displayed liquidity, specifically midpoint liquidity, on the Exchange
to the benefit of investors and other members.
    NASDAQ also proposes to modify the credit for non-displayed orders
(other than Supplemental Orders) in one additional way for Tape C
securities only. Specifically, the credit of $0.0014 per share executed
tier for midpoint orders if the member provides an average daily volume
of less than 5 million shares through midpoint orders during the month
is proposed to be modified by decreasing it to $0.0010 per share
executed. The Exchange believes that this rebate modification
applicable to Tape C securities only is reasonable, equitably allocated
and not unfairly discriminatory. NASDAQ believes that the proposed
decrease to the rebate is reasonable because it remains a higher rebate
than the rebates provided to other non-displayed liquidity in Tape C
securities and, thus, still incentivizes members to add midpoint
liquidity over other forms of non-displayed liquidity in Tape C and
represents only a modest decrease from the current rebate level. NASDAQ
believes that the proposed credit is equitably allocated and not
unfairly discriminatory because the rebate for this tier is available
and applies uniformly to members that are eligible that provide such
liquidity with regard to Tape C securities. Additionally, all members
have incentives available and equal opportunity to earn higher rebates
for adding more liquidity.
    NASDAQ believes that the modification of the existing rebate for
Designated Retail Orders is consistent with an equitable allocation of
a reasonable fee and not unfairly discriminatory. The existing rebate
of $0.0033 per share will remain, but the rebate will increase slightly
to $0.0034 per share executed if the member adds Customer and/or
Professional liquidity in Penny Pilot Options and/or Non- Penny Pilot
Options of 1.40% or more of national customer volume in multiply-listed
equity and ETF options classes in a month as pursuant to Chapter XV,
Section 2 of the NOM rules. The Exchange believes that the increase to
the rebate under certain circumstances is reasonable because it is
intended to incentivize liquidity for Designated Retail Orders and
thereby improve overall liquidity in the marketplace. The modified
rebate is equitably allocated and not unfairly discriminatory because
it is available to all members that satisfy the criteria, regardless of
the exchange upon which it is executed. The Exchange notes that rebates
linked to options volume is not novel and that the Exchange has other
tiers available for members based on options volume.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See Exchange Rule 7018.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange also believes that the modification to another
existing fee that is for Tape A and Tape B securities is reasonable,
equitably allocated and not unfairly discriminatory. Specifically, the
fee is [sic] and relates to both a DOT or LIST Order that executes in
the NYSE opening or re-opening process, and is combined with a LIST
Order that executes in the NYSEArca and NYSEAmex opening or re-opening
process for purposes of a cap of $0.0005 per share executed not to
exceed $5,000 per month. This applies if a member adds Customer and/or
Professional liquidity in Penny Pilot Options and/or Non-Penny Pilot
Options of 1.40% or more of national customer volume in multiply-listed
equity and ETF options classes in a month as pursuant to Chapter XV,
Section 2 of the NOM Rules. The Exchange believes that the cap on total
charges is reasonable because it provides additional incentives for
members to utilize the Exchange router to access liquidity at away
markets, as well as provide additional incentives to add options
liquidity to receive this routing benefit. This cap is also equitably
allocated and not unfairly discriminatory because all members have an
equal opportunity to receive this incentive should they choose to avail
themselves of this benefit. As noted above, incentives and benefits
that combine options and equities volume is [sic] not novel.
    NASDAQ also believes that, in connection with the rebate above,
combining for Tape B securities the LIST order that executes in an
exchange's re-opening process with the LIST order that executes in an
exchange's opening process, as well as reducing the fee from $0.001 to
$0.0005 per share executed in the NYSEArca re-opening process is
reasonable, equitably allocated and not unfairly discriminatory.
Specifically, the Exchange believes that reducing the fee for the
NYSEArca re-opening process is reasonable because it incentivizes
members to utilize the Exchange router to access liquidity at away
markets. Additionally, this fee reduction is equitably allocated and
not unfairly discriminatory because the reduced fee harmonizes the fee
for a LIST order that executes in an exchange's re-opening process and
applies to all members.
    Lastly, NASDAQ believes that the changes to the fees assessed for
participation the Opening and Closing Crosses are consistent with an
equitable allocation of a reasonable fee and not unfairly
discriminatory. Specifically, the Exchange is proposing to increase the
fee from $0.0003 to $0.0004 per share executed in the Opening and
Closing Crosses. The Exchange believes that the fees are reasonable
because supporting the crosses requires capital investment to maintain
a system that facilitates an orderly auction process, and the proposed
increases are designed to offset the costs the Exchange incurs in
operating the crosses. Moreover, the proposed fees are equitably
allocated because they apply a fee on all members that benefit from
participation in the Opening and Closing Crosses, and are based on the
type of order entered and contribution to market quality. Similarly,
the proposed fees are not unfairly discriminatory because they are
based on the type of order executed in the crosses and the benefit to
market quality that such orders provide. NASDAQ believes that the
proposal to increase the charges assessed for executions in the crosses
is reasonable, equitably allocated and not unfairly discriminatory
because the increased fees are identical in amount and apply to all
members that elect to participate in the crosses and receive an
execution. Moreover, NASDAQ does not believe that the increased fees
will negatively impact participation in the crosses as current rates
assessed for the open and closing cross continue to be materially less
than the standard fee for accessing liquidity.

