[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 43 (Tuesday, March 5, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 14394-14400]
[FR Doc No: 2013-05003]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-69002; File No. SR-EDGA-2013-08]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; EDGA Exchange, Inc.; Notice of
Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Amend
EDGA Rules 1.5, 11.5, 11.8, 11.9 and 11.14 in Connection With the
Implementation of the National Market System Plan To Address
Extraordinary Market Volatility

February 27, 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 February 13, 2013, EDGA Exchange, Inc. (the ``Exchange'' or
``EDGA'') 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 self-regulatory
organization. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit
comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange proposes to amend Rules 1.5, 11.5, 11.8, 11.9 and
11.14 regarding the implementation of the National Market System Plan
to Address Extraordinary Market Volatility (as amended, the ``Plan'')
as approved by the Securities and Exchange Commission.\3\ All of the
changes described herein are applicable to EDGA Members. The text of
the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Internet Web
site at www.directedge.com, at the Exchange's principal office, on the
Commission's Internet Web site at www.sec.gov, and at the Commission's
Public Reference Room.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See Securities Exchange Release No. 67091 (May 31, 2012), 77
FR 33498 (June 6, 2012) (approving the Plan on a pilot basis).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 these statements may be examined at
the places specified in Item IV below. The self-regulatory organization
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 the
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

1. Purpose
    EDGA proposes to amend Rules 1.5, 11.5, 11.8, 11.9 and 11.14 in
connection with the implementation of the Plan.
Background
    On April 5, 2011, NYSE Euronext, on behalf of the New York Stock
Exchange LLC (``NYSE''), NYSE Amex LLC, and NYSE Arca, Inc. (``Arca''),
and the following parties to the Plan: BATS Exchange, Inc., BATS Y-
Exchange, Inc. (together, ``BATS''), Chicago Board Options Exchange,
Incorporated, Chicago Stock Exchange, Inc., EDGA, EDGX Exchange, Inc.,
Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc., NASDAQ OMX BX, Inc.,
NASDAQ OMX PHLX LLC, the Nasdaq Stock Market LLC, and National Stock
Exchange, Inc. (collectively with NYSE, NYSE MKT, and Arca, the
``Participants''), filed with the Commission pursuant to Section 11A of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (``Act''),\4\ and Rule 608
thereunder,\5\ the Plan to create a market-wide limit up-limit down
(``LULD'') mechanism that is intended to address extraordinary market
volatility in NMS Stocks.\6\ The Plan sets forth procedures that
provide for market-wide LULD requirements that would be designed to
prevent trades in individual NMS Stocks from occurring outside of
specified price bands. These LULD requirements would be coupled with
trading pauses \7\ to accommodate more fundamental price moves (as
opposed to erroneous trades or momentary gaps in liquidity).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ 15 U.S.C. 78k-1.
    \5\ 17 CFR 242.608.
    \6\ See Letter from Janet M. McGinness, Senior Vice President,
Legal and Corporate Secretary, NYSE Euronext, to Elizabeth M.
Murphy, Secretary, Commission, dated April 5, 2011 (``Transmittal
Letter''). The term ``NMS Stock'' shall have the meaning provided in
Rule 600(b)(47) of Regulation NMS under the Act.
    \7\ As defined in Section I(X) of the Plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The price bands would consist of a Lower Price Band (the ``Lower
Price Band'') and an Upper Price Band (the ``Upper Price Band''--each a
``Price Band'' and, together with the Lower Price Band, the ``Price
Bands'') for each NMS Stock. The Price Bands would be calculated by the
Securities Information Processors (the ``SIP'' or ``Processors'')
responsible for consolidation of information for an NMS Stock pursuant
to Rule 603(b) of Regulation NMS under the Act.\8\ The Price Bands
would be based on a Reference Price \9\ that equals the arithmetic mean
price of Eligible Reported Transactions \10\ for the NMS Stock over the
immediately preceding five-minute period. The Price Bands for an NMS
Stock would be calculated by applying the Percentage Parameter \11\ for

