[Federal Register: November 21, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 224)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 65462-65466]
[DOCID:fr21no07-12]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R01-OAR-2006-0704; A-1-FRL-8492-1]

Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
Maine; Emission Statements Reporting and Definitions

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Direct final rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is approving State Implementation Plan (SIP) revisions
submitted by the State of Maine. These revisions update Maine's
criteria pollutant emissions reporting program and list of terms and
associated definitions used in Maine's air pollution

control regulations. The intended effect of this action is to approve
these revisions into the Maine SIP. This action is being taken under
the Clean Air Act.

DATES: This direct final rule will be effective January 22, 2008,
unless EPA receives adverse comments by December 21, 2007. If adverse
comments are received, EPA will publish a timely withdrawal of the
direct final rule in the Federal Register informing the public that the
rule will not take effect.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID Number EPA-
R01-OAR-2006-0704 by one of the following methods:
    1. http://www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions for

submitting comments.
    2. E-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; Mail: ``Docket
Identification Number EPA-R01-OAR-2006-0704'', Anne Arnold, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, EPA New England Regional Office, One
Congress Street, Suite 1100 (mail code CAQ), Boston, MA 02114-2023.
    3. Hand Delivery or Courier: Deliver your comments to: Anne Arnold,
Manager, Air Quality Planning Unit, Office of Ecosystem Protection,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA New England Regional Office,
One Congress Street, 11th floor, (CAQ), Boston, MA 02114-2023. Such
deliveries are only accepted during the Regional Office's normal hours
of operation. The Regional Office's official hours of business are
Monday through Friday, 8:30 to 4:30, excluding legal holidays.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R01-OAR-
2006-0704. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included
in the public docket without change and may be made available online at
http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information

provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit through http://www.regulations.gov
, or e-mail, information that you consider to be CBI

or otherwise protected. The http://www.regulations.gov Web site is an

``anonymous access'' system, which means EPA will not know your
identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of
your comment. If you send an e-mail comment directly to EPA without
going through http://www.regulations.gov your e-mail address will be

automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is
placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you
submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name
and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any
disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to
technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA
may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid
the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of
any defects or viruses.
    Docket: All documents in the electronic docket are listed in the
http://www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some

information is not publicly available, i.e., 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 in http://www.regulations.gov
 or in hard copy at the Office of Ecosystem

Protection, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA New England
Regional Office, One Congress Street, Suite 1100, Boston, MA. EPA
requests that if at all possible, you contact the contact listed in the
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to schedule your inspection.
The Regional Office's official hours of business are Monday through
Friday, 8:30 to 4:30, excluding legal holidays.
    In addition, copies of the state submittal and EPA's technical
support document are also available for public inspection during normal
business hours, by appointment at the State Air Agency, the Bureau of
Air Quality Control, Department of Environmental Protection, First
Floor of the Tyson Building, Augusta Mental Health Institute Complex,
Augusta, ME 04333-0017.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Bob McConnell, Air Quality Planning
Unit, EPA New England Regional Office, One Congress Street, Suite 1100-
CAQ, Boston, MA 02114-2023, telephone number<PHONE_NUMBER>, fax number
617-918-0046, e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Organization of this document. The following
outline is provided to aid in locating information in this preamble.

I. Background and Purpose
II. Chapter 137, Emission Statements
    A. Background and Purpose
    B. Evaluation of Maine's Submittal
    1. 40 CFR 51.15(a); Pollutants
    2. 40 CFR 51.20(b); Emission Thresholds
    3. 40 CFR 51.25; Geographic Coverage
    4. 40 CFR 51.30(a); Reporting Due Date
    5. Appendix A to Subpart A of 40 CFR Part 51; Table 2a
    C. Results of EPA's Analysis of State's Submittal
III. Chapter 100, Definitions
IV. Summary of SIP Revisions
V. Final Action
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. Background and Purpose

    On July 14, 2004, and February 8, 2006, the State of Maine
submitted formal revisions to its State Implementation Plan (SIP).
These SIP submittals consist of revisions to Maine's Chapter 137
Emission Statements rule, and Chapter 100 list of definitions for terms
used in Maine's air pollution control regulations. EPA approved
previous versions of each of these rules, and is approving the revised
rules in today's action.

II. Chapter 137, Emission Statements

    A. Background. Sections 182(a)(3)(B) and 184(b)(2) of the Clean Air
Act (the Act) requires that states develop and submit, as SIP
revisions, rules which establish annual reporting requirements for
precursors of ozone from stationary sources. To meet this requirement,
on January 3, 1994, Maine submitted its Chapter 137 Emission Statements
rule to EPA and requested EPA incorporate the rule into the state's
SIP. EPA did so by publishing, on January 10, 1995, a final rule
approving Maine's Chapter 137 emission statements reporting rule into
the state's SIP (see 60 FR 2524). Subsequently, on June 10, 2002, EPA
published the Consolidated Emissions Reporting Rule (CERR) as a final
rule in the Federal Register (67 FR 39602). This rule requires
additional reporting obligations for states, chief among them a
requirement that states collect air emissions data from stationary
point sources for emissions of fine particulate matter (particulate
matter with a diameter less than or equal to 2.5 micrometers, sometimes
noted as PM2.5) and ammonia (NH3), which is a precursor to
PM2.5 formation, and report this information to EPA. On July
14, 2004, Maine submitted a revised version of its Chapter 137 Emission
Statements rule to EPA. Maine had revised the rule in accordance with
the provisions of EPA's CERR, and requested that EPA incorporate the
revised rule into the state's SIP.
    B. Evaluation of Maine's Submittal. The CERR requires that states
collect a variety of information pertaining to air emissions from
industrial sources in the state, and report this information to

EPA. The discussion below describes how Maine's modified Chapter 137
Emission Statements rule conforms with the requirements of EPA's CERR
stated in 40 CFR Part 51.
    1. 40 CFR 51.15(a); Pollutants. 40 CFR 51.15(a)(1) requires that
states report emissions of sulfur oxides, volatile organic compounds
(VOC), nitrogen oxides, carbon monoxide, lead and lead compounds,
primary PM2.5, primary PM10, and ammonia. Maine's
revised Chapter 137 emission statements regulation requires collection
of emissions data for all of these pollutants from industrial sources
in the state.
    2. 40 CFR 51.20(b); Emission thresholds. 40 CFR 51.20(b) requires
that states collect emissions data from all stationary sources that
emit at levels above those shown in Table 1 of Appendix A to subpart
51. Maine's revised Chapter 137 rule contains emission reporting
thresholds that are more stringent than required by Table 1 of Appendix
A, and as such the rule complies with EPA's 40 CFR 51.20(b) reporting
requirement.
    3. 40 CFR 51.25; Geographic coverage. 40 CFR 51.25 requires
collection of point source data from all sources in the state that emit
pollutants above the level specified in 40 CFR 51.20(b). Maine's
revised Chapter 137 rule requires statewide reporting, and as such
complies with this requirement.
    4. 40 CFR 51.30(a); Reporting due date. 40 CFR 51.30(a) requires
that states report their point source data to EPA no later than 17
months after the end of the calendar year in which the emissions
occurred. Maine's revised Chapter 137 rule requires that sources report
their emissions to the state within 6 months of the end of the year in
which the emissions occurred, so the state will have sufficient time to
collect, review, and quality assure the data prior to submitting it to
EPA.
    5. Appendix A to Subpart A of 40 CFR Part 51; Table 2a. Table 2a
lists the data elements that states must report to EPA. The provisions
of Maine's revised Chapter 137 Emission Statements rule will enable the
state to submit all of the required point source data elements listed
in Table 2a of Appendix A.
    C. Results of EPA's analysis of Maine's submittal. EPA's review has
found that Maine's revised Chapter 137 Emission Statements rule meets
all of the requirements of EPA's CERR, and therefore EPA is approving
the revised rule into the state's SIP.
    EPA takes approval action on SIP revisions based on the authority
of section 110(a) of the Act. Pursuant to section 110 (a)(1) of the
Act, states are required to revise their SIP when EPA promulgates or
revises a national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS). Maine's
Chapter 137 Emission Statements regulation contains, in addition to
criteria pollutant reporting provisions, requirements that will enable
the state to collect data on certain hazardous air pollutants (HAPs)
and greenhouse gas emissions. The HAP and greenhouse gas requirements
are needed for Maine to implement programs at the state level, but are
not required for federal reporting purposes under the CERR. Therefore,
Maine did not include the Chapter 137 HAP and greenhouse gas
requirements in its SIP revision request to EPA and these provisions
are not being approved into the state's SIP.
    The specific requirements of Maine's Chapter 137 regulation and
EPA's evaluation of these requirements are detailed in a memorandum
dated August 7, 2006, entitled ``Technical Support Document (TSD) for
revisions to the Maine SIP of Chapter 100, Definitions Regulation, and
Chapter 137, Emission Statements.'' The TSD and Maine's Chapter 137
Emission Statements rule are available in the docket supporting this
action.