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

    NASDAQ does not believe that the proposed rule changes will result
in any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act, as amended.\6\ NASDAQ notes
that it operates in a highly competitive market in which market
participants can readily favor competing venues if they deem fee levels
at a particular venue to be excessive, or rebate opportunities
available at other venues to be more favorable. In such an environment,
NASDAQ must continually adjust its fees to remain competitive with
other exchanges and with alternative trading systems that have been
exempted from compliance with the statutory standards applicable to
exchanges. Because

competitors are free to modify their own fees in response, and because
market participants may readily adjust their order routing practices,
NASDAQ believes that the degree to which fee changes in this market may
impose any burden on competition is extremely limited. In this
instance, the changes to routing fees and credits do not impose a
burden on competition because NASDAQ's routing services are optional
and are the subject of competition from other exchanges and broker-
dealers that offer routing services, as well as the ability of members
to develop their own routing capabilities. The slightly increased fees
for execution in the NASDAQ crosses are reflective of a need to support
and improve NASDAQ systems, which in turn benefit market quality and
ultimately, competition. In sum, if the changes proposed herein are
unattractive to market participants, it is likely that NASDAQ will lose
market share as a result.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(8).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Accordingly, NASDAQ does not believe that the proposed changes will
impair the ability of members or competing order execution venues to
maintain their competitive standing in the financial markets.

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

    Written comments were neither solicited nor received.

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

    The foregoing change has become effective pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act.\7\ At any time within 60 days of the filing
of the proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily
suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such
action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the
protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of
the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-NASDAQ-2014-108 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

    All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NASDAQ-2014-108.
This file number should be included on the subject line if email is
used. To help the Commission process and review your comments more
efficiently, please use only one method. The Commission will post all
comments on the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments,
all written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that
are filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating
to the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person,
other than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance
with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site
viewing and printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F
Street NE., Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the
hours of 10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of such filing also will be
available for inspection and copying at the principal office of the
Exchange. All comments received will be posted without change; the
Commission does not edit personal identifying information from
submissions. You should submit only information that you wish to make
available publicly. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-
NASDAQ-2014-108 and should be submitted on or before December 16, 2014.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2014-27845 Filed 11-24-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 204 (Tuesday, October 22, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 62825-62827]
[FR Doc No: 2013-24685]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-70697; File No. SR-NYSE-2013-69]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; New York Stock Exchange LLC;
Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change
for a Temporary Suspension of Those Aspects of Rules 36.20 and 36.21
That Would Not Permit Floor Brokers To Use Personal Portable Phone
Devices on The Trading Floor Due to the Unavailability of Exchange-
Provided Cell Phones Beginning on October 10, 2013 Until the Earlier of
When Cell Phone Service Is Restored or October 11, 2013

