[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 84 (Wednesday, May 1, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 25508-25510]
[FR Doc No: 2013-10177]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-69436; File No. SR-NYSEARCA-2013-40]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE Arca, Inc.; Notice of Filing
and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Amending NYSE Arca
Equities Rule 7.11 Clarifying the Exchange's Treatment of Discretionary
Orders That Have Discretionary Prices Outside of the Limit Up-Limit
Down Price Bands

April 23, 2013.
    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 April 10, 2013, NYSE Arca, Inc. (``NYSE Arca'' or ``Exchange'')
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'') the
proposed rule change as described in Items I and II below, which Items
have been prepared by the Exchange. The Commission is publishing this
notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change from interested
persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange proposes to amend NYSE Arca Equities Rule 7.11 to
clarify the Exchange's treatment of Discretionary Orders that have
discretionary prices outside the Price Bands. 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 is proposing to amend new NYSE Arca Equities Rule 7.11
(``New Rule 7.11'' or the ``New Rule''), which implements the Limit Up-
Limit Down Plan,\3\ the first phase of which becomes effective on April
8, 2013, to clarify the Exchange's treatment of Discretionary Orders
that have discretionary prices outside the Price Bands. Under New Rule
7.11, buy or sell interest that is priced or could be executed above or
below the Price Bands, as that term is used in the New Rule, would be
canceled, with one exception. That exception, set out in sub-paragraph
(a)(6) of the New Rule, permits an ETP Holder to instruct the Exchange
to reprice eligible limit orders that are priced above or below the
Price Bands, rather than cancel such orders. Eligible limit orders
would be repriced to the Price Bands.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ As defined in New Rule 7.11, ``Plan'' means the Plan to
Address Extraordinary Market Volatility Submitted to the Securities
and Exchange Commission Pursuant to Rule 608 of Regulation NMS under
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, Exhibit A to Securities
Exchange Act Release No. 67091 (May 31, 2012), 77 FR 33498 (June 6,
2012), as it may be amended from time to time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange is proposing to amend New Rule 7.11 to clarify its
treatment of Discretionary Orders, including Discretion Limit Orders
and Passive Discretionary Orders,\4\ in certain circumstances. A
Discretionary Order is an order to buy or sell securities at a
specified, undisplayed price, called the ``discretionary price,'' as
well as at a specified, displayed price. Pursuant to New Rule
7.11(a)(6)(C), an ETP Holder can enter an instruction to re-price
Discretionary Orders rather than cancel them. However, if a
Discretionary Order includes a discretionary price that is priced
outside the Price Bands, the Exchange would cancel the order because it
would be unexecutable at the discretionary price, even if the displayed
price of the order is repriced to the Price Bands. Accordingly, the
Exchange proposes to clarify in the Rule that in this scenario, the
Exchange would cancel a Discretionary Order rather than reprice it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ ``Discretionary Order,'' ``Passive Discretionary Order,''
and ``Discretion Limit Order'' are defined in paragraph (h) of Arca
Equities Rule 7.31.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

 2. Statutory Basis
    The proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the ``Act''),\5\ in general, and
furthers the objectives of Section 6(b)(5),\6\ 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.
The proposal would clarify to ETP Holders how the Exchange would treat
Discretionary Orders with discretionary prices outside the Price Bands.
The Exchange believes that the clarifying change removes impediments to
and perfects the mechanism of a free and open market because it makes
clear that an order with a discretionary price that is outside the
Price Bands, and therefore unexecutable, would be cancelled.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate
in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The Exchange believes that
the proposed amendment will not impose any burdens on competition
because the proposal would clarify to ETP Holders how Discretionary
Orders with discretionary prices outside the Price Bands would be
treated, which would provide ETP Holders with more information in
setting discretionary prices for such orders.