III. Chapter 100, Definitions

    Maine's Chapter 100 definitions regulation provides definitions for
the terms used in the state's air pollution control regulations and
emission standards. EPA previously approved Maine's Chapter 100
definitions in a final rule published in the Federal Register on
October 15, 1996 (61 FR 53639). Since that time, Maine has amended its
Chapter 100 list of definitions on numerous occasions in conjunction
with SIP submittals it has made over time for various programs such as
the Title V permitting, best available control technology, and
prevention of significant deterioration programs. EPA has reviewed the
list of terms and found them to conform to the applicable EPA guidance,
and so we are approving Maine's revised Chapter 100 list of definitions
into the state's SIP. The specific requirements of Maine's Chapter 100
Definitions regulation and EPA's evaluation of these requirements are
detailed in the TSD which is available in the docket supporting this
action.

IV. Summary of SIP Revisions

    For the reasons outlined above, EPA is approving Maine's revised
Chapter 100 Definitions, and revised Chapter 137 Emission Statements
regulations and incorporating these regulations into the state's SIP.
Maine's Chapter 100 definitions regulation provides definitions for the
terms used in the state's air pollution control regulations, many of
which are federally enforceable. The state's Chapter 137 Emission
Statements regulation has been amended to conform with the EPA's
Consolidated Emission Statements Rule.

V. Final Action

    EPA is approving Maine's revised Chapter 100 list of definitions
and revised Chapter 137 Emission Statements rule into the state's SIP.
    The EPA is publishing this action without prior proposal because
the Agency views this as a noncontroversial amendment and anticipates
no adverse comments. However, in the proposed rules section of this
Federal Register publication, EPA is publishing a separate document
that will serve as the proposal to approve the SIP revision should
relevant adverse comments be filed. This rule will be effective January
22, 2008 without further notice unless the Agency receives relevant
adverse comments by December 21, 2007.
    If the EPA receives such comments, then EPA will publish a notice
withdrawing the final rule and informing the public that the rule will
not take effect. All public comments received will then be addressed in
a subsequent final rule based on the proposed rule. The EPA will not
institute a second comment period on the proposed rule. All parties
interested in commenting on the proposed rule should do so at this
time. If no such comments are received, the public is advised that this
rule will be effective on January 22, 2008 and no further action will
be taken on the proposed rule. Please note that if EPA receives adverse
comment on an amendment, paragraph, or section of this rule and if that
provision may be severed from the remainder of the rule, EPA may adopt
as final those provisions of the rule that are not the subject of an
adverse comment.

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    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 (Pub. L. 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), because it merely approves a state rule
implementing a federal standard, 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.).
    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. A major rule cannot
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2).
    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 January 22, 2008. Interested
parties should comment in response to the proposed rule rather than
petition for judicial review, unless the objection arises after the
comment period allowed for in the proposal. 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 may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its
requirements (see section 307(b)(2)).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide,
Incorporation by reference, Lead, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate
matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides,
Volatile organic compounds.

    Dated: October 25, 2007.
Robert W. Varney,
Regional Administrator, EPA New England.

0
Part 52 of chapter I, title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations is
amended as follows:

PART 52--[AMENDED]

0
1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:

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

Subpart U--Maine

0
2. Section 52.1020 is amended by removing paragraph (c)(34)(i)(C) and
by adding paragraph (c)(62) as follows:

Sec.  52.1020  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (62) Revisions to the State Implementation Plan submitted by the
Maine Department of Environmental Protection on July 14, 2004, and
February 8, 2006.
    (i) Incorporation by reference.
    (A) Chapter 100 of the Maine Department of Environmental Protection
Regulations, ``Definitions,'' effective in the State of Maine December
24, 2005.
    (B) Chapter 137 of the Maine Department of Environmental Protection
Regulations, ``Emission Statements,'' effective in the State of Maine
on July 6, 2004, with the exception of the following sections which the
state did not include in its SIP revision request: section 137.1.C;
section 137.1.E; section 137.1.F; section 137.2.A through F; section
137.2.H; section 137.3.B; section 137.3.C; section 137.4.D(4), from the
sentence beginning with ``Greenhouse gases'' to the end of this
section; the note within section 137.D(5); section 137(E), and;
Appendix A.
    (ii) Additional materials.
    (A) Nonregulatory portions of these submittals.
    (B) Correspondence from David W. Wright of the Maine DEP dated June
6, 2006, indicating which portions of Chapter 137 should not be
incorporated into the State's SIP.

0
3. In Sec.  52.1031, Table 52.1031 is amended by adding a new entry to
the existing state citation for Chapter 100, and by revising the entry
for Chapter 137 to read as follows:

Sec.  52.1031  EPA-approved Maine regulations.

* * * * *

                               Table 52.1031.--EPA-Approved Rules and Regulations
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                   Date         Date
   State       Title/subject    adopted by  approved by  Federal Register      52.1020
  citation                        State          EPA          citation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
100........  Definitions.....    12/1/2005     11/21/07  [Insert Federal   (c)(62).......  Revised to add
                                                          Register page                     definitions
                                                          number where                      associated with SIP
                                                          the document                      submittals made
                                                          begins].                          between 7/19/95 and
                                                                                12/1/05.

                                                  * * * * * * *
137........  Emission             12/17/04     11/21/07  [Insert Federal   (c)(62).......  Revised to
              Statements.                                 Register page                     incorporate changes
                                                          number where                      required by EPA's
                                                          the document                      consolidated
                                                          begins].                          emissions reporting
                                                                                rule. The entire
                                                                                rule is approved
                                                                                with the exception
                                                                                of HAP and
                                                                                greenhouse gas
                                                                                reporting
                                                                                requirements which
                                                                                were not included in
                                                                                the state's SIP
                                                                                revision request.

                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note 1. The regulations are effective statewide unless stated otherwise in comments or title section.