October 16, 2013.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) \1\ of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 (the ``Act'') \2\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\3\ notice is hereby
given that on October 10, 2013, New York Stock Exchange LLC (``NYSE''
or the ``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(the ``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I
and II below, which Items have been prepared by the self-regulatory
organization. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit
comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange proposes a temporary suspension of those aspects of
Rules 36.20 and 36.21 that would not permit Floor brokers to use
personal portable phone devices on the Trading Floor due to the
unavailability of Exchange-provided cell phones beginning on October
10, 2013 until the earlier of when cell phone service is restored or
October 11, 2013. The text of the proposed rule change is available on
the Exchange's Web site at www.nyse.com, at the principal office of the
Exchange, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to temporarily suspend those aspects of Rules
36.20 and 36.21 that would not permit Floor brokers to use personal
portable phone devices on the Trading Floor.\4\ As proposed, all other
aspects of Rule 36 remain applicable and the temporary suspensions of
the applicable Rule 36 requirements are in effect beginning October 10,
2013 when the outage began, and remain in place until the earlier of
when phone service is restored or close of business Friday, October 11,
2013.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Pursuant to Rule 6A, the Trading Floor is defined as the
restricted-access physical areas designated by the Exchange for the
trading of securities.
    \5\ The Exchange provided Floor brokers with notice of this rule
filing, including the applicable recordkeeping and other
requirements related to using personal cell phones during the
temporary suspension of Rule 36.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On October 10, 2013, the third-party carrier that provides service
for the Exchange-provided cell phones experienced an issue that
affected Exchange authorized and provided

portable phones for Floor brokers. This outage only impacted the
service for Exchange authorized and provided portable phones. As a
result, all Exchange authorized and provided cell phones were non-
operational before the opening of trading on October 10, 2013. The
Exchange is working closely with the third-party carrier to restore
such cell phone service.
    Rules 36.20 and 36.21 govern the type of telephone communications
that are approved for Floor brokers. Pursuant to Rule 36.20, Floor
brokers may maintain a telephone line on the Trading Floor and use
Exchange authorized and provided portable phones while on the Trading
Floor. The use of such Exchange authorized and provided portable phones
is governed by Rule 36.21. Because of the issues with the third-party
carrier, all Exchange authorized and provided portable phones are not
functional and therefore Floor brokers cannot use the Exchange
authorized and provided portable phones. However, the personal cell
phones of Floor brokers are operational on the Trading Floor. The
Exchange believes that because communications with customers is a vital
part of a Floor broker's role as agent and therefore contributes to
maintaining a fair and orderly market, during the period when Exchange-
provided cell phones are non-operational, Floor brokers should be
permitted to use personal portable phone devices in lieu of the non-
operational Exchange authorized and provided portable phones.
    The Exchange therefore proposes to temporarily suspend the
limitations in Rules 36.20 and 36.21 that permit Floor brokers to use
only Exchange authorized and provided portable phones so that Floor
brokers may also use personal portable phones on the Trading Floor. The
Exchange proposes that pursuant to this temporary suspension, Floor
brokers must provide the Exchange with the names of all Floor-based
personnel who used personal portable phones during this temporary
suspension period, together with the phone number and applicable
carrier for each number. Floor broker member organizations must
maintain in their books and records all cell phone records that show
both incoming and outgoing calls that were made during the period that
a personal portable phone was used on the Trading Floor. To the extent
the records are unavailable from the third-party carrier, the Floor
brokers must maintain contemporaneous records of all calls made or
received on a personal portable phone while on the Trading Floor. As
with all member organization records, such cell phone records must be
provided to Exchange regulatory staff, including without limitation
staff of the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (``FINRA''), on
request.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with Section 6(b) of the Act,\6\ in general, and furthers the
objectives of Section 6(b)(5) of the Act,\7\ in particular, in that it
is designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices,
to promote just and equitable principles of trade, to foster
cooperation and coordination with persons engaged in facilitating
transactions in securities, and to remove impediments to and perfect
the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In particular, because of issues experienced by a third-party cell
phone carrier, Exchange authorized and provided cell phones are not
functional. The Exchange believes that the proposed temporary
suspensions from those aspects of Rule 36 that restrict Floor broker's
use of personal portable phones on the Trading Floor removes
impediments to and perfects the mechanism of a free and open market and
national market system because the proposed relief will enable Floor
brokers to conduct their regular business, notwithstanding the ongoing
issues with telephone service. The Exchange further believes that
without the requested relief, Floor brokers would be compromised in
their ability to conduct their regular course of business on the
Trading Floor. In particular, for Floor brokers, because they operate
as agents for customers, their inability to communicate with customers
could compromise their ability to represent public orders on the
Trading Floor.