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 \7\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder.\8\
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 and Rule 19b-
4(f)(6)(iii) thereunder.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(iii).
    \8\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). In addition, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)
requires the Exchange to give the Commission written notice of the
Exchange's 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
Commission has waived the five-day prefiling requirement in this
case.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A proposed rule change filed under Rule 19b-4(f)(6) \9\ normally
does not become operative prior to 30 days after the date of the
filing. However, pursuant to Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii),\10\ 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 because such waiver
would allow the Exchange immediately to clarify its treatment of
Discretionary Orders that may be affected by the Limit Up-Limit Down
Plan, which was implemented on April 8, 2013. Accordingly, the
Commission hereby grants the Exchange's request and designates the
proposal operative upon filing.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
    \10\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii).
    \11\ 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.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or

     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-NYSEARCA-2013-40 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NYSEARCA-2013-40. 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 publicly available. All
submissions should refer to File Number SR-NYSEARCA-2013-40 and should
be submitted on or before May 22, 2013.

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

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

Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2013-10177 Filed 4-30-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


	ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

	40 CFR Part 52 and 81

	[EPA-R03-OAR-2006-0862; FRL-         ]

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

AGENCY:  Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION:  Final rule.

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

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

ADDRESSES:  EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket
ID Number EPA-R03-OAR-2006-0862.  All documents in the docket are listed
in the www.regulations.gov website.   Although listed in the electronic
docket, some information is not publicly available, i.e., confidential
business information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute.  Certain other material, such as copyrighted
material, is not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available
only in hard copy form.  Publicly available docket materials are
available either electronically through www.regulations.gov or in hard
copy for public inspection during normal business hours at the Air
Protection Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region III,
1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103.  Copies of the State
submittal are available at the Pennsylvania Department of Environment
Protection, Bureau of Air Quality Control, P.O. Box 8468, 400 Market
Street, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17105.

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

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I.  Background

On May 8, 2007 (72 FR 26046), EPA published a notice of proposed
rulemaking (NPR) for the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.  The NPR proposed
approval of Pennsylvania’s redesignation request, a SIP revision that
establishes a maintenance plan for the Tioga Area that provides for
continued attainment of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS for at least 10 years
after redesignation, and a 2002 base year emissions inventory.  The
formal SIP revisions were submitted by PADEP on September 28, 2006 and
supplemented on November 14, 2006.  Other specific requirements of
Pennsylvania’s redesignation request SIP revision for the maintenance
plan and the rationales for EPA’s proposed actions are explained in
the NPR and will not be restated here.  No public comments were received
on the NPR.

However, on December 22, 2006, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
District of Columbia Circuit vacated EPA’s Phase 1 Implementation Rule
for the 8-hour Ozone Standard.  (69 FR 23591, April 30, 2004).  South
Coast Air Quality Management Dist. v. EPA, 472 F.3d 882 (D.C.Cir. 2006).
 On June 8, 2007, in South Coast Air Quality Management Dist. v. EPA,
Docket No. 04-1201, in response to several petitions for rehearing, the
D.C. Circuit clarified that the Phase 1 Rule was vacated only with
regard to those parts of the rule that had been successfully challenged.
 Therefore, the Phase 1 Rule provisions related to classifications for
areas currently classified under subpart 2 of Title I, part D of the Act
as 8-hour nonattainment areas, the 8-hour attainment dates and the
timing for emissions reductions needed for attainment of the 8-hour
ozone NAAQS remain effective.  The June 8 decision left intact the
Court’s rejection of EPA’s reasons for implementing the 8-hour
standard in certain nonattainment areas under subpart 1 in lieu of
subpart 2.  By limiting the vacatur, the Court let stand EPA’s
revocation of the 1-hour standard and those anti-backsliding provisions
of the Phase 1 Rule that had not been successfully challenged.  The June
8 decision reaffirmed the December 22, 2006 decision that EPA had
improperly failed to retain four measures required for 1-hour
nonattainment areas under the anti-backsliding provisions of the
regulations: (1) nonattainment area New Source Review (NSR) requirements
based on an area’s 1-hour nonattainment classification; (2) Section
185 penalty fees for the 1-hour severe or extreme nonattainment areas;
(3) measures to be implemented pursuant to section 1729(c)(9) or 182
(c)(9) of the Act, on the contingency of an area not taking reasonable
further progress toward attainment of the 1-hour NAAQS, or for failure
to attain NAAQS; and (4) certain transportation conformity requirements
for certain types of Federal actions.  The June 8 decision clarified
that the Court’s reference to conformity requirements was limited to
requiring the continued use of the 1-hour motor vehicle emissions
budgets until 8-hour budgets were available for 8-hour conformity
determinations.