[FR Doc. E7-22596 Filed 11-20-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 123 (Tuesday, June 28, 2022)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 38282-38284]
[FR Doc No: 2022-13678]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[Docket Number USCG-2022-0516]
RIN 1625-AA00

Safety Zone; Mackinac Island 4th of July Celebration Fireworks,
Lake Huron, Mackinac Island, MI

AGENCY: Coast Guard, Department of Homeland Security (DHS).

ACTION: Temporary final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary safety zone for
navigable waters within a 750-foot radius of a fireworks display in
Lake Huron near Mackinac Island, MI. The safety zone is necessary to
protect personnel, vessels, and the marine environment from potential
hazards created by the fireworks display. Entry of vessels or persons
into this safety zone is prohibited unless specifically authorized by
the Captain of the Port Sault Sainte Marie or his designated
representative.

DATES: This rule is effective from 9 p.m. through 12:01 a.m. on July 4,
2022.

ADDRESSES: To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being
available in the docket, go to https://www.regulations.gov, type USCG-
2022-0516 in the ``SEARCH'' box and click ``SEARCH.'' Next, in the
Document Type column, select ``Supporting & Related Material.''

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this rule,
call or email LT Deaven Palenzuela, U.S. Coast Guard Sector Sault
Sainte Marie Waterways Management, U.S. Coast Guard; telephone 906-635-
3223, email [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Table of Abbreviations

CFR Code of Federal Regulations
DHS Department of Homeland Security
FR Federal Register
NPRM Notice of proposed rulemaking
Sec.  Section
U.S.C. United States Code

II. Background Information and Regulatory History

    The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary rule without prior notice
and opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section 4(a) of
the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This
provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and
opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those
procedures are ``impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public
interest.'' Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good
cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM)
with respect to this rule because doing so would be impracticable. The
Coast Guard did not receive sufficient notice of this event to undergo
notice and comment and this safety zone must be established by July 4,
2022, in order to protect the public from the dangers associated with
the fireworks display.
    Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause
exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after
publication in the Federal Register. Delaying the effective date of
this rule would be impracticable as immediate action is necessary to
protect against the potential safety hazards associated with the
fireworks display.

III. Legal Authority and Need for Rule

    The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority in 46 U.S.C.
70034 (previously 33 U.S.C. 1231). The Captain of the Port Sault Sainte
Marie (COTP) has determined that potential hazards associated with the
fireworks display on July 4, 2022, would be a safety concern for anyone
within the safety zone. This rule is necessary to protect personnel,
vessels, and the marine environment in the navigable waters within the
safety zone during the fireworks display.

IV. Discussion of the Rule

    This rule establishes a safety zone from 9 p.m. through 12:01 a.m.
on July 4, 2022. The safety zone will cover all navigable waters within
750 feet of a fireworks display in Lake Huron near Mackinac Island, MI.
The duration of the safety zone is intended to protect personnel,
vessels, and the marine environment in these navigable waters during
the fireworks display. No vessel or person will be permitted to enter
the safety zone without obtaining permission from the COTP Sault Sainte
Marie or his designated representative.

V. Regulatory Analyses

    We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and
Executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses
based on a number of these statutes and Executive orders, and we
discuss First Amendment rights of protestors.

A. Regulatory Planning and Review

    Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the
costs and

benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is
necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits.
This rule has not been designated a ``significant regulatory action,''
under Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, this rule has not been
reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).
    This regulatory action determination is based on the
characteristics of the safety zone. Vessel traffic will be able to
safely transit around this safety zone which would impact a small
designated area of Lake Huron near Mackinac Island for approximately 3
hours. Moreover, under certain conditions vessels may still transit
through the safety zone when permitted by the COTP Sault Sainte Marie
or his designated representative.

B. Impact on Small Entities

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as
amended, requires Federal agencies to consider the potential impact of
regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term ``small
entities'' comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations
that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their
fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than
50,000. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule
will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of
small entities.
    While some owners or operators of vessels intending to transit the
safety zone may be small entities, for the reasons stated in section
V.A above, this rule will not have a significant economic impact on any
vessel owner or operator.
    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small
entities in understanding this rule. If the rule would affect your
small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have
questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please
call or email the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section.
    Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal
employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal
regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory
Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory
Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and
rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to
comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR
(1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small
entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or
action of the Coast Guard.

C. Collection of Information

    This rule will not call for a new collection of information under
the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).

D. Federalism and Indian Tribal Governments

    A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132,
Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect 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. We have analyzed this rule under that order and have
determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism
principles and preemption requirements described in Executive Order
13132.
    Also, this rule does not have tribal implications under Executive
Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal
Governments, because it does 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.

E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538)
requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary
regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may
result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in
the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for
inflation) or more in any one year. Though this rule will not result in
such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere
in this preamble.

F. Environment

    We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security
Directive 023-01, Rev. 1, associated implementing instructions, and
Environmental Planning COMDTINST 5090.1 (series), which guide the Coast
Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
(42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have determined that this action is one of
a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a
significant effect on the human environment. This rule involves a
safety zone lasting approximately 3 hours that will prohibit entry
within a 750-foot radius of a fireworks display in Lake Huron near
Mackinac Island, MI. It is categorically excluded from further review
under paragraph L[60(a)] of Appendix A, Table 1 of DHS Instruction
Manual 023-01-001-01, Rev. 1. A Record of Environmental Consideration
supporting this determination is available in the docket. For
instructions on locating the docket, see the ADDRESSES section of this
preamble.

G. Protest Activities

    The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters.
Protesters are asked to call or email the person listed in the FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to coordinate protest activities so
that your message can be received without jeopardizing the safety or
security of people, places or vessels.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165

    Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, Waterways.

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends
33 CFR part 165 as follows:

PART 165--REGULATED NAVIGATION AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS

0
1. The authority citation for part 165 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  46 U.S.C. 70034, 70051; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-
6, and 160.5; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No.
00170.1, Revision No. 01.2.

0
2. Add Sec.  165.T09-0516 to read as follows:

Sec.  165.T09-0516   Safety Zone; Mackinac Island 4th of July
Celebration Fireworks, Lake Huron, Mackinac Island, MI.

    (a) Location. The following area is a safety zone: All navigable
water within 750 feet of the fireworks launching location in position
45[deg]50'30'' N, 84[deg]36'30'' W, (NAD 83).
    (b) Definitions. As used in this section, designated representative
means a Coast Guard Patrol Commander, including a Coast Guard coxswain,
petty officer, or other officer operating a Coast Guard vessel and a
Federal, State, and local officer designated by or assisting the
Captain of the Port Sault Sainte Marie (COTP) in the enforcement of the
safety zone.
    (c) Regulations. (1) In accordance with the general regulations in
Sec.  165.23, entry into, transiting, or anchoring within the

safety zone described in paragraph (a) of this section is prohibited
unless authorized by the COTP Sault Sainte Marie or his designated
representative.
    (2) Before a vessel operator may enter or operate within the safety
zone, they must obtain permission from the COTP Sault Sainte Marie or
his designated representative via VHF Channel 16 or telephone at (906)
635-3233. Vessel operators given permission to enter or operate in the
safety zone must comply with all orders given to them by the COTP Sault
Sainte Marie or his designated representative.
    (d) Enforcement period. The safety zone described in paragraph (a)
of this section will be enforced from 9 p.m. through 12:01 a.m. on July
4, 2022.