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate
in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The Exchange does not
believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on
competition because the proposed change only impacts Floor brokers and
has no change in operations for other market participants or other
market centers. To the contrary, the Exchange believes that without the
proposed relief, Floor brokers would be compromised in their ability to
conduct their regular course of business on the Trading Floor, thereby
placing a burden on the Floor brokers' ability to compete.

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

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

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

    The Exchange has filed the proposed rule change pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act \8\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder.\9\
Because the proposed rule change does not: (i) significantly affect the
protection of investors or the public interest; (ii) impose any
significant burden on competition; and (iii) become operative prior to
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, the proposed rule change has become
effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \10\ and Rule 19b-
4(f)(6) thereunder.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(iii).
    \9\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
    \10\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \11\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). In addition, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)
requires a self-regulatory organization to give the Commission
written notice of its intent to file the proposed rule change, along
with a brief description and text of the proposed rule change, at
least five business days prior to the date of filing of the proposed
rule change, or such shorter time as designated by the Commission.
The Exchange has satisfied this requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A proposed rule change filed under Rule 19b-4(f)(6) \12\ normally
does not become operative prior to 30 days after the date of the
filing. However, pursuant to Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii),\13\ the Commission
may designate a shorter time if such action is consistent with the
protection of investors and the public interest. The Exchange has asked
the Commission to waive the 30-day operative delay so that the proposal
may become operative immediately upon filing. The Commission believes
that waiving the 30-day operative delay is consistent with the
protection of investors and the public interest. Waiver of the
operative delay allows the terms of the relief described herein to be
available during the service outage for Exchange-provided cell phones.
Therefore, the Commission hereby waives the 30-day operative delay and

designates the proposal operative upon filing.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
    \13\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii).
    \14\ For purposes only of waiving the 30-day operative delay,
the Commission has considered the proposed rule's impact on
efficiency, competition, and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C.
78c(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of 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. If the Commission
takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings under
Section 19(b)(2)(B) of the Act \15\ to determine whether the proposed
rule change should be approved or disapproved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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-2013-69 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-2013-69. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of
10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available
for inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All
comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does
not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should
submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All
submissions should refer to File Number SR-NYSE-2013-69 and should be
submitted on or before November 12, 2013.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2013-24685 Filed 10-21-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 180 (Monday, September 17, 2012)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 57032-57035]
[FR Doc No: 2012-22825]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

44 CFR Part 64

[Docket ID FEMA-2012-0003; Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-8245]

Suspension of Community Eligibility

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This rule identifies communities where the sale of flood
insurance has been authorized under the National Flood Insurance
Program (NFIP) that are scheduled for suspension on the effective dates
listed within this rule because of noncompliance with the floodplain
management requirements of the program. If the Federal Emergency
Management Agency (FEMA) receives documentation that the community has
adopted the required floodplain management measures prior to the
effective suspension date given in this rule, the suspension will not
occur and a notice of this will be provided by publication in the
Federal Register on a subsequent date. Also, information identifying
the current participation status of a community can be obtained from
FEMA's Community Status Book (CSB). The CSB is available at http://www.fema.gov/fema/csb.shtm.