such NMS Stock to the Reference Price, with the Lower Price Band being
a Percentage Parameter below the Reference Price, and the Upper Price
Band being a Percentage Parameter above the Reference Price. Between
9:30 a.m. and 9:45 a.m. ET and 3:35 p.m. and 4:00 p.m. ET, the Price
Bands would be calculated by applying double the Percentage Parameters.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 17 CFR 242.603(b).
    \9\ As defined in Section I(T) of the Plan.
    \10\ As defined in the proposed Plan, Eligible Reported
Transactions would have the meaning prescribed by the Operating
Committee for the proposed Plan, and generally mean transactions
that are eligible to update the sale price of an NMS Stock.
    \11\ As initially proposed by the Participants, the Percentage
Parameters for Tier 1 NMS Stocks (i.e., stocks in the S&P 500 Index
or Russell 1000 Index and certain ETPs) with a Reference Price of
$1.00 or more would be five percent and less than $1.00 would be the
lesser of (a) $0.15 or (b) 75 percent. The Percentage Parameters for
Tier 2 NMS Stocks (i.e., all NMS Stocks other than those in Tier 1)
with a Reference Price of $1.00 or more would be 10 percent and less
than $1.00 would be the lesser of (a) $0.15 or (b) 75 percent. The
Percentage Parameters for a Tier 2 NMS Stock that is a leveraged ETP
would be the applicable Percentage Parameter set forth above
multiplied by the leverage ratio of such product. On May 24, 2012,
the Participants amended the Plan to create a 20% price band for
Tier 1 and Tier 2 stocks with a Reference Price of $0.75 or more and
up to and including $3.00. The Percentage Parameter for stocks with
a Reference Price below $0.75 would be the lesser of (a) $0.15 or
(b) 75 percent. See Securities Exchange Release No. 67091 (May 31,
2012), 77 FR 33498 (June 6, 2012).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Under the Plan, the Exchange is required to establish, maintain,
and enforce written policies and procedures reasonably designed to
prevent the display of offers below the Lower Price Band and bids above
the Upper Price Band for an NMS Stock. The Processors would disseminate
an offer below the Lower Price Band or bid above the Upper Price Band
that nevertheless inadvertently may be submitted despite such
reasonable policies and procedures, but with an appropriate flag
identifying it as non-executable; such bid or offer would not be
included in National Best Bid (``NBB'') or National Best Offer (``NBO''
and, together with the NBB, the ``NBBO'') calculations. In addition,
the Exchange is required to develop, maintain, and enforce policies and
procedures reasonably designed to prevent trades at prices outside the
Price Bands, with the exception of single-priced opening, reopening,
and closing transactions on the primary listing exchange.
    In connection with the upcoming implementation of the Plan on April
8, 2013, the Exchange proposes to amend the following rules:
Order Execution (Rule 11.9)
    The Exchange proposes to re-organize Rule 11.9 so that matters
relevant to order execution would be covered in Rule 11.9(a), while
matters relevant to order routing would be covered in Rule 11.9(b).
Rules 11.9(a) and (b) would be structured so that each would contain
subsections that would describe the manner by which execution and
routing would be affected by the Plan, among other regulations. The
Exchange proposes to add Rule 11.9(a)(3) that would provide particular
details with regard to how the Plan would modify order behavior on the
Exchange. Proposed Rule 11.9(a)(3) and its subparagraphs are described
below.
Compliance With the Plan
    The Exchange proposes to add Rule 11.9(a)(3), which would state
that, except as provided in Section VI of the Plan,\12\ for any
executions to occur during Regular Trading Hours, such executions must
occur at a price that is greater than or equal to the Lower Price Band
and less than or equal to the Upper Price Band, when such Price Bands
are disseminated.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ Section VI(A)(1) of the Plan provides that ``single-priced
opening, reopening, and closing transactions on the Primary Listing
Exchange, however, shall be excluded from this limitation. In
addition, any transaction that both (i) does not update the last
sale price (except if solely because the transaction was reported
late), and (ii) is excepted or exempt from Rule 611 under Regulation
NMS shall be excluded from this limitation.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Default Behavior for Non-Routable Orders Not Crossing the Price Bands
    The Exchange proposes to add Rule 11.9(a)(3)(A), which would state
that, when a non-routable buy (sell) order is entered into the System
\13\ at a price less (greater) than or equal to the Upper (Lower) Price
Band, such order will be posted to the EDGA Book \14\ or executed,
unless (i) the order is an Immediate-or-Cancel (``IOC'') Order,\15\ in
which case it will be cancelled if not executed, or (ii) the User \16\
has entered instructions to cancel the order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ As defined in Rule 1.5(cc).
    \14\ As defined in Rule 1.5(d).
    \15\ As defined in Rule 11.5(b)(1).
    \16\ As defined in Rule 1.5(ee).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Default Behavior When a Non-Routable Buy (Sell) Order Arrives at a
Price Higher (Lower) Than the Upper (Lower) Price Band
    The Exchange proposes to add Rule 11.9(a)(3)(B), which would state
that, when a non-routable buy (sell) order arrives at a price greater
(less) than the Upper (Lower) Price Band, the Exchange will re-price
and display such buy (sell) order at the price of the Upper (Lower)
Price Band.
Default Behavior When the Upper (Lower) Price Band Moves to a Price
Higher (Lower) Than a Resting Buy (Sell) Order's Displayed Posting
Price
    If the price of the Upper (Lower) Price Band moves above (below) a
non-routable buy (sell) order's displayed posting price, such buy
(sell) order will not be adjusted further and will remain posted at the
original price at which it was posted to the EDGA Book.
Default Behavior When the Upper (Lower) Price Band Crosses a Resting
Buy (Sell) Order's Displayed Posting Price
    Proposed Rule 11.9(a)(3)(B) would also state that, when the Upper
(Lower) Price Band crosses a non-routable buy (sell) order resting on
the EDGA Book, such buy (sell) order will be re-priced to the price of
the Upper (Lower) Price Band.
Routable Market and Limit Orders
    The Exchange proposes to add Rule 11.9(a)(3)(C), which would cross
reference how routable market and limit orders would behave under the
Plan.\17\ The proposed order handling under the Plan would be set forth
in proposed Rule 11.9(b)(1)(B) and described in the section entitled
``Changes in Routing Behavior to Comply with the Plan,'' below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ The Exchange notes that the behavior of stop orders and
stop limit orders, as defined in Exchange Rule 1.5, are not
specifically addressed in this filing as they are converted to
market and limit orders when the stop price is elected and will then
behave like market or limit orders, respectively, as described
above.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Short Sale Behavior
    The Exchange proposes to add Rule 11.9(a)(3)(D), which would
describe how short sale orders would be re-priced in accordance with
both Regulation SHO and the Plan. In particular, the proposed rule
would state that, where a short sale order is entered into the System
with a limit price below the Lower Price Band and a short sale price
test restriction under Rule 201 of Regulation SHO (``short sale price
test restriction'') is in effect for the covered security, the System
will re-price such order to the Lower Price Band as long as the Lower
Price Band is at a Permitted Price.\18\ When a short sale order is
entered into the System with a limit price above the Lower Price Band
and a short sale price test restriction is in effect for the covered
security, the System will re-price such order, if necessary, at a
Permitted Price pursuant to Rule 11.5(c)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ As defined in Rule 11.5(c)(4)(B).

    Example: Sell Short Order is priced at the Lower Price Band
where the Lower Price Band is above the NBB
    Assume the NBBO is $10.00 by $10.10, the Price Bands \19\ are
$10.01 by $10.15, and the short sale price test restriction is in
effect. A sell short order arrives to sell 100 shares at $10.00 and
is displayed at $10.01. The sell short order will be allowed to be
priced at

the Lower Price Band so long as the Lower Price Band is above the
NBB during the short sale price test restriction.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ Note that Price Band prices used in all examples in this
filing are for illustrative purposes only and do not reflect the
method by which the actual Price Bands will be calculated in
accordance with the Plan.

Policies and Procedures
    The Exchange proposes to add Rule 11.9(a)(3)(E) to specify that
pursuant to Section IV of the Plan, all Trading Centers \20\ in NMS
Stocks, including those operated by Members of the Exchange, shall
establish maintain, and enforce written policies and procedures that
are reasonably designed to comply with the requirements specified in
Section VI of the Plan, and to comply with the Trading Pauses specified
in Section VII of the Plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ As defined in Rule 2.11(a).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Applicability of the Plan to Specific Order Types
    The following examples and descriptions demonstrate how Rules
11.9(a)(3)(A)-(C), as described above, will affect specific order
functionality under the Plan.
Immediate-or-Cancel (``IOC'') Orders
    As described in proposed Rule 11.9(a)(3)(A), IOC Orders will be
executed to the extent allowed within the Price Bands, and the portion
not so executed will be cancelled.
    In general, IOC and IOC Intermarket Sweep Orders \21\ (``IOC ISO'')
will be handled the same way when the Price Bands are inside of the
NBBO. Buy IOC/IOC ISOs will be executed up to the Upper Price Band and
the remainder will be canceled back to the User. Sell IOC/IOC ISOs will
be executed down to the Lower Price Band and the remainder will be
canceled back to the User. IOC ISOs will be prevented from executing at
prices that cross the Price Bands when the limit price of the ISO
crosses a Price Band that is outside of the NBBO.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ ISO Orders are described in Exchange Rule 11.5(d) and
defined under Regulation NMS. See Securities Exchange Act Release
No. 51808 (June 9, 2005), 70 FR 37496 (June 29, 2005).

    Example 1: Sell IOC Order Executes Down to the Lower Price Band
    Assume the NBBO is $10.00 by $10.10 and the Price Bands are
$10.04 by $10.15. Three orders are placed: Order1 to buy 100 shares
at $10.02; Order2 to buy 100 shares at $10.04; and an IOC Order to
sell 200 shares at $10.02. The IOC Order will execute 100 shares at
$10.04 against Order2 and the remaining 100 shares will be cancelled
back to the User. The IOC Order cannot execute against Order1
because Order1 is priced below the Lower Price Band.