    Dated: June 22, 2022.
A.R. Jones,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Sault Sainte Marie.
[FR Doc. 2022-13678 Filed 6-27-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 33 (Monday, February 22, 2021)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 10505-10507]
[FR Doc No: 2021-01617]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2020-1208; Airspace Docket No. 20-AAL-46]
RIN 2120-AA66

Proposed Establishment of Class E Airspace; Port Alsworth, AK

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: This action proposes to establish Class E airspace extending
upward from 700 feet above the surface of the earth at Wilder/Natwick
LLC Airport, Port Alsworth, AK. This action would accommodate new area
navigation (RNAV) procedures and ensure the safety and management of
instrument flight rule (IFR) operations within the National Airspace
System.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before April 8, 2021.

ADDRESSES: Send comments on this proposal to the U.S. Department of
Transportation, Docket Operations, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, West
Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590; telephone:
1-800-647-5527, or<PHONE_NUMBER>. You must identify FAA Docket No.
FAA-2020-1208; Airspace Docket No. 20-AAL-46, at the beginning of your
comments. You may also submit comments through the internet at https://www.regulations.gov.
    FAA Order 7400.11E, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, and
subsequent amendments can be viewed online at https://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/. For further information, you can contact the
Airspace Policy Group, Federal Aviation Administration, 800
Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20591; telephone: (202) 267-
8783. The Order is also available for inspection at the National
Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the
availability of FAA Order 7400.11E at NARA, email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or go to https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Richard Roberts, Federal Aviation
Administration, Western Service Center, Operations Support Group, 2200
S. 216th Street, Des Moines, WA 98198; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Authority for This Rulemaking

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

Comments Invited

    Interested parties are invited to participate in this proposed
rulemaking by submitting such written data, views, or arguments, as
they may desire. Comments that provide the factual basis supporting the
views and suggestions presented are particularly helpful in developing
reasoned regulatory decisions on the proposal. Comments are
specifically invited on the overall regulatory, aeronautical, economic,
environmental, and energy-related aspects of the proposal.
Communications should identify both docket numbers and be submitted in
triplicate to the address listed above. Persons wishing the FAA to
acknowledge receipt of their comments on this notice must submit with
those comments a self-addressed, stamped postcard on which the
following statement is made: ``Comments to Docket No. FAA-2020-1208;
Airspace Docket No. 20-AAL-46''. The postcard will be date/time stamped
and returned to the commenter.
    All communications received before the specified closing date for
comments will be considered before taking action on the proposed rule.
The proposal contained in this notice may be changed in light of the
comments received. A report summarizing each substantive public contact
with FAA personnel concerned with this rulemaking will be filed in the
docket.

Availability of NPRMs

    An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded through the
internet at https://www.regulations.gov. Recently published rulemaking
documents can also be accessed through the FAA's web page at https://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/airspace_amendments/.
    You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any
comments received, and any final disposition in person in the Dockets
Office (see the ADDRESSES section for the address and phone number)
between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, except federal
holidays. An informal docket may also be examined during normal
business hours at the Northwest Mountain Regional Office of the Federal
Aviation Administration, Air Traffic Organization, Western Service
Center, Operations Support Group, 2200 S. 216th Street, Des Moines, WA
98198.

Availability and Summary of Documents for Incorporation by Reference

    This document proposes to amend FAA Order 7400.11E, Airspace
Designations and Reporting Points, dated July 21, 2020, and effective
September 15, 2020. FAA Order 7400.11E is publicly available as listed
in the ADDRESSES section of this document. FAA Order 7400.11E lists
Class A, B, C, D, and E airspace areas, air traffic service routes, and
reporting points.

The Proposal

    The FAA is proposing an amendment to 14 CFR part 71 by establishing
Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface of
the earth at Wilder/Natwick LLC Airport, Port Alsworth, AK.
    The Class E airspace would be established within a 2.5 mile radius
of the airport beginning at the point the 308[deg] bearing from the
airport intersects the 2.5-mile radius clockwise to the point the
79[deg] bearing from the airport intersects the 2.5-mile radius. This
area will accommodate circling north of runway 6/24. In addition, this
area would include that airspace within a 7.3 mile radius of the
airport beginning at the point the 230[deg] bearing from the airport
intersects the 7.3-mile radius clockwise to the point the 271[deg]
bearing from the airport intersects the 7.3-mile radius. This area
would protect aircraft using the RNAV approach to runway 6 and
departures until reaching 1,200 feet AGL.
    Class E airspace designations are published in paragraph 6005 of
FAA Order 7400.11E, dated July 21, 2020, and effective September 15,
2020, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class E
airspace designations listed in this document will be published
subsequently in the Order.
    FAA Order 7400.11, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, is
published yearly and effective on September 15.

Regulatory Notices and Analyses

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

Environmental Review

    This proposal will be subject to an environmental analysis in
accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, ``Environmental Impacts: Policies
and Procedures'' prior to any FAA final regulatory action.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

The Proposed Amendment

    Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, the Federal
Aviation Administration proposes to amend 14 CFR part 71 as follows:

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

0
1. The authority citation for 14 CFR Part 71 continues to read as
follows:

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

Sec.  71.1  [Amended]

0
2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of FAA Order 7400.11E,
Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated July 21, 2020, and
effective September 15, 2020, is amended as follows:

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

* * * * *

AAL AK E5 Port Alsworth, AK [NEW]

Wilder/Natwick LLC Airport, AK
    (Lat. 60[deg]11'55 ''N, long. 154[deg]19'23 ''W)

    That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface
within 7.3 mile radius of Wilder/Natwick LLC Airport beginning at
the point the 230[deg] bearing from the airport intersects the 7.3-
mile radius clockwise along the 7.3-mile radius to the point the
271[deg] bearing intersects the 7.3-mile radius, thence east to the
point the 308[deg] bearing from the airport intersects an arc within
a 2.5 mile radius of the airport, thence clockwise along the 2.5-
mile arc to the point the 79[deg] bearing intersects the 2.5-mile
arc thence southwest to the point of beginning.

    Issued in Seattle, Washington, on January 20, 2021.
Byron Chew,
Acting Group Manager, Operations Support Group, Western Service Center.
[FR Doc. 2021-01617 Filed 2-19-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 236 (Friday, December 7, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 73097-73103]
[FR Doc No: 2012-29563]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 68336; File No. SR-NASDAQ-2012-129]

 Self-Regulatory Organizations; The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC;
Notice of Filing of Proposed Rule Change To Establish the Retail Price
Improvement Program on a Pilot Basis Until 12 Months From the Date of
Implementation

December 3, 2012
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that
on November 19, 2012, The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC (``NASDAQ'' or
``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I, II,
and III below, which Items have been prepared by the self-

regulatory organization. The Commission is publishing this notice to
solicit comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    NASDAQ is filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``SEC'' or ``Commission'') a proposed rule change that would adopt new
Nasdaq Rule 4780 to establish a Retail Price Improvement (``RPI'')
Program (the ``Program'' or ``proposed rule change'') to attract
additional retail order flow to the Exchange while also providing the
potential for price improvement to such order flow.
    The text of the proposed rule change is available from NASDAQ's Web
site at http://nasdaq.cchwallstreet.com/Filings/, 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 these statements may be examined at the places specified in
Item IV below. NASDAQ has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A,
B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.