DATES: Effective Dates: The effective date of each community's
scheduled suspension is the third date (``Susp.'') listed in the third
column of the following tables.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you want to determine whether a
particular community was suspended on the suspension date or for
further information, contact David Stearrett, Federal Insurance and
Mitigation Administration, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C
Street SW., Washington, DC 20472,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The NFIP enables property owners to purchase
Federal flood insurance that is not otherwise generally available from
private insurers. In return, communities agree to adopt and administer
local floodplain management measures aimed at protecting lives and new
construction from future flooding. Section 1315 of the National Flood
Insurance Act of 1968, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 4022, prohibits the sale
of NFIP flood insurance unless an appropriate public body adopts
adequate floodplain management measures with effective enforcement
measures. The communities listed in this document no longer meet that
statutory requirement for compliance with program regulations, 44 CFR
part 59. Accordingly, the communities will be suspended on the
effective date in the third column. As of that date, flood insurance
will no longer be available in the community. We recognize that some of
these communities may adopt and submit the required documentation of
legally enforceable floodplain management measures after this rule is
published but prior to the actual suspension date. These communities
will not be suspended and will continue to be eligible for the sale of
NFIP flood insurance. A notice withdrawing the suspension of such
communities will be published in the Federal Register.
    In addition, FEMA publishes a Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) that
identifies the Special Flood Hazard Areas (SFHAs) in these communities.
The date of the FIRM, if one has been published, is indicated in the
fourth column of the table. No direct Federal financial assistance
(except assistance pursuant to the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief
and Emergency Assistance Act not in connection with a flood) may be
provided for construction or acquisition of buildings in identified
SFHAs for communities not participating in the NFIP and identified for
more than a year on FEMA's initial FIRM for the community as having
flood-prone areas (section 202(a) of the Flood Disaster Protection Act
of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4106(a), as amended). This prohibition against
certain types of Federal assistance becomes effective for the
communities listed on the date shown in the last column. The
Administrator finds that notice and public comment procedures under 5
U.S.C. 553(b), are impracticable and unnecessary because communities
listed in this final rule have been adequately notified.
    Each community receives 6-month, 90-day, and 30-day notification
letters addressed to the Chief Executive Officer stating that the
community will be suspended unless the required floodplain management
measures are met prior to the effective suspension date. Since these
notifications were made, this final rule may take effect within less
than 30 days.
    National Environmental Policy Act. This rule is categorically
excluded from the requirements of 44 CFR part 10, Environmental
Considerations. No environmental impact assessment has been prepared.
    Regulatory Flexibility Act. The Administrator has determined that
this rule is exempt from the requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility
Act because the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968, as amended,
Section 1315, 42 U.S.C. 4022, prohibits flood insurance coverage unless
an appropriate public body adopts adequate floodplain management
measures with effective enforcement measures. The communities listed no
longer comply with the statutory requirements, and after the effective
date, flood insurance will no longer be available in the communities
unless remedial action takes place.
    Regulatory Classification. This final rule is not a significant
regulatory action under the criteria of section 3(f) of Executive Order
12866 of September 30, 1993, Regulatory Planning and Review, 58 FR
51735.
    Executive Order 13132, Federalism. This rule involves no policies
that have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132.
    Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform. This rule meets the
applicable standards of Executive Order 12988.
    Paperwork Reduction Act. This rule does not involve any collection
of information for purposes of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C.
3501 et seq.

List of Subjects in 44 CFR Part 64

    Flood insurance, Floodplains.

    Accordingly, 44 CFR part 64 is amended as follows:

PART 64--[AMENDED]

0
1. The authority citation for Part 64 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 4001 et seq.; Reorganization Plan No. 3 of
1978, 3 CFR, 1978 Comp.; p. 329; E.O. 12127, 44 FR 19367, 3 CFR,
1979 Comp.; p. 376.

Sec.  64.6  [Amended]

0
2. The tables published under the authority of Sec.  64.6 are amended
as follows:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                 Effective date
                                                 authorization/                             Date certain Federal
      State and location         Community    cancellation of sale  Current effective map   assistance no longer
                                    No.      of flood insurance in           date            available in SFHAs
                                                   community
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Region III

Pennsylvania:
    Addison, Township of,           422508   January 18, 1985,      Sept. 19, 2012.......  Sept. 19, 2012.
     Somerset County.                         Emerg; June 1, 1989,
                                              Reg; September 19,
                                              2012, Susp.
    Allegheny, Township of,         422509   August 4, 1983,        ...... do*...........   Do.
     Somerset County.                         Emerg; June 1, 1989,
                                              Reg; September 19,
                                              2012, Susp.
    Benson, Borough of,             420793   October 14, 1975,      ...... do............   Do.
     Somerset County..                        Emerg; May 17, 1990,
                                              Reg; September 19,
                                              2012, Susp.
    Black, Township of,             422510   March 2, 1977, Emerg;  ...... do............   Do.
     Somerset County.                         September 10, 1984,
                                              Reg; September 19,
                                              2012, Susp.
    Boswell, Borough of,            420794   March 22, 1977,        ...... do............   Do.
     Somerset County.                         Emerg; September 24,
                                              1984, Reg; September
                                              19, 2012, Susp.
    Brothersvalley, Township        422511   July 25, 1985, Emerg;  ...... do............   Do.
     of, Somerset County.                     August 19, 1985,
                                              Reg; September 19,
                                              2012, Susp.