    Example 2: Sell IOC ISO Executes through NBBO Down to the Lower
Price Band
    Assume the NBBO is $10.00 by $10.10 and the Price Bands are
$9.99 by $10.15. Three orders are placed: Order1 to buy 100 shares
at $9.99; Order2 to buy 100 shares at $9.98; and an IOC ISO to sell
200 shares at $9.98. The IOC ISO will execute 100 shares at $9.99
against Order1 and the remaining 100 shares will be canceled back to
the User. The IOC ISO cannot execute against Order2 because Order2
is priced below the Lower Price Band.
EDGA Only/Post Only Orders \22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ As defined in Rules 11.5(c)(4) and (5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As described in proposed Rule 11.9(a)(3)(B), where a non-routable
order such as a EDGA Only/Post Only buy (sell) Order is entered into
the System at a price above (below) the Upper (Lower) Price Band, such
buy (sell) order will be re-priced and displayed at the price of the
Upper (Lower) Price Band. If the Upper (Lower) Price Band moves higher
(lower) than the EDGA Only/Post Only buy (sell) Order's posting price,
such buy (sell) order will not be adjusted further and will remain at
the original price at which it was posted to the EDGA Book.

    Example 1: EDGA Only/Post Only Order is entered into the System
at a Price that Crosses the Price Bands
    Assume the NBBO is $10.00 by $10.10 and the Price Bands are
$9.95 by $10.08. An EDGA Only/Post Only buy Order arrives at $10.09.
The buy order will be re-priced, displayed and posted to the EDGA
Book at $10.08, the price of the Upper Price Band.
    Example 2:  Price Band Moves Higher Than EDGA Only/Post Only Buy
Order on the EDGA Book
    Assume the same facts as in Example 1, but now the Price Bands
adjust to $9.95 by $10.10. The buy order will not be adjusted
further and will instead remain on the EDGA Book at $10.08, the
original price at which it was posted to the EDGA Book.
Changes in Routing Behavior To Comply With the Plan
    The Exchange proposes to add Rule 11.9(b)(1)(B), which would
describe how routing will function under the Plan and would be divided
into three major subsections, detailed under the subheadings listed
below.
Default Routing Behavior
    The first major subsection, proposed Rule 11.9(b)(1)(B)(i), would
describe how default routing behavior would function in accordance with
the Plan and would state that, in order to comply with the Plan, a
routable buy (sell) market or routable marketable limit order will be
routed by the Exchange only when the NBO (NBB) is or becomes executable
according to the Plan, which would be when the NBO is less than or
equal to the Upper Price Band (NBB is greater than or equal to the
Lower Price Band). According to the Plan, the NBO (NBB) is or becomes
non-executable when the NBO is greater than the Upper Price Band (the
NBB is less than the Lower Price Band) (``Non-Executable''). Proposed
Rule 11.9(b)(1)(B)(i) would also state that, excluding routing
strategies SWPA, SWPB and SWPC, for purposes of Rules
11.9(b)(1)(B)(i)(I) and (II), routing strategies that access all
Protected Quotations include the following routing strategies as
described in current Rule 11.9(b)(3) (proposed to be re-numbered Rule
11.9(b)(2)): ROUT, ROUX, ROUC, ROUE and ROOC. Routing strategies that
do not access all Protected Quotations include all other routing
strategies listed in current Rule 11.9(b)(3).
    Routing strategies that access all Protected Quotations (other than
SWPA, SWPB and SWPC) are designed to maximize liquidity with the
intention to fully execute a marketable order. Routing strategies that
do not access all Protected Quotations are designed with other
objectives in mind and are not as likely to fully execute a marketable
order because of the smaller number of liquidity sources accessed. For
example, routing strategy ROUZ, which does not access all Protected
Quotations, will only access dark pools after interacting with the EDGA
Book and then post any remainder to the EDGA Book unless otherwise
instructed by the User.
    If a marketable order utilizing a routing strategy that accesses
all Protected Quotations cannot be executed because the Upper (Lower)
Price Band crosses the NBO (NBB) (i.e., the NBO/NBB is non-executable),
the Exchange believes that, in order to fulfill the routing strategy's
objective of maximizing liquidity and fully executing a marketable
order, it is appropriate to re-price such order up to the order's limit
price and re-route such order once the Upper (Lower) Price Band no
longer crosses the NBO (NBB) (i.e., the NBO/NBB becomes executable).
    Below are examples illustrating how default routing behavior will
function in accordance with the Plan.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ All of the below examples in this section on changes to the
behavior of routable orders as a result of compliance with the Plan
assume that there is no liquidity on the EDGA Book.

    Example:  Buy Order Example where NBO is Above the Upper Price
Band
    Assume the NBBO is $10.00 by $10.10 and the Price Bands are
$9.95 by $10.05. Order1 arrives to buy 100 shares at $10.15; Order2
arrives to buy 100 shares as a market order. Neither Order1 nor
Order2 will be routed because no buy orders will be routed when the
NBO is above the Upper Price Band.

Routable Market Orders
    Proposed Rule 11.9(b)(1)(B)(i) would contain two minor subsections,
the first of which, proposed Rule 11.9(b)(1)(B)(i)(I), would describe
routing behavior under the Plan applicable to routable market orders
and would state that, for routing strategies that access all Protected
Quotations, if the NBO (NBB) is Non-Executable and a buy (sell) market
order is placed, the System will default to re-price such buy (sell)
market order and display it at the price of the Upper (Lower) Price
Band and will continue to re-price it to the price of the Upper (Lower)
Price Band as the Upper (Lower) Price Band adjusts, so long as the buy
(sell) market order does not move above (below) its market collar
price, as defined in Rule 11.5(a)(2), or alternatively, such buy (sell)
market order may be cancelled pursuant to User instruction. For all
other routing strategies that do not access all Protected Quotations,
routable market orders will not be re-priced and displayed at the price
of the Upper (Lower) Price Band and will instead be cancelled if the
NBO (NBB) is Non-Executable.
    The rule further provides that if the Upper (Lower) Price Band
crosses a routable buy (sell) order resting on the EDGA Book, such buy
(sell) order will be re-priced to the price of the Upper (Lower) Price
Band.

    Example 1: Buy Market Order where NBO is Above Upper Price Band
    Assume the NBBO is $10.00 by $10.10 and the Price Bands are
$9.95 by $10.05. A routable buy market order arrives for 100 shares
utilizing a routing strategy that accesses all Protected Quotations
(e.g., ROUT). The buy order will not be routed as the NBO is Non-
Executable (greater than the Upper Price Band) and will be posted
and displayed at $10.05 or cancelled according to the User's
instructions.
    If the Price Bands move up after the initial re-price to $9.98
by $10.08, the buy order will be re-priced and displayed at $10.08.
If the Upper Price Band moves down after the initial re-price to
$9.92 by $10.02, the buy order will be re-priced and displayed at
$10.02.
    In the same example, if the buy market order arrives for 100
shares utilizing a routing strategy that does not access all
Protected Quotations, such as ROCO, then the System will cancel the
buy market order when the NBO is Non-Executable and will not re-
price and display the order at the price of the Upper Price Band.