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

1. Purpose
Background
    The Exchange is proposing a one-year pilot program that would add
new Nasdaq Rule 4780 to establish an RPI Program to attract additional
retail order flow to the Exchange while also providing the potential
for price improvement to such order flow. Under the proposed rule
change, the Exchange would create a new class of market participant
called a Retail Member Organization (``RMO''), which would be eligible
to submit certain retail order flow (``Retail Orders'') to the
Exchange. As proposed, Nasdaq members (``Members'') will be permitted
to provide potential price improvement for Retail Orders in the form of
non-displayed interest that is priced more aggressively than the
Protected National Best Bid or Offer (``Protected NBBO'').\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The term Protected Quotation is defined in Chapter XII, Sec.
1(19) and has the same meaning as is set forth in Regulation NMS
Rule 600(b)(58). The Protected NBBO is the best-priced protected bid
and offer. Generally, the Protected NBBO and the national best bid
and offer (``NBBO'') will be the same. However, a market center is
not required to route to the NBBO if that market center is subject
to an exception under Regulation NMS Rule 611(b)(1) or if such NBBO
is otherwise not available for an automatic execution. In such case,
the Protected NBBO would be the best-priced protected bid or offer
to which a market center must route interest pursuant to Regulation
NMS Rule 611.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Definitions
    The Exchange proposes to adopt the following definitions under
proposed Nasdaq Rule 4780. First, the term ``Retail Member
Organization'' (or ``RMO'') would be defined as a Member (or a division
thereof) that has been approved by the Exchange to submit Retail
Orders.
    Second, the term ``Retail Order'' would be defined as an agency or
riskless principal order that originates from a natural person and is
submitted to the Exchange by an RMO, provided that no change is made to
the terms of the order with respect to price (except in the case of a
market order being changed to a marketable limit order) or side of
market and the order does not originate from a trading algorithm or any
other computerized methodology.
    Finally, the term ``Retail Price Improvement Order'' or ``RPI
Order'' or collectively ``RPI interest'' would be defined as non-
displayed liquidity on the Exchange that is priced more aggressively
than the Protected NBBO by at least $0.001 and that is identified as an
RPI Order in a manner prescribed by the Exchange.\4\ RPI orders can be
priced either as an explicitly priced limit order or implicitly priced
as relative to the NBBO with an offset of at least $0.001. The price of
an RPI Order with an offset would be determined by a Member's entry of
the following into the Exchange: (1) RPI buy or sell interest; (2) an
offset from the Protected NBBO, if any; and (3) a ceiling or floor
price. RPI Orders submitted with an offset would be similar to other
peg orders available to Members in that the order is tied or ``pegged''
to a certain price, and would have its price automatically set and
adjusted upon changes in the Protected NBBO, both upon entry and any
time thereafter. The Exchange expects that RPI sell or buy interest
typically would be entered to track the Protected NBBO, that is, RPI
Orders typically would be submitted with an offset. The offset would be
a predetermined amount by which the Member is willing to improve the
Protected NBBO, subject to a ceiling or floor price. The ceiling or
floor price would be the amount above or below which the Member does
not wish to trade. RPI Orders in their entirety (the buy or sell
interest, the offset, and the ceiling or floor) will remain non-
displayed. The Exchange will also allow Members to enter RPI Orders
which establish the exact limit price, which is similar to a non-
displayed limit order currently accepted by the Exchange today except
the Exchange will accept sub-penny limit prices on RPI Orders in
increments of $0.001. The Exchange will monitor whether RPI buy or sell
interest, adjusted by any offset and subject to the ceiling or floor
price, is eligible to interact with incoming Retail Orders.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Exchange systems would prevent Retail Orders from
interacting with RPI Orders if the RPI Order is not priced at least
$0.001 better than the Protected NBBO. The Exchange notes, however,
that price improvement of $0.001 would be a minimum requirement and
Members could enter RPI Orders that better the Protected NBBO by
more than $0.001. Exchange systems will accept RPI Orders without a
minimum price improvement value; however, such interest will execute
at its floor or ceiling price only if such floor or ceiling price is
better than the Protected NBBO by $0.001 or more. Concurrently with
this filing, the Exchange has submitted a request for an exemption
under Regulation NMS Rule 612 that would permit it to accept and
rank the non-displayed RPI Orders. As outlined in the request, the
Exchange believes that the minimum price improvement available under
the Program, which would amount to $0.50 on a 500 share order, would
be meaningful to the small retail investor. See Letter from Jeffrey
S. Davis, Deputy General Counsel, The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC to
Elizabeth M. Murphy, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission
dated November 19, 2012 (``Sub-Penny Rule Exemption Request'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Members and RMOs may enter odd lots, round lots or mixed lots as
RPI Orders and as Retail Orders respectively. As discussed below, RPI
Orders will be ranked and allocated according to price and time of
entry into the System consistent with Nasdaq Rule 4757 and therefore
without regard to whether the size entered is an odd lot, round lot or
mixed lot amount. Similarly, Retail Orders will interact with RPI
Orders and other price-improving orders available on the Exchange
(e.g., non-displayed liquidity priced more aggressively than the NBBO)
\5\ according to the Priority and Allocation rules of the Program and
without regard to whether they are odd