    Casselman, Borough of,          420795   March 9, 1977, Emerg;  ...... do............   Do.
     Somerset County.                         September 10, 1984,
                                              Reg; September 19,
                                              2012, Susp.
    Central City, Borough of,       420796   August 29, 1975,       ...... do............   Do.
     Somerset County.                         Emerg; June 18,
                                              1990, Reg; September
                                              19, 2012, Susp.
    Conemaugh, Township of,         422047   August 1, 1975,        ...... do............   Do.
     Somerset County.                         Emerg; June 4, 1990,
                                              Reg; September 19,
                                              2012, Susp.
    Confluence, Borough of,         422043   March 11, 1975,        ...... do............   Do.
     Somerset County.                         Emerg; September 6,
                                              1989, Reg; September
                                              19, 2012, Susp.
    Elk Lick, Township of,          422048   March 8, 1977, Emerg;  ...... do............   Do.
     Somerset County.                         September 10, 1984,
                                              Reg; September 19,
                                              2012, Susp.
    Fairhope, Township of,          422049   August 5, 1983,        ...... do............   Do.
     Somerset County.                         Emerg; August 19,
                                              1985, Reg; September
                                              19, 2012, Susp.
    Garrett, Borough of,            420797   July 31, 1975, Emerg;  ...... do............   Do.
     Somerset County.                         June 4, 1990, Reg;
                                              September 19, 2012,
                                              Susp.
    Greenville, Township of,        422512   October 27, 1981,      ...... do............   Do.
     Somerset County.                         Emerg; September 10,
                                              1984, Reg; September
                                              19, 2012, Susp.
    Hooversville, Borough of,       420798   August 5, 1975,        ...... do............   Do.
     Somerset County.                         Emerg; June 18,
                                              1990, Reg; September
                                              19, 2012, Susp.
    Indian Lake, Borough of,        422513   October 12, 1976,      ...... do............   Do.
     Somerset County.                         Emerg; September 10,
                                              1984, Reg; September
                                              19, 2012, Susp.
    Jefferson, Township of,         422050   March 26, 1976,        ...... do............   Do.
     Somerset County.                         Emerg; August 19,
                                              1985, Reg; September
                                              19, 2012, Susp.
    Jenner, Township of,            422051   February 18, 1976,     ...... do............   Do.
     Somerset County.                         Emerg; September 4,
                                              1985, Reg; September
                                              19, 2012, Susp.
    Jennerstown, Borough of,        422514   March 1, 1977, Emerg;  ...... do............   Do.
     Somerset County.                         September 24, 1984,
                                              Reg; September 19,
                                              2012, Susp.
    Larimer, Township of,           422515   September 8, 1983,     ...... do............   Do.
     Somerset County.                         Emerg; April 1,
                                              1988, Reg; September
                                              19, 2012, Susp.
    Lincoln, Township of,           422516   March 7, 1977, Emerg;  ...... do............   Do.
     Somerset County.                         September 10, 1984,
                                              Reg; September 19,
                                              2012, Susp.
    Lower Turkeyfoot,               422517   May 4, 1977, Emerg;    ...... do............   Do.
     Township of, Somerset                    September 10, 1984,
     County.                                  Reg; September 19,
                                              2012, Susp.
    Meyersdale, Borough of,         422044   March 21, 1977,        ...... do............   Do.
     Somerset County.                         Emerg; June 17,
                                              1986, Reg; September
                                              19, 2012, Susp.
    Middlecreek, Township of,       422518   April 25, 1979,        ...... do............   Do.
     Somerset County.                         Emerg; September 10,
                                              1984, Reg; September
                                              19, 2012, Susp.
    Milford, Township of,           422519   May 21, 1979, Emerg;   ...... do............   Do.
     Somerset County.                         September 10, 1984,
                                              Reg; September 19,
                                              2012, Susp.
    New Baltimore, Borough          420799   April 8, 1981, Emerg;  ...... do............   Do.
     of, Somerset County.                     September 24, 1984,
                                              Reg; September 19,
                                              2012, Susp.
    Northampton, Township of,       422520   February 10, 1976,     ...... do............   Do.
     Somerset County.                         Emerg; September 24,
                                              1984, Reg; September
                                              19, 2012, Susp.
    Ogle, Township of,              422052   April 23, 1976,        ...... do............   Do.
     Somerset County.                         Emerg; May 17, 1990,
                                              Reg; September 19,
                                              2012, Susp.
    Paint, Borough of,              420800   August 27, 1975,       ...... do............   Do.
     Somerset County.                         Emerg; November 19,
                                              1986, Reg; September
                                              19, 2012, Susp.
    Paint, Township of,             422521   February 13, 1976,     ...... do............   Do.
     Somerset County.                         Emerg; June 4, 1990,
                                              Reg; September 19,
                                              2012, Susp.
    Quemahoning, Township of,       422053   April 19, 1976,        ...... do............   Do.
     Somerset County.                         Emerg; August 15,
                                              1989, Reg; September
                                              19, 2012, Susp.
    Rockwood, Borough of,           422045   February 17, 1977,     ...... do............   Do.
     Somerset County.                         Emerg; June 18,
                                              1990, Reg; September
                                              19, 2012, Susp.
    Salisbury, Borough of,          420801   April 22, 1975,        ...... do............   Do.
     Somerset County.                         Emerg; September 24,
                                              1984, Reg; September
                                              19, 2012, Susp.
    Shade, Township of,             422054   August 21, 1975,       ...... do............   Do.
     Somerset County.                         Emerg; February 6,
                                              1991, Reg; September
                                              19, 2012, Susp.
    Shanksville, Borough of,        420802   March 2, 1977, Emerg;  ...... do............   Do.
     Somerset County.                         September 24, 1984,
                                              Reg; September 19,
                                              2012, Susp.
    Somerset, Borough of,           420803   September 10, 1971,    ...... do............   Do.
     Somerset County.                         Emerg; November 27,
                                              1976, Reg; September
                                              19, 2012, Susp.
    Somerset, Township of,          422055   July 19, 1976, Emerg;  ...... do............   Do.
     Somerset County.                         May 17, 1990, Reg;
                                              September 19, 2012,
                                              Susp.
    Southampton, Township of,       422523   March 1, 1977, Emerg;  ...... do............   Do.
     Somerset County.                         September 24, 1984,
                                              Reg; September 19,
                                              2012, Susp.
    Stonycreek, Township of,        422524   April 21, 1976,        ...... do............   Do.
     Somerset County.                         Emerg; August 19,
                                              1985, Reg; September
                                              19, 2012, Susp.
    Summit, Township of,            422056   October 27, 1981,      ...... do............   Do.
     Somerset County.                         Emerg; September 10,
                                              1984, Reg; September
                                              19, 2012, Susp.
    Upper Turkeyfoot,               422525   April 25, 1979,        ...... do............   Do.
     Township of, Somerset                    Emerg; September 10,
     County.                                  1984, Reg; September
                                              19, 2012, Susp.