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

II.  Final Action

EPA is approving the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania’s redesignation
request, maintenance plan, and the 2002 base year emissions inventory
because the requirements for approval have been satisfied.  EPA has
evaluated Pennsylvania’s redesignation request that was submitted on
September 28, 2006 and determined that it meets the redesignation
criteria set forth in section 107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA.  EPA believes
that the redesignation request and monitoring data demonstrate that the
Tioga Area has attained the 8-hour ozone standard.  The final approval
of this redesignation request will change the designation of the Tioga
Area from nonattainment to attainment for the 8-hour ozone standard.
EPA is approving the maintenance plan for the Tioga Area submitted on
September 28, 2006 as a revision to the Pennsylvania SIP.  EPA is also
approving the MVEBs submitted by PADEP in conjunction with its
redesignation request.  In addition, EPA is approving the 2002 base year
emissions inventory submitted by PADEP on September 28, 2006 and
supplemented on November 14, 2006 as a revision to the Pennsylvania SIP.
 In this final rulemaking, EPA is notifying the public that we have
found that the MVEBs for NOx and VOCs in the Tioga Area for the 8-hour
ozone maintenance plan are adequate and approved for conformity
purposes.  As a result of our finding, the Tioga Area must use the MVEBs
from the submitted 8-hour ozone maintenance plan for future conformity
determinations.  The adequate and approved MVEBs are provided in the
following table:

Adequate and Approved Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets in Tons per Day
(TPD)

Budget Year	NOx 	VOC

2009	3.4	2.2

2018	1.6	1.3

The Tioga Area is subject to the CAA’s requirement for the basic
nonattainment areas until and unless it is redesignated to attainment.

III.  Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

A.   General Requirements

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

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

B.   Submission to Congress and the Comptroller General

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

C.  Petitions for Judicial Review

Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for judicial
review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of
Appeals for the appropriate circuit by [insert date 60 days from date of
publication of this document in the Federal Register].  Filing a
petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule
does not affect the finality of this rule for the purposes of judicial
review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial
review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such
rule or action.  This action, approving the redesignation of the Tioga
Area to attainment for the 8-hour ozone NAAQS, the associated
maintenance plan, the 2002 base year emission inventory, and the MVEBs
identified in the maintenance plan, may not be challenged later in
proceedings to enforce its requirements.  (See section 307(b)(2).)

List of Subjects

40 CFR Part 52

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

40 CFR Part 81

Air pollution Control, National Parks, Wilderness Areas.

                            /s/

____June 25, 2007_
___________________________

Dated:                            				Donald S. Welsh,
              							            Regional Administrator,

                                  					Region III.

40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:

PART 52 - [AMENDED]

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

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

Subpart NN(Pennsylvania

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

( 52.2020  	Identification of plan.

* 	* 	* 	* 	*

(e) ***

   (1)***

Name of non-regulatory SIP revision	Applicable geographic area	State
submittal date	EPA approval date	Additional explanation

*            *             *            *            *            *
     *

8-Hour Ozone Maintenance Plan and 2002 Base Year Emissions Inventory
Tioga County	09/28/06

11/14/06	[Insert Federal Register] publication date] [Insert page number
where the document begins]

PART 81- [AMENDED]

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

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

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

§81.339                    Pennsylvania

*          *          *          *          *

Pennsylvania – Ozone (8-Hour Standard)

Designated Area	Designationa	Category/Classification

	Date1	Type	Date1	Type

*           *           *           *           *           *
*

Tioga Co., PA:  Tioga County	[Insert date of publication]	Attainment

*           *           *           *           *           *
*

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

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

*           *           *           *           *

 PAGE  8