lots, round lots or mixed lots. Finally, Retail Orders may be
designated as Type 1 or Type 2 without regard to the size of the order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Other price improving liquidity may include, but is not
limited to: booked non-displayed orders with a limit price that is
more aggressive than the then-current NBBO; midpoint-pegged orders
(which are by definition non-displayed and priced more aggressively
than the NBBO); non-displayed orders pegged to the NBBO with an
aggressive offset. Orders that do not constitute other price
improving liquidity include, but are not limited to: orders with a
time-in-force instruction of IOC; displayed orders; limit orders
priced less aggressively than the NBBO.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    RPI Orders would interact with Retail Orders as follows. Assume a
Member enters RPI sell interest with an offset of $0.001 and a floor of
$10.10 while the Protected NBO is $10.11. The RPI Order could interact
with an incoming buy Retail Order at $10.109. If, however, the
Protected NBO was $10.10, the RPI Order could not interact with the
Retail Order because the price required to deliver the minimum $0.001
price improvement ($10.099) would violate the Member's floor of $10.10.
If a Member otherwise enters an offset greater than the minimum
required price improvement and the offset would produce a price that
would violate the Member's floor, the offset would be applied only to
the extent that it respects the Member's floor. By way of illustration,
assume RPI buy interest is entered with an offset of $0.005 and a
ceiling of $10.112 while the Protected NBBO is at $10.11. The RPI Order
could interact with an incoming sell Retail Order at $10.112, because
it would produce the required price improvement without violating the
Member's ceiling, but it could not interact above the $10.112 ceiling.
Finally, if a Member enters an RPI Order without an offset (i.e., an
explicitly priced limit order), the RPI Order will interact with Retail
Orders at the level of the Member's limit price as long as the minimum
required price improvement is produced. Accordingly, if RPI sell
interest is entered with a limit price of $10.098 and no offset while
the Protected NBBO is $10.11, the RPI Order could interact with the
Retail Order at $10.098, producing $0.012 of price improvement. The
System will not cancel RPI interest when it is not eligible to interact
with incoming Retail Orders; such RPI interest will remain in the
System and may become eligible again to interact with Retail Orders
depending on the Protected NBBO. RPI Orders will not be accepted during
halts.
RMO Qualifications and Approval Process
    Under proposed Nasdaq Rule 4780(b), any Member could qualify as an
RMO if it conducts a retail business or handles retail orders on behalf
of another broker-dealer. Any Member that wishes to obtain RMO status
would be required to submit: (1) An application form; (2) an
attestation, in a form prescribed by the Exchange, that any order
submitted by the Member as a Retail Order would meet the qualifications
for such orders under proposed Nasdaq Rule 4780(b); and (3) supporting
documentation sufficient to demonstrate the retail nature and
characteristics of the applicant's order flow.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ For example, a prospective RMO could be required to provide
sample marketing literature, Web site screenshots, other publicly
disclosed materials describing the retail nature of their order
flow, and such other documentation and information as the Exchange
may require to obtain reasonable assurance that the applicant's
order flow would meet the requirements of the Retail Order
definition.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    An RMO would be required to have written policies and procedures
reasonably designed to assure that it will only designate orders as
Retail Orders if all requirements of a Retail Order are met. Such
written policies and procedures must require the Member to (i) exercise
due diligence before entering a Retail Order to assure that entry as a
Retail Order is in compliance with the requirements of this rule, and
(ii) monitor whether orders entered as Retail Orders meet the
applicable requirements. If the RMO represents Retail Orders from
another broker-dealer customer, the RMO's supervisory procedures must
be reasonably designed to assure that the orders it receives from such
broker-dealer customer that it designates as Retail Orders meet the
definition of a Retail Order. The RMO must (i) obtain an annual written
representation, in a form acceptable to the Exchange, from each broker-
dealer customer that sends it orders to be designated as Retail Orders
that entry of such orders as Retail Orders will be in compliance with
the requirements of this rule, and (ii) monitor whether its broker-
dealer customer's Retail Order flow continues to meet the applicable
requirements.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ The Exchange or another self-regulatory organization on
behalf of the Exchange will review an RMO's compliance with these
requirements through an exam based review of the RMO's internal
controls.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    If the Exchange disapproves the application, the Exchange would
provide a written notice to the Member. The disapproved applicant could
appeal the disapproval by the Exchange as provided in proposed Nasdaq
Rule 4780(d), and/or reapply for RMO status 90 days after the
disapproval notice is issued by the Exchange. An RMO also could
voluntarily withdraw from such status at any time by giving written
notice to the Exchange.
Failure of RMO To Abide by Retail Order Requirements
    Proposed Nasdaq Rule 4780(c) addresses an RMO's failure to abide by
Retail Order requirements. If an RMO designates orders submitted to the
Exchange as Retail Orders and the Exchange determines, in its sole
discretion, that those orders fail to meet any of the requirements of
Retail Orders, the Exchange may disqualify a Member from its status as
an RMO. When disqualification determinations are made, the Exchange
would provide a written disqualification notice to the Member. A
disqualified RMO could appeal the disqualification as provided in
proposed Nasdaq Rule 4780(d) and/or reapply for RMO status 90 days
after the disqualification notice is issued by the Exchange.
Appeal of Disapproval or Disqualification
    Proposed Nasdaq Rule 4780(d) provides appeal rights to Members. If
a Member disputes the Exchange's decision to disapprove it as an RMO
under Nasdaq Rule 4780(b) or disqualify it under Nasdaq Rule 4780(c),
such Member (``appellant'') may request, within five business days
after notice of the decision is issued by the Exchange, that the Retail
Price Improvement Program Panel (``RPI Panel'') review the decision to
determine if it was correct.
    The RPI Panel would consist of the Exchange's Chief Regulatory
Officer (``CRO''), or a designee of the CRO, and two officers of the
Exchange designated by the Chief Executive Officer of Nasdaq. The RPI
Panel would review the facts and render a decision within the time
frame prescribed by the Exchange. The RPI Panel could overturn or
modify an action taken by the Exchange and all determinations by the
RPI Panel would constitute final action by the Exchange on the matter
at issue.
Retail Liquidity Identifier
    Under proposed Nasdaq Rule 4780(e), the Exchange proposes to
disseminate an identifier when RPI interest priced at least $0.001
better than the Exchange's Protected Bid or Protected Offer for a
particular security is available in the System (``Retail Liquidity
Identifier''). The Retail Liquidity Identifier will be disseminated
through consolidated data streams (i.e., pursuant to the Consolidated
Tape Association Plan/Consolidated Quotation System, or CTA/CQS, for
Tape A and Tape B securities, and the Nasdaq UTP Plan for Tape C
securities) as well as through proprietary Exchange data feeds.\8\ The

Retail Liquidity Identifier will reflect the symbol and the side (buy
or sell) of the RPI interest, but will not include the price or size of
the RPI interest. In particular, CQS and UTP quoting outputs will
include a field for codes related to the Retail Liquidity Identifier.
The codes will indicate RPI interest that is priced better than the
Exchange's Protected Bid or Protected Offer by at least the minimum
level of price improvement as required by the Program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ The Exchange notes that the Retail Liquidity Identifier for
Tape A and Tape B securities will be disseminated pursuant to the
CTA/CQS Plan as soon as the Program, if approved, becomes
operational. The identifier will also be available through the
consolidated public market data stream for Tape C securities. The
processor for the Nasdaq UTP quotation stream will disseminate the
Retail Liquidity Identifier and analogous identifiers from other
market centers that operate programs similar to the RPI Program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Retail Order Designations
    Under proposed Nasdaq Rule 4780(f), an RMO can designate how a
Retail Order would interact with available contra-side interest as
follows.
    As proposed, a Type 1-designated Retail Order would interact with
available contra-side RPI Orders and other price improving liquidity
but would not interact with other available contra-side interest in the
System or route to other markets. The shares remaining from a Type 1-
designated Retail Order that do not fully execute against contra-side
RPI Orders or other price improving liquidity, if any, would be
immediately and automatically cancelled.
    A Type 2-designated Retail Order would also interact first with
available contra-side RPI Orders and other price improving liquidity,
but would also be eligible to interact with other available contra-side
interest in the System or optionally route to other market centers
pursuant to Rule 4758. Accordingly, the shares remaining from a Type 2-
designated Retail Order that do not fully execute against contra-side
RPI Orders or other price improving liquidity, if any, would execute
against other liquidity available on the Exchange or be routed to other
market centers for execution. The remaining unexecuted portion would
then be cancelled.
Priority and Order Allocation
    Under proposed Nasdaq Rule 4780(g), the Exchange proposes that
competing RPI Orders in the same security would be ranked and allocated
according to price then time of entry into the System. The Exchange
further proposes that executions will occur in price/time priority in
accordance with Nasdaq Rule 4757. Any remaining unexecuted RPI interest
will remain available to interact with other incoming Retail Orders if
such interest is at an eligible price. Any remaining unexecuted portion
of the Retail Order will cancel or execute in accordance with proposed
Nasdaq Rule 4780(f). The following example illustrates this proposed
method:

Protected NBBO for security ABC is $10.00-$10.05
Member 1 enters an RPI Order to buy ABC at $10.015 for 500
Member 2 then enters an RPI Order to buy ABC at $10.02 for 500
Member 3 then enters an RPI Order to buy ABC at $10.035 for 500