    Ursina, Borough of,             420804   August 21, 1975,       ...... do............   Do.
     Somerset County.                         Emerg; June 18,
                                              1990, Reg; September
                                              19, 2012, Susp.
    Wellersburg, Borough of,        422526   April 19, 1984,        ...... do............   Do.
     Somerset County.                         Emerg; June 1, 1989,
                                              Reg; September 19,
                                              2012, Susp.
    Windber, Borough of,            422046   April 29, 1975,        ...... do............   Do.
     Somerset County.                         Emerg; October 17,
                                              1986, Reg; September
                                              19, 2012, Susp.

          Region IV

Kentucky:
    Burkesville, City of,           210061   October 2, 1975,       ...... do............   Do.
     Cumberland County.                       Emerg; July 3, 1986,
                                              Reg; September 19,
                                              2012, Susp.
    Grayson County,                 210330   N/A, Emerg; September  ...... do............   Do.
     Unincorporated Areas.                    15, 2001, Reg;
                                              September 19, 2012,
                                              Susp.
    Leitchfield, City of,           210085   February 4, 2002,      ...... do............   Do.
     Grayson County.                          Emerg; N/A, Reg;
                                              September 19, 2012,
                                              Susp.
Mississippi:
    George County,                  280223   May 2, 1975, Emerg;    ...... do............   Do.
     Unincorporated Areas.                    August 16, 1988,
                                              Reg; September 19,
                                              2012, Susp.
    Lucedale, City of, George       280056   April 24, 1975,        ...... do............   Do.
     County.                                  Emerg; April 15,
                                              1986, Reg; September
                                              19, 2012, Susp.