    Example 2: Market Order is Re-Priced to Market Collar Price as a
Result of Movement of the Price Bands
    Assume the NBBO is $10.00 by $11.00, the Price Bands are $9.05
by $10.05 and the last sale was at $10.00. A market order arrives to
buy 100 shares and is displayed at $10.05 with a market collar of
$10.50. The Price Bands then change to $10.00 by $11.00. As a
result, the market order is posted and displayed at its collar price
of $10.50.
Routable Limit Orders
    The second minor subsection, proposed Rule 11.9(b)(1)(B)(i)(II),
would describe routing behavior under the Plan applicable to routable
limit orders and would state that, if the price of (i) a routable buy
(sell) limit order that is entered into the System or (ii) the unfilled
balance of such order returned from routing to away Trading Centers is
greater (less) than the Upper (Lower) Price Band and is ineligible for
routing as a result of the NBO (NBB) being or having become Non-
Executable, then the System will default to re-price such buy (sell)
order and display it at the price of the Upper (Lower) Price Band, or
alternatively, it may be cancelled pursuant to User instruction. For
routing strategies that access all Protected Quotations, if the Upper
(Lower) Price Band subsequently moves above (below) the routable buy
(sell) order's posting price, such routable order will continue to be
re-priced to the Upper (Lower) Price Band until the order reaches its
limit price. For all other routing strategies that do not access all
Protected Quotations, the routable order will not be re-priced to a
price above (below) the original price at which it was posted to the
EDGA Book.
    The rule further provides that if the Upper (Lower) Price Band
crosses a routable buy (sell) order resting on the EDGA Book, such buy
(sell) order will be re-priced to the price of the Upper (Lower) Price
Band.

    Example 1:  Sell Limit Order that accesses all Protected
Quotations where NBB is Below Lower Price Band
    Assume the NBBO is $10.02 by $10.10 and the Price Bands are
$10.04 by $10.15. A routable sell order arrives for 100 shares at
$10.01 utilizing a routing strategy that accesses all Protected
Quotations (e.g., ROUT). The sell order will not be routed and will
be posted and displayed at $10.04 or cancelled according to the
User's instructions.
    If the Price Bands move up after the initial re-price to $10.06
by $10.16, the order will be re-priced to display at $10.06. If the
Price Bands move down after the initial re-price to $10.03 by
$10.13, the order will be re-priced to display at $10.03.
    Example 2:  Sell Limit Order that does not access all Protected
Quotations
    Assume the NBBO is $10.02 by $10.10 and the Price Bands are
$10.04 by $10.15. A routable sell order arrives for 100 shares at
$10.01 utilizing a routing strategy that does not access all
Protected Quotations (e.g., ROUZ). The sell order will not be routed
and will instead be posted and displayed at $10.04 or cancelled
according to the User's instructions.
    If the Price Bands move up to $10.06 by $10.16 after the initial
re-price, the order will be re-priced and displayed at $10.06. If
the Price Bands move down to $10.03 by $10.13 after the initial re-
price, the order will be re-priced and displayed at $10.04, the
original price at which it was posted to the EDGA Book.
Re-Routing Behavior
    The second major subsection, proposed Rule 11.9(b)(1)(B)(ii), would
describe how re-routing will function under the Plan and would state
that, for routing strategies that access all Protected Quotations, when
the Upper (Lower) Price Band adjusts such that the NBO (NBB) becomes
executable, a routable buy (sell) market order or marketable limit
order will be eligible to be re-routed by the Exchange.

    Example 1: Routing Buy Order when NBO Becomes Executable
    Assume the NBBO is $10.00 by $10.10 and the Price Bands are
$9.94 by $10.09. A routable buy market order arrives for 100 shares
utilizing a routing strategy that accesses all Protected Quotations
(e.g., ROUT).\24\ The buy order will not be routed and will instead
be posted and displayed at $10.09. The Price Bands change to $9.95
by $10.10. The order will be routed since the NBO is now executable.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ If, for example, a routing strategy that does not access
all Protected Quotations, such as ROUZ, is elected by the User, the
order is not re-routed and remains posted on the EDGA Book.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Example 2:  Routing Sell Order when NBB Becomes Executable
    Assume the NBBO is $10.00 by $10.10 and the Price Bands are
$10.05 by $10.15. A routable sell order arrives for 100 shares at
$9.99 utilizing a routing strategy that accesses all Protected
Quotations (e.g., ROUT). The sell order will be re-priced and
displayed at $10.05. The Price Bands then change to $9.98 by $10.10.
The sell order will be routed since the NBB is now executable.
Behavior of Orders Utilizing SWP Routing Strategies
    The third and final major subsection, Rule 11.9(b)(1)(B)(iii),
would describe how orders utilizing routing strategies SWPA, SWPB and
SWPC \25\ (together, ``SWP routing strategies'') will function under
the Plan and would state that the System will immediately cancel orders
utilizing a SWP routing strategy when an order to buy utilizing an SWP
routing strategy has a limit price that is greater than the Upper Price
Band or if a sell order utilizing an SWP routing strategy has a limit
price that is less than the Lower Price Band. The following examples
illustrate how an order utilizing a SWP routing strategy (an ``SWP
order'') would behave in accordance with the Plan:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ Rules 11.9(b)(3)(o), (p) and (q) define SWPA, SWPB and SWPC
routing strategies, respectively.

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

    Example 1: Buy SWP Limit Price Crosses the Upper Price Band
(Price Band Inside the NBBO)
    Assume the NBBO is $10.00 by $10.10 and the Price Bands are
$10.00 by $10.08. A SWP order is placed to buy 100 shares at $10.10.
The order is rejected immediately because its $10.10 limit price
crosses the Upper Price Band.
    Example 2: Buy SWP Limit Price Crosses the Upper Price Band
(Price Band Outside the NBBO)
    Assume the NBBO is $10.00 by $10.10 and the Price Bands are
$9.95 by $10.11. A SWP order is placed to buy 100 shares at $10.12.
The order is rejected immediately because its $10.12 limit price
crosses the Upper Price Band.
    Example 3: Buy SWP Limit Price is the same as the price of the
Upper Price Band (Price Band Outside the NBBO)
    Assume the NBBO is $10.00 by $10.10 and the Price Bands are
$9.95 by $10.11. A SWP order is placed to buy 100 shares at $10.11.
The order is executed and ISOs can be routed out since the limit
price of $10.11 is equal to the Upper Price Band.
Miscellaneous Organizational Amendments to Rule 11.9
    The Exchange proposes to add Rule 11.9(a)(1) (Compliance with
Regulation SHO), which would contain unchanged text from current Rule
11.9(a) relevant to compliance with Regulation SHO. The Exchange
proposes to add Rule 11.9(a)(2) (Compliance with Regulation NMS), which
would contain unchanged text from current Rule 11.9(a) relevant to
compliance with Regulation NMS. The Exchange proposes to re-number
current Rule 11.9(a)(1) (Execution against EDGA Book) to new Rule
11.9(a)(4). The text of the rule would remain unchanged.
    The Exchange proposes to rename current Rule 11.9(b) (Execution and
Routing) to Rule 11.9(b) (Routing). The Exchange proposes to add Rule
11.9(b)(1), which would contain text in current Rule 11.9(b)(2) with
regard to routing to away trading centers. The text of the rule will
remain unchanged aside from updated cross references. The Exchange also
proposes to add Rule 11.9(b)(1)(A), which would contain unchanged text
in current Rule 11.9(b)(2) relevant to Regulation SHO. The Exchange
proposes to add new Rules 11.9(b)(1)(C) and (D), which would contain
the unchanged text of current Rules 11.9(b)(2)(A) and (B),
respectively. Lastly, the Exchange proposes to re-number current Rule
11.9(b)(3) to new Rule 11.9(b)(2). The text of the rule will remain
unchanged.
Orders and Modifiers (Rule 11.5)
    The Exchange proposes to amend cross references in Rules
11.5(a)(2), 11.5(c)(4)-(10), and 11.5(d)(1) in response to the re-
numbering of subsections within Rule 11.9, as discussed in detail
above.
Mid-Point Peg Orders
    The Exchange proposes to amend Rule 11.5(c)(7) to describe the
behavior of Mid-Point Peg Orders \26\ under the Plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ As defined in Rule 11.5(c)(7).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that, when a Protected Quotation \27\ is
crossed by the Price Bands and all Trading Centers have not yet
replaced their quotes to re-align them with the Price Bands, the
integrity of the NBBO is compromised. In such circumstances, the
Exchange believes that it is fair and reasonable to shut down all
midpoint trading until the Protected Quotation is no longer crossed by
the Price Bands. Pursuant to Rule 11.9(a)(3), Mid-Point Peg Orders will
not trade with any other orders when (i) the price of the Upper Price
Band moves below an existing Protected Bid; \28\ or (ii) the Lower
Price Band moves above an existing Protected Offer.\29\ Mid-Point Peg
Orders will resume trading against other orders when the conditions in
(i) or (ii) no longer exist.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ As defined in Rule 11.5(v).
    \28\ As defined in Rule 11.5(v).
    \29\ As defined in Rule 11.5(v).