An incoming Retail Order to sell 1,000 shares of ABC for $10.00
executes first against Member 3's bid for 500 at $10.035, because it is
the best priced bid, then against Member 2's bid for 500 at $10.02,
because it is the next best priced bid. Member 1 is not filled because
the entire size of the Retail Order to sell 1,000 is depleted. The
Retail Order executes against RPI Orders in price/time priority.
    However, assume the same facts above, except that Member 2's RPI
Order to buy ABC at $10.02 is for 100. The incoming Retail Order to
sell 1,000 executes first against Member 3's bid for 500 at $10.035,
because it is the best priced bid, then against Member 2's bid for 100
at $10.02, because it is the next best priced bid. Member 1 then
receives an execution for 400 of its bid for 500 at $10.015, at which
point the entire size of the Retail Order to sell 1,000 is depleted.
    As a final example, assume the same facts as above, except that
Member 3's order was not an RPI Order to buy ABC at $10.035, but
rather, a non-displayed order to buy ABC at $10.03. The result would be
similar to the result immediately above, in that the incoming Retail
Order to sell 1,000 executes first against Member 3's bid for 500 at
$10.03, because it is the best priced bid, then against Member 2's bid
for 100 at $10.02, because it is the next best priced bid. Member 1
then receives an execution for 400 of its bid for 500 at $10.015, at
which point the entire size of the Retail Order to sell 1,000 is
depleted.
Implementation
    The Exchange proposes that all Regulation NMS securities traded on
the Exchange would be eligible for inclusion in the RPI Program. The
Exchange proposes to limit the Program during the pilot period to
trades occurring at prices equal to or greater than $1.00 per share.
Toward that end, Exchange trade validation systems would prevent the
interaction of RPI buy or sell interest (adjusted by any offset) and
Retail Orders at a price below $1.00 per share.\9\ For example, if
there was RPI buy interest tracking the Protected NBB at $0.99 with an
offset of $0.001 and a ceiling of $1.02, Exchange trade validation
systems would prevent the execution of the RPI Order at $0.991 with a
sell Retail Order with a limit of $0.99. However, if the Retail Order
was Type 2 as defined the Program,\10\ it would be able to interact at
$0.99 with liquidity outside the Program in the Exchange's order book.
In addition to facilitating an orderly \11\ and operationally intuitive
pilot, the Exchange believes that limiting the Program to trades equal
to or greater than $1.00 per share during the pilot will enable it
better to focus its efforts to monitor price competition and to assess
any indications that data disseminated under the Program is potentially
disadvantaging retail orders. As part of that review, the Exchange will
produce data throughout the pilot, which will include statistics about
participation, the frequency and level of price improvement provided by
the Program, and any effects on the broader market structure.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ As discussed above, the price of an RPI would be determined
by a Member's entry of buy or sell interest, an offset (if any) and
a ceiling or floor price. The Exchange expects that RPI sell or buy
interest typically would track the Protected NBBO.
    \10\ Type 2 Retail Orders are treated as IOC orders that execute
against displayed and non-displayed liquidity in the Exchange's
order book where there is no available liquidity in the Program.
Type 2 Retail Orders can either be designated as eligible for
routing or as non-routable, as described above.
    \11\ Given the proposed limitation, the pilot Program would have
no impact on the minimum pricing increment for orders priced less
than $1.00 and therefore no effect on the potential of markets
executing those orders to lock or cross. In addition, the non-
displayed nature of the liquidity in the Program simply has no
potential to disrupt displayed, protected quotes. In any event, the
Program would do nothing to change the obligation of exchanges to
avoid and reconcile locked and crossed markets under NMS Rule
610(d).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Comparison to Existing Programs
    Proposed Nasdaq Rule 4780 is based on NYSE Rule 107C, governing
NYSE's ``Retail Liquidity Program,'' which was recently approved by the
Commission and commenced operations on August 1, 2012 \12\ and on
recently proposed BATS Y-Exchange, Inc. (``BATS'') Rule 11.24.\13\
Proposed Nasdaq Rule 4780 is

similar to both BATS Rule 11.24 and NYSE Rule 107C with three key
distinctions to the latter.\14\ The first distinction is that NYSE Rule
107C includes a class of participant that is registered as a provider
of liquidity and provides specific procedures and rules related to such
participants and their role in the NYSE RLP. NYSE Rule 107C does permit
all participants to submit RPI Orders to NYSE, but provides the
specific class of registered retail liquidity providers with execution
fees that are lower than fees charged to other participants in exchange
for a requirement to maintain RPI Orders on NYSE at least 5% of the
trading day.\15\ The Exchange believes that equal treatment for all
Exchange Members that enter RPI Orders will result in a higher level of
competition and maximize price improvement to incoming Retail Orders.
Accordingly, the Exchange has not proposed to adopt a special category
of retail liquidity provider.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ Securities Exchange Act Release No. 67347 (July 3, 2012),
77 FR 40673 (July 10, 2012) (SR-NYSE-2011-55; SR-NYSEAmex-2011-84)
(the ``RLP Approval Order''). In conjunction with the approval of
the NYSE Retail Liquidity Program, a nearly identical program was
proposed and approved to operate on NYSE MKT LLC (formerly, the
American Stock Exchange). For ease of reference, the comparisons
made in this section only refer to NYSE Rule 107C, but apply equally
to NYSE MKT Rule 107C.
    \13\ Securities Exchange Act Release No. 67734 (August 27, 2012)
77 FR 53242 (August 31, 2012) (SR-BYX-2012-019).
    \14\ The Exchange has proposed to accept RPIs in a manner
similar to the explicitly accepted method at NYSE and NYSE MKT,
specifically, with an offset as well as a ceiling or a floor (i.e.,
the entry of an RPI bid with an offset of $0.015 and a ceiling of
$10.04; when the NBBO is $10.02 by $10.04, an incoming sell order
would execute against such RPI at $10.035). The Exchange notes that
like NYSE and NYSE MKT, Members will be able to submit retail price
improving orders with an explicit sub-penny floor or ceiling and no
offset, effectively creating a static sub-penny limit order, and the
Exchange has proposed rule text to make this ability clear.
    \15\ NYSE Rule 107C(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The second distinction between proposed Nasdaq Rule 4780 and NYSE
Rule 107C is that the Exchange proposes to in all cases execute
incoming Retail Orders against resting RPI Orders and other resting
non-displayed liquidity to maximize the price improvement available to
the incoming Retail Order. As proposed, the Exchange will maintain its
strict price/time priority model and will provide all available price
improvement to incoming Retail Orders, whether such price improvement
is submitted pursuant to the Program or as an order type currently
accepted by the Exchange, such as non-displayed orders. In contrast,
pursuant to NYSE Rule 107C(k)(1), a Type 1-designated Retail Order,
``will interact only with available contra-side Retail Price
Improvement Orders and will not interact with other available contra-
side interest in Exchange systems.'' \16\ The Exchange is proposing in
all cases to provide the maximum price improvement available to
incoming Retail Orders. Accordingly, Retail Orders under the Exchange's
Program will always interact with available contra-side RPI Orders and
any other price improving contra-side interest, in price/time priority
consistent with Nasdaq Rule 4780(b). Such ``other'' price improving
contra-side interest will of course remain available to all
participants, as it is today, while RPI Orders will only be available
to RMOs, as described above.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ Moreover, although pursuant to NYSE Rules 107C(k)(2) and
107C(k)(3), a Type 2-designated Retail Order and a Type 3-designated
Retail Order can interact with other non-RPI interest in the NYSE
systems, such interaction only occurs after a Retail Order first
executes against RPI Orders.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, as proposed the Exchange will provide applicable price
improvement to incoming Retail Orders at potentially multiple price
levels. In contrast, pursuant to NYSE Rule 107C an incoming Retail
Order to NYSE will execute at the single clearing price level at which
the incoming order will be fully executed. To illustrate, assume the
same facts set forth in the second example above, where Member 2's RPI
Order to buy ABC at $10.02 was for 100 shares. Pursuant to NYSE Rule
107C, an incoming Retail Order to sell 1,000 shares at $10.00 would
execute first against Member 3's bid for 500 shares, because it is the
best priced bid, then against Member 2's bid for 100 shares, because it
is the next best priced bid, then against 400 of the 500 shares bid by
Member 1. However, rather than executing at each of these price levels
for the number of shares available (i.e., 500 shares at $10.035, 100
shares at $10.02 and 400 shares at $10.015), as it would under proposed
Nasdaq Rule 4780(b), the Retail Order submitted to NYSE pursuant to
NYSE Rule 107C executes at the single clearing price that completes the
order's execution, which is $10.015 to complete the entire order to
sell 1,000 shares. The Exchange intends to provide all of the price
improvement in these examples to the incoming Retail Order, and thus
has proposed to execute orders under the Program consistent with its
existing price/time market model.
Fee Structure of Program
    The Exchange will submit a separate proposal to amend its fee
schedule in connection with the proposed RPI Program. Under that
proposal, the Exchange expects to charge Members a fee for executions
of their RPI Orders against Retail Orders and in turn would provide a
credit or free executions to RMOs for executions of their Retail Orders
against RPI Orders. The fees and credits for liquidity providers and
RMOs will be determined based on experience with the Program in the
first several months.
    As explained above, the Exchange proposes to execute incoming
Retail Orders against all available contra-side interest that will
provide price improvement to the Retail Order, including non-displayed
orders other than RPI Orders. In the event non-displayed interest
priced better than the NBBO other than an RPI Order interacts with a
Retail Order, the Exchange anticipates proposing to rebate the Member
that entered such non-displayed interest a credit rather than the
charge which is imposed for an RPI Order execution. In such cases, the
rebate credited to the Member that entered the non-displayed interest
may be less than the rebate credited that same Member for an execution
against a non-Retail Order.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with the
requirements of the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder that
are applicable to a national securities exchange, and, in particular,
with the requirements of Section 6(b) of the Act.\17\ In particular,
the Exchange believes the proposed change furthers the objectives of
Section 6(b)(5) of the Act,\18\ 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 Exchange believes that the
proposed rule change is consistent with these principles because it
would increase competition among execution venues, encourage additional
liquidity, and offer the potential for price improvement to retail
investors. The Exchange notes that a significant percentage of the
orders of individual investors is executed over-the-counter.\19\ The
Exchange believes that it is appropriate to create a financial
incentive to bring more retail order flow to a public market. The
Exchange also notes that the Commission recently approved a similar
proposal by NYSE