           Region V

Ohio:
    Malta, Village of, Morgan       390421   April 22, 1975,        ...... do............   Do.
     County.                                  Emerg; September 1,
                                              1987, Reg; September
                                              19, 2012, Susp.
    McConnelsville, Village         390422   August 1, 1975,        ...... do............   Do.
     of, Morgan County.                       Emerg; July 1, 1987,
                                              Reg; September 19,
                                              2012, Susp.
    Stockport, Village of,          390423   May 30, 1975, Emerg;   ...... do............   Do.
     Morgan County.                           August 1, 1987, Reg;
                                              September 19, 2012,
                                              Susp.

          Region VII

Missouri:
    Argyle, Village of, Osage       290491   May 13, 1974, Emerg;   ...... do............   Do.
     County.                                  August 1, 1986, Reg;
                                              September 19, 2012,
                                              Susp.
    Linn, City of, Osage            290708   N/A, Emerg; April 28,  ...... do............   Do.
     County.                                  2006, Reg; September
                                              19, 2012, Susp.

         Region VIII

Montana:
    East Helena, City of,           300039   May 23, 1975, Emerg;   ...... do............   Do.
     Lewis and Clark County.                  June 4, 1980, Reg;
                                              September 19, 2012,
                                              Susp.
    Helena, City of, Lewis          300040   May 6, 1975, Emerg;    ...... do............   Do.
     and Clark County.                        April 15, 1981, Reg;
                                              September 19, 2012,
                                              Susp.
    Lewis and Clark County,         300038   August 26, 1975,       ...... do............   Do.
     Unincorporated Areas.                    Emerg; April 1,
                                              1981, Reg; September
                                              19, 2012, Susp.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
*...... do = Ditto.
Code for reading third column: Emerg.--Emergency; Reg.--Regular; Susp.--Suspension.

    Dated: September 10, 2012.
David L. Miller,
Associate Administrator, Federal Insurance and Mitigation
Administration, Department of Homeland Security, Federal Emergency
Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2012-22825 Filed 9-14-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-12-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 155 (Friday, August 10, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 39750-39751]
[FR Doc No: 2018-17135]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[ER-FRL-9040-7]

Environmental Impact Statements; Notice of Availability

    Responsible Agency: Office of Federal Activities, General
Information<PHONE_NUMBER> or https://www2.epa.gov/nepa/.

Weekly receipt of Environmental Impact Statements
Filed 07/30/2018 Through 08/03/2018
Pursuant to 40 CFR 1506.9.

Notice

    Section 309(a) of the Clean Air Act requires that EPA make public
its comments on EISs issued by other Federal agencies. EPA's comment
letters on EISs are available at: https://cdxnodengn.epa.gov/cdx-enepa-public/action/eis/search.

EIS No. 20180177, Draft, USCG, AK, Coast Guard Polar Icebreaker
Acquisition Program, Comment Period Ends: 09/24/2018, Contact:
Christine Wiegand<PHONE_NUMBER>.
EIS No. 20180178, Draft, NHTSA, REG, Draft EIS for The Safer Affordable
Fuel-Efficient (SAFE) Vehicles Rule for Model Year 2021-2026 Passenger
Cars and Light Trucks, Comment Period Ends: 09/24/2018, Contact: Ken
Katz<PHONE_NUMBER>.
EIS No. 20180179, Final Supplement, USACE, WA, Mount St. Helens Long-
Term Sediment Management Plan, Review Period Ends: 09/10/2018, Contact:
Mike Turaski, Project Manager<PHONE_NUMBER>.
EIS No. 20180180, Draft, BLM, CA, Desert Quartzite Solar Project Draft
Plan Amendment, Environmental Impact Statement and Environmental Impact
Report, Comment Period Ends: 11/08/2018, Contact: Brandon G. Anderson
760-833-7140.

    Dated: August 7, 2018.
Robert Tomiak,
Director, Office of Federal Activities.
[FR Doc. 2018-17135 Filed 8-9-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P