    Example 1: Mid-Point Peg Order Does Not Trade when Upper Price
Band Crosses Protected Bids from other Exchanges
    Assume the NBBO is $10.00 by $10.01 and the Price Bands are
$9.02 by $10.02. The best bids are $10.00 at NYSE, $10.00 at BATS
and $9.95 at ARCA. Order1 is placed to Sell 100 shares at $9.95 as a
Mid-Point Peg Order. The Price Bands then change to $8.99 by $9.99
and the NBBO changes to $9.95 by $10.01 (BATS and NYSE's best bids
are excluded from the NBBO by the SIP and neither exchange has yet
submitted new quotes to the SIP). Order2 is placed to Buy 100 shares
at $9.99. Order2 does not trade with Order1 and remains posted to
the EDGA Book at $9.99.
    Mid-Point Peg Orders will continue to execute at the midpoint of
the NBBO or at prices better than the midpoint of the NBBO as long
as the execution price is within the Upper and Lower Price Bands.
    The Exchange notes that Mid-Point Peg Orders cannot trade with
other Mid-Point Peg Orders when the Upper (Lower) Price Band is
crossing the midpoint of the NBBO.
    Example 2: Mid-Point Peg Orders Cannot Trade when the Price Band
is Crossing the Midpoint of the NBBO
    Assume the NBBO is $10.00 by $10.10 and the Price Bands are
$10.00 by $10.04. A Mid-Point Peg Order is placed to buy 100 shares
at $11.00 and posted at $10.05. A Mid-Point Peg Order is placed to
sell 100 shares at $10.00. The Mid-Point Peg Orders cannot trade at
$10.05 because the Upper Price Band is crossing the midpoint of the
NBBO. Both orders will stay on the EDGA Book at $10.05. No execution
will occur between the orders until the Upper Price Band no longer
crosses the midpoint of the NBBO.
Mid-Point Discretionary Orders
    The Exchange proposes to amend Rule 11.5(c)(17) to describe the
behavior of Mid-Point Discretionary Orders under the Plan.
    The Exchange believes that, when a Protected Quotation is crossed
by the Price Bands and all Trading Centers have not yet replaced their
quotes to re-align them with the Price Bands, the integrity of the NBBO
is compromised. In such circumstances, the Exchange believes that it is
fair and reasonable to shut down all midpoint trading until the
Protected Quotation is no longer crossed by the Price Bands. Pursuant
to Rule 11.9(a)(3), Mid-Point Discretionary Orders will only execute at
their displayed prices and not within their discretionary ranges when
(i) the price of the Upper Price Band moves below an existing Protected
Bid; or (ii) the Lower Price Band moves above an existing Protected
Offer. Mid-Point Discretionary Orders will resume trading against other
orders in their discretionary range when the conditions in (i) or (ii)
no longer exist.

    Example 1: Two Mid-Point Discretionary Orders Do Not Trade with
Each Other when Upper Price Band Crosses Protected Bids
    Assume the NBBO is $10.00 by $10.01 and the Price Bands are
$9.50 by $10.02. The best bids on other exchanges are $10.00 at
NYSE, $10.00 at BATS and $9.95 at Arca. Order1 to buy 100 shares at
$10.05 is placed as a Mid-Point Discretionary Order. The Price Bands
then change to $9.50 by $9.99. The NBBO changes to $9.95 by $10.01
(BATS' and NYSE's best bids are excluded from the NBBO by the SIP
and neither exchange has yet submitted new quotes to the SIP).
Order2 to sell 100 shares at $9.95 is placed as a Mid-Point
Discretionary Order. Order1 and Order2 do not trade and Order2 is
instead posted on the EDGA Book.
    Example 2: Mid-Point Discretionary Orders Do Not Trade in their
Discretionary Ranges when Upper Price Band Crosses Top of Book Bids
    Assume the NBBO is $10.00 by $10.01 and the Price Bands are
$9.02 by $10.02. The best bids on other exchanges are $10.00 at
NYSE, $10.00 at BATS and $9.95 at ARCA. Order1 to Sell 100 shares at
$9.95 is placed as a Mid-Point Discretionary Order. The Price Bands
then change to $8.99 by $9.99. The NBBO changes to $9.95 by $10.01
(BATS' and NYSE's best bids are excluded from the NBBO by the SIP
and neither exchange has yet submitted new quotes to the SIP).
Order2 to Buy 100 shares at $9.98 entered. Order1 and Order2 do not
trade and Order2 is instead posted on the EDGA Book at $9.98.
    Mid-Point Discretionary Orders' discretionary ranges will be
shortened to the price of the Price Bands, as necessary.
    Example 3:  Mid-Point Discretionary Order's Discretionary Range
is shortened due to Price Band

    Assume the NBBO is $10.00 by $10.08 and the Price Bands are
$9.95 by $10.03. Three orders are placed: Order1, a Mid-Point
Discretionary Order to buy 100 shares at $10.08; Order2 to sell 100
shares at $10.04; and Order3 to sell 100 shares at $10.03. No trade
can occur between the Mid-Point Discretionary Order (Order 1) and
Order2 because $10.04 is outside of the Upper Price Band. Order3
will trade with the Mid-Point Discretionary Order (Order 1) at
$10.03 because Order3 is within the Price Bands.
Priority of Orders (Rule 11.8)
    The Exchange proposes to add new Rule 11.8(a)(8), which would state
that when a Price Band crosses an order resting on the EDGA Book, such
order will be provided a new time stamp \30\ and prioritized based on
its existing time stamp at the time the new Price Bands are
established. Furthermore, if an order is resting on the Book at a price
equal to the Upper (Lower) Price Band, such order will not be re-
priced, but will be provided a new time stamp and prioritized based on
its existing time stamp at the time the new Price Bands are
established.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \30\ A new time stamp enables the Exchange's System to record
every time an order is re-priced.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange views this method of retaining priority based on time
as being the method that is most fair to its Members and subject to the
least amount of manipulation. The Exchange believes that time priority
is a superior approach to price priority because under a time priority
approach, it would be more difficult for certain Members to price their
orders on the EDGA Book in a way that gives them a potential priority
advantage when such orders are subsequently re-priced by a Price Band
crossing the price at which such orders reside on the Book.
    The following examples demonstrate how order priority will be
affected by the Plan.

    Example 1: Price Band Crosses Orders Resting on the EDGA Book
    Assume the NBBO is $10.00 by $10.10 and the Price Bands are
$9.95 by $10.15. Two orders are placed: Order1 arrives to buy 100
shares at $10.05 and then Order2 arrives to buy 100 shares at
$10.08. The Price Bands change to $9.95 by $10.05 and Order2 is re-
priced to $10.05 as a result of the adjustment of the Upper Price
Band. Order3 is then placed to sell 100 shares at $10.05. Order1
will trade with Order3. Initially, Order2 will have price priority
while the Price Bands are outside of the NBBO. However, after the
Price Bands adjust, Order1 will have priority based on its existing
time stamp at the time the new Price Bands were established.
    Example 2: Price Band Crosses Orders Resting on the EDGA Book
    Assume the NBBO is $10.00 by $10.10 and the Price Bands are
$9.95 by $10.15. Two orders are placed: Order1 arrives to buy 100
shares at $10.08 and then Order2 arrives to buy 100 shares at
$10.05. The Price Bands change to $9.95 by $10.05 and Order1 is re-
priced to $10.05 as a result of the adjustment of the Upper Price
Band. Order3 is then placed to sell 100 shares at $10.05. Order1
will trade with Order3 because it retains its priority based on its
existing time stamp at the time the new Price Bands were
established. When the Price Bands adjusted, both Order1 and Order2
obtained new time stamps and retained priority based on the time
stamps that existed relative to one another at the time the new
Price Bands were established.
Definitions (Rule 1.5)
    The Exchange proposes to add new Rule 1.5(gg), which would define
the term the ``Plan'' to mean The National Market System Plan to
Address Extraordinary Market Volatility as well as state that a number
of terms used in the Rules and related to the Plan shall have the
definitions and meanings ascribed to them under the Plan.
Trading Halts Due to Extraordinary Market Volatility (Rule 11.14)
    The Exchange proposes to amend Rule 11.14(d) (individual stock
trading pauses) to explain how the rule will operate during the phased
implementation of the Plan. Currently, under Rule 11.14(d), if a
primary listing market issues an individual stock trading pause in any
NMS stock, the Exchange will pause trading in that security until
trading has resumed on the primary listing market. If, however, trading
has not resumed on the primary listing market and ten minutes have
passed since the individual stock trading pause message has been
received from the responsible single plan processor, the Exchange may
resume trading in such stock. During Phase 1 of the Plan, an individual
stock trading pause in Tier 1 NMS Stocks that are subject to the
requirements of the Plan shall be subject to the Plan. Tier 1 NMS
Stocks not yet subject to the requirements of the Plan and Tier 2 NMS
Stocks shall be subject to the requirements set forth in paragraph (d)
of Rule 11.14. Once the Plan has been fully implemented and all NMS
stocks are subject to the Plan, Rule 11.14(d) will no longer apply.
2. Statutory Basis
    The statutory basis for the proposed rule change is Section 6(b)(5)
of the Act,\31\ which requires the rules of an exchange to promote just
and equitable principles of trade, to remove impediments to and perfect
the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system
and, in general, to protect investors and the public interest. The
Exchange believes that the proposed rule change meets these
requirements in that it seeks to promote the efficient execution of
investor transactions, and thus strengthen investor confidence, over
the long term by providing additional transparency regarding the order
handling procedures employed by the Exchange and certain obligations of
Members when sending orders to the Exchange consistent with the Plan.
The Exchange also believes that the proposed amendments to Rules 11.8
and 11.9 will assist Users in executing or displaying their orders
consistent with the Plan, especially under fast moving conditions where
the Price Bands and NBBO are quickly updating. In addition, Users can
choose to use an IOC Order or opt out of certain default re-pricing
processes, as described in proposed Rules 11.9(b)(3) and
11.9(b)(1)(B)(i)(I-II), that re-price a buy (sell) order to the price
of the Upper (Lower) Price Band. If Users choose to do so, the Exchange
will instead cancel their orders instead as per User instructions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \31\ 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
its rules are comparable, in part, with re-pricing and cancellation
processes offered by other exchanges in response to the Plan. The
Exchange also believes that there is no impact on competition as
analogous rule changes are being filed by all Participants to the Plan
and the Plan itself was developed and jointly filed by all Participants
in the first instance.

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

    The Exchange has neither solicited nor received written comments on
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 \32\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder.\33\
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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \32\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(iii).
    \33\ 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
Exchange has satisfied this requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of such proposed rule
change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule
change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or
appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or
otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission
takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings under
Section 19(b)(2)(B) of the Act \34\ to determine whether the proposed
rule change should be approved or disapproved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \34\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2)(B).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File No. SR-EDGA-2013-08 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 No. SR-EDGA-2013-08. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of
10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of such filing also will be available
for inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All
comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does
not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should
submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All
submissions should refer to File No. SR-EDGA-2013-08 and should be
submitted on or before March 26, 2013.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\35\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \35\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2013-05003 Filed 3-4-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: May 8, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 90)]
[Notices]
[Page 26092-26093]
[DOCID:fr08my08-61]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No.: 803-087]

Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E); Notice of Application
Accepted for Filing, Soliciting Motions To Intervene and Protests,
Ready for Environmental Analysis, and Soliciting Comments,
Recommendations, Preliminary Terms and Conditions, and Preliminary
Fishway Prescriptions

May 1, 2008.
    Take notice that the following hydroelectric application has been
filed with the Commission and is available for public inspection.
    a. Type of Application: New Major License.
    b. Project No.: 803-087.
    c. Date filed: October 2, 2007.
    d. Applicant: Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E).
    e. Name of Project: DeSabla-Centerville Hydroelectric Project.
    f. Location: The existing project is located on Butte Creek and the
West Branch Feather River in Butte County, California. The project
affects 145.7 acres of federal lands administered by the Lassen
National Forest, 2.1 acres of federal lands administered by the Plumas
National Forest, and 11.6 acres of federal lands administered by the
U.S. Bureau of Land Management.
    g. Filed Pursuant to: Federal Power Act 16 U.S.C. 791(a)-825(r).
    h. Applicant Contact: Randal S. Livingston, Vice President-Power
Generation, Pacific Gas and Electric Company, P.O. Box 770000, Mail
Code: N11E, San Francisco, CA 94177; Telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    i. FERC Contact: Kenneth Hogan,<PHONE_NUMBER> or
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    j. Deadline for filing motions to intervene and protests, comments,
recommendations, preliminary terms and conditions, and preliminary
fishway prescriptions is 60 days from the issuance of this notice;
reply comments are due 105 days from the issuance date of this notice.
    All documents (original and eight copies) should be filed with:
Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888
First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    The Commission's Rules of Practice require all intervenors filing
documents with the Commission to serve a copy of that document on each
person on the official service list for the project. Further, if an
intervenor files comments or documents with the Commission relating to
the merits of an issue that may affect the responsibilities of a
particular resource agency, they must also serve a copy of the document
on that resource agency.
    Motions to intervene, protests, comments, recommendations,
preliminary terms and conditions, and preliminary fishway prescriptions
may be filed electronically via the Internet in lieu of paper. The
Commission strongly encourages electronic filings. See 18 CFR
385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's Web site
(http://www.ferc.gov) under the ``e-Filing'' link.
    k. This application has been accepted for filing and is now ready
for environmental analysis.
    The Toadtown development, which diverts water from the West Branch
Feather River, consists of the following constructed facilities: (1)
Round Valley Reservoir, a 98 acre reservoir with a gross storage
capacity of 1,700 acre-feet; (2) Round Valley dam, an earthfill dam,
29-feet high and 810-feet long; (3) a 40-foot-wide overflow spillway;
(4) a 15-inch outlet pipe at the base of Round Valley dam, and manual
low level outlet valve; (5) Philbrook Reservoir, a 173 acre reservoir
with a gross storage capacity of 4,985 acre-feet; (6) Philbrook main
dam (located on Philbrook Creek), a compacted earthfill dam, 87-feet
high and 850-feet long; (7) Philbrook auxiliary dam (170 feet to the
right of the main dam), a compacted earthfill dam, 24-feet high and
470-feet long; (8) a 29.7-foot-wide spillway with 5 flashboard bays;
(9) a 10.75-foot-long and 14.75-foot-wide spillway with a single,
manual radial gate; (10) a 33-inch diameter, 460-foot-long outlet
conduit from Philbrook Reservoir; (11) a 17-foot high, 8-feet diameter
submerged vertical concrete intake, controlled by a 30-inch diameter
manual needle valve; (12) Hendricks Head Dam, a concrete gravity dam,
15-feet high with an overflow spillway section 98-feet wide; (13) a
8.66-mile-long Hendricks Canal, composed mostly of earthen ditch with
several flume and tunnel sections, with a capacity of 125 cfs; (14)
feeder diversions from 4 creeks into Hendricks/Toadtown canal; (15) a
40-inch diameter, 1,556-foot-long steel penstock; (16) Toadtown
Powerhouse, a 28- by 44-foot reinforced concrete building, with one
turbine-generator unit and a normal operating capacity of 1.5 MW; (17)
a 1500-foot-long 12 kv tapline connecting Toadtown Powerhouse to a
distribution system; and (18) appurtenant facilities.
    The DeSabla development, which diverts water from upper Butte Creek
and uses the outflow of the Toadtown development, consists of the
following constructed facilities: (1) The 2.4-mile-long Toadtown Canal,
an earthen canal with a capacity of 125 cfs; (2) Butte Creek Diversion
Dam, a 50-foot-high, 100-foot-long, concrete arch dam with an overflow
spillway; (3) a 11.4-mile-long Butte Canal, composed of earthen berm
sections, gunited sections, tunnel sections, a siphon, and flume
sections, with a capacity of 91 cfs; (4) a 0.7-mile-long canal that
combines Butte Canal with Toadtown Canal, with a capacity of 191 cfs;
(5) feeder diversions from 4 creeks that flow into Butte Canal (1 not
in use); (6) DeSabla Dam, a 50-foot-high, 100-foot-wide earthen
embankment with a spillway canal; (7) DeSabla Forebay, a 15 acre
reservoir with a gross storage capacity of 163 acre-feet (originally
188 acre-feet); (8) a 66-inch diameter, reduced to 42-inch diameter,
1.3-mile-long steel penstock; and (9) DeSabla Powerhouse, a 26.5- by
41-foot reinforced concrete building, with one turbine-generator unit
and a normal operating capacity of 18.5 MW; (10) a 0.25-mile-long
transmission tapline connecting DeSabla Powerhouse to the 60 kV Oro
Fino Tap Line; and (11) appurtenant facilities.
    The Centerville development, which diverts the flow of Butte Creek
downstream of the DeSabla development, consists of the following
constructed facilities: (1) The Upper Centerville Canal, that
originates at DeSabla Powerhouse and ends at Helltown Ravine (currently
carries a few cfs for local water uses and has not been used for power
generation for many years); (2) Lower Centerville Diversion Dam, a 12-
foot high, 72.5 foot-wide concrete arch dam with an overflow spillway;
(3) an 8-mile long Lower Centerville Canal, composed of earthen canal
and several flume sections, with a capacity of 183 cfs; (4) feeder
diversions from 3 creeks that flow into Lower Centerville Canal (all 3
no longer in use); (5) one 30-inch diameter and one 42-inch diameter,
reduced to 36-inch diameter, 2,559-foot long steel penstocks; (6)
Centerville Forebay, a 27- by 37-foot concrete header box with a
spillway channel; (7) Centerville Powerhouse, a 32- by 109-foot
reinforced concrete building, with two turbine-generator units and a
total normal operating capacity of 6.4 MW; and (8) appurtenant
facilities.
    PG&E operates the project primarily as a run-of-river system and
operates on a continuous basis, using the water supply available after
satisfaction of the minimum instream flow requirements. During the
winter and spring, base flows in the West Branch of the Feather River
and Butte Creek typically provide

adequate flow for full operation of the Project powerhouses. During the
summer months, the available base flow water is augmented by water
releases from Round Valley and Philbrook reservoirs.
    During the fall months, Project powerhouses are operated at reduced
capacities due to low stream flows.
    Water releases from Round Valley reservoir flow down the West
Branch Feather River, and water releases from Philbrook reservoir pass
down natural channels of Philbrook Creek and the West Branch Feather
River about 8 miles to Hendricks Head dam. Then water is conveyed in
the Hendricks canal, through Toadtown Powerhouse, then into the
Toadtown canal. From this point, the water is conveyed in the Butte
Creek canal to DeSabla Forebay then discharged into Butte Creek. Water
flow is then diverted into the Lower Centerville canal to the
Centerville header box, through the Centerville Powerhouse, and finally
discharged to Butte Creek.
    PG&E proposes to continue operating the Project with no change to
Project generation facilities or features other than adoption of
resource management measures and the deletion of five feeder
diversions.
    l. A copy of the application is available for review at the
Commission in the Public Reference Room or may be viewed on the
Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov using the ``eLibrary''
link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three digits in the
docket number field to access the document. For assistance, contact
FERC Online Support at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or toll-free at 1-
866-208-3676, or for TTY,<PHONE_NUMBER>. A copy is also available for
inspection and reproduction at the address in item h above.
    Register online at http://www.ferc.gov/esubscribenow.htm to be
notified via e-mail of new filings and issuances related to this or
other pending projects. For assistance, contact FERC Online Support.
    m. Anyone may submit comments, a protest, or a motion to intervene
in accordance with the requirements of Rules of Practice and Procedure,
18 CFR 385.210, .211, .214. In determining the appropriate action to
take, the Commission will consider all protests or other comments
filed, but only those who file a motion to intervene in accordance with
the Commission's Rules may become a party to the proceeding. Any
comments, protests, or motions to intervene must be received on or
before the specified comment date for the particular application.
    All filings must (1) Bear in all capital letters the title
``PROTEST'', ``MOTION TO INTERVENE'', ``COMMENTS,'' ``REPLY COMMENTS,''
``RECOMMENDATIONS,'' ``PRELIMINARY TERMS AND CONDITIONS,'' or
``PRELIMINARY FISHWAY PRESCRIPTIONS;'' (2) set forth in the heading the
name of the applicant and the project number of the application to
which the filing responds; (3) furnish the name, address, and telephone
number of the person protesting or intervening; and (4) otherwise
comply with the requirements of 18 CFR 385.2001 through 385.2005. All
comments, recommendations, terms and conditions or prescriptions must
set forth their evidentiary basis and otherwise comply with the
requirements of 18 CFR 4.34(b). Agencies may obtain copies of the
application directly from the applicant. A copy of any protest or
motion to intervene must be served upon each representative of the
applicant specified in the particular application. A copy of all other
filings in reference to this application must be accompanied by proof
of service on all persons listed in the service list prepared by the
Commission in this proceeding, in accordance with 18 CFR 4.34(b) and
385.2010.
    n. Procedural Schedule:
    The application will be processed according to the following
revised Hydro Licensing Schedule. Revisions to the schedule may be made
as appropriate.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 Milestone                           Target Date
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Filing of recommendations, preliminary      June 30, 2008.
 terms and conditions, and preliminary
 fishway prescriptions.
Commission issues Draft EA................  December 27, 2008.
Comments on Draft EA......................  January 26, 2009.
Modified Terms and Conditions.............  March 27, 2009.
Commission Issues Final EA................  June 25, 2009.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    o. Final amendments to the application must be filed with the
Commission no later than 30 days from the issuance date of this notice.
    p. A license applicant must file no later than 60 days following
the date of issuance of the notice of acceptance and ready for
environmental analysis provided for in Sec.  5.22: (1) A copy of the
water quality certification; (2) a copy of the request for
certification, including proof of the date on which the certifying
agency received the request; or (3) evidence of waiver of water quality
certification.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E8-10195 Filed 5-7-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 209 (Friday, October 28, 2011)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 66887-66889]
[FR Doc No: 2011-27889]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

44 CFR Part 67

[Docket ID FEMA-2011-0002; Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-B-1226]

Proposed Flood Elevation Determinations

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: Comments are requested on the proposed Base (1% annual-chance)
Flood Elevations (BFEs) and proposed BFE modifications for the
communities listed in the table below. The purpose of this proposed
rule is to seek general information and comment regarding the proposed
regulatory flood elevations for the reach described by the downstream
and upstream locations in the table below. The BFEs and modified BFEs
are a part of the floodplain management measures that the community is
required either to adopt or to show evidence of having in effect in
order to qualify or remain qualified for participation in the National
Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). In addition, these elevations, once
finalized, will be used by insurance agents and others to calculate
appropriate flood insurance premium rates for new buildings and the
contents in those buildings.

DATES: Comments are to be submitted on or before January 26, 2012.

ADDRESSES: The corresponding preliminary Flood Insurance Rate Map
(FIRM) for the proposed BFEs for each community is available for
inspection at the community's map repository. The respective addresses
are listed in the table below.
    You may submit comments, identified by Docket No. FEMA-B-1226, to
Luis Rodriguez, Chief, Engineering Management Branch, Federal Insurance
and Mitigation Administration, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500
C Street SW., Washington, DC 20472,<PHONE_NUMBER>, or (email)
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Luis Rodriguez, Chief, Engineering
Management Branch, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration,
Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW., Washington, DC
20472,<PHONE_NUMBER>, or (email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Federal Emergency Management Agency
(FEMA) proposes to make determinations of BFEs and modified BFEs for
each community listed below, in accordance with section 110 of the
Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4104, and 44 CFR
67.4(a).
    These proposed BFEs and modified BFEs, together with the floodplain
management criteria required by 44 CFR 60.3, are the minimum that are
required. They should not be construed to mean that the community must
change any existing ordinances that are more stringent in their
floodplain management requirements. The community may at any time enact
stricter requirements of its own or pursuant to policies established by
other Federal, State, or regional entities. These proposed elevations
are used to meet the floodplain management requirements of the NFIP and
also are used to calculate the appropriate flood insurance premium
rates for new buildings built after these elevations are made final,
and for the contents in those buildings.
    Comments on any aspect of the Flood Insurance Study and FIRM, other
than the proposed BFEs, will be considered. A letter acknowledging
receipt of any comments will not be sent.
    National Environmental Policy Act. This proposed rule is
categorically excluded from the requirements of 44 CFR part 10,
Environmental Consideration. An environmental impact assessment has not
been prepared.
    Regulatory Flexibility Act. As flood elevation determinations are
not within the scope of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601-
612, a regulatory flexibility analysis is not required.
    Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review. This
proposed rule is not a significant regulatory action under the criteria
of section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, as amended.
    Executive Order 13132, Federalism. This proposed rule involves no
policies that have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132.
    Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform. This proposed rule
meets the applicable standards of Executive Order 12988.

List of Subjects in 44 CFR Part 67

    Administrative practice and procedure, Flood insurance, Reporting
and recordkeeping requirements.

    Accordingly, 44 CFR part 67 is proposed to be amended as follows:

PART 67--[AMENDED]

    1. The authority citation for part 67 continues to read as follows:

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

Sec.  67.4  [Amended]

    2. The tables published under the authority of Sec.  67.4 are
proposed to be amended as follows:

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                * Elevation in feet
                                                                                (NGVD)  + Elevation in
                                                                                feet (NAVD)
                                                                                Depth in feet above
                State                      City/town/county                  Source of flooding                                     Location**                               ground  [caret]
                                                                                Elevation in meters
                                                                                (MSL)
                                                                                -------------------------
                                                                                Existing     Modified
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Town of Richmond, Vermont
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Vermont..............................  Town of Richmond........  Winooski River...........................  Approximately 0.8 mile downstream of I-89.................         +300         +303
                                                                                Approximately 1,150 feet upstream of Cochran Road.........         +325         +326
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* National Geodetic Vertical Datum.
+ North American Vertical Datum.
 Depth in feet above ground.
[caret] Mean Sea Level, rounded to the nearest 0.1 meter.
** BFEs to be changed include the listed downstream and upstream BFEs, and include BFEs located on the stream reach between the referenced locations above. Please refer to the revised Flood
 Insurance Rate Map located at the community map repository (see below) for exact locations of all BFEs to be changed.

Send comments to Luis Rodriguez, Chief, Engineering Management Branch, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street, SW., Washington, DC
 20472.

                                                                                ADDRESSES
Town of Richmond
Maps are available for inspection at the Town Center Building, 203 Bridge Street, Richmond, VT 05477.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                  * Elevation in feet
                                                                (NGVD)  + Elevation in
                                                                feet (NAVD)
                                                                  Depth in feet above
         Flooding source(s)            Location of referenced       ground  [caret]        Communities affected