and NYSE MKT.\20\ Accordingly, the proposal generally encourages
competition between exchange venues. In this connection, the Exchange
believes that the proposed distinctions between the Exchange's proposal
and the approved programs for NYSE and NYSE MKT, as well as the similar
program proposed by BATS, will both enhance competition amongst market
participants and encourage competition amongst exchange venues.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \18\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
    \19\ See Concept Release on Equity Market Structure, Securities
Exchange Act Release No. 61358 (January 14, 2010), 75 FR 3594
(January 21, 2010) (noting that dark pools and internalizing broker-
dealers executed approximately 25.4% of share volume in September
2009). See also Mary L. Schapiro, Strengthening Our Equity Market
Structure (Speech at the Economic Club of New York, Sept. 7, 2010)
(available on the Commission's Web site). In her speech, Chairman
Schapiro noted that nearly 30 percent of volume in U.S.-listed
equities was executed in venues that do not display their liquidity
or make it generally available to the public and the percentage was
increasing nearly every month.
    \20\ See RLP Approval Order, supra note 12.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange understands that Section 6(b)(5) of the Act \21\
prohibits an exchange from establishing rules that treat market
participants in an unfairly discriminatory manner. However, Section
6(b)(5) of the Act does not prohibit exchange members or other broker-
dealers from discriminating, so long as their activities are otherwise
consistent with the federal securities laws. Nor does Section 6(b)(5)
of the Act require exchanges to preclude discrimination by broker-
dealers. Broker-dealers commonly differentiate between customers based
on the nature and profitability of their business.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    While the Exchange believes that markets and price discovery
optimally function through the interactions of diverse flow types, it
also believes that growth in internalization has required
differentiation of retail order flow from other order flow types. The
differentiation proposed herein by the Exchange is not designed to
permit unfair discrimination, but instead to promote a competitive
process around retail executions such that retail investors would
receive better prices than they currently do through bilateral
internalization arrangements. The Exchange believes that the
transparency and competitiveness of operating a program such as the RPI
Program on an exchange market would result in better prices for retail
investors. The Exchange recognizes that sub-penny trading and pricing
could potentially result in undesirable market behavior. The Exchange
will monitor the Program in an effort to identify and address any such
behavior.
    The Exchange will separately propose fees applicable to the
Program, including fees or rebates for non-displayed orders offering
price improvement other than RPI Orders that interact with Retail
Orders. The Exchange believes any such proposal to treat such non-
displayed orders differently depending on the parties with whom they
interact is consistent with Section 6(b)(5) of the Act,\22\ which
requires that the rules of an exchange are not designed to permit
unfair discrimination. The Exchange believes that such a differential
pricing structure for non-displayed orders is not unfairly
discriminatory. As stated in the NYSE RLP Approval Order, the
``Commission has previously recognized that the markets generally
distinguish between individual retail investors, whose orders are
considered desirable by liquidity providers because such retail
investors are presumed on average to be less informed about short-term
price movements, and professional traders, whose orders are presumed on
average to be more informed.'' \23\ The Exchange's proposed
differential pricing structure for non-displayed orders raises
substantively identical policy considerations as the rules approved by
the Commission in the NYSE RLP Approval Order, which account for the
difference of assumed information and sophistication level between
different trading participants by providing Retail Orders access to
better execution prices as well as more favorable access fees.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
    \23\ See RLP Approval Order, supra note 12, at 40679-40680
(citing Concept Release on Equity Market Structure and approval of
an options exchange program related to price improvement for retail
orders). Certain options exchanges deploy this same rationale today
through pricing structures that vary for a trading participant based
on the capacity of the contra-side trading participant. See, e.g.,
Securities Exchange Act Release No. 67171 (June 8, 2012), 77 FR
35732 (June 14, 2012) (SR-NASDAQ-2012-068) (notice of filing and
immediate effectiveness of proposal to modify fees for the NASDAQ
Options Market, including certain fees and rebates that are variable
depending on the capacity of the contra-party to the transaction);
see also Securities Exchange Act Release No. 63632 (January 3,
2011), 76 FR 1205 (January 7, 2011) (SR-BATS-2010-038) (notice of
filing and immediate effectiveness of proposal to modify fees for
BATS Options, including liquidity rebates that are variable
depending on the capacity of the contra-party to the transaction).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, the Exchange proposes that the Commission approve the
proposed rule for a pilot period of twelve months from the date of
implementation, which shall occur no later than 90 days after
Commission approval of Nasdaq Rule 4780. The Program shall expire on
[Date to be determined upon adoption of Nasdaq Rule 4780]. The Exchange
believes that this pilot period is of sufficient length to permit both
the Exchange and the Commission to assess the impact of the rule change
described herein.

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

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

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

    Written comments were neither solicited nor received.

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

    Within 45 days of the date of publication of this notice in the
Federal Register or within such longer period (i) as the Commission may
designate up to 90 days of such date if it finds such longer period to
be appropriate and publishes its reasons for so finding or (ii) as to
which the Exchange consents, the Commission shall: (a) By order approve
or disapprove such proposed rule change, or (b) institute proceedings
to determine whether the proposed rule change should be disapproved.

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-2012-129 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-NASDAQ-2012-129. 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 NASDAQ. 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-NASDAQ-2012-129 and should
be submitted on or before December 28, 2012.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\24\
Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-29563 Filed 12-6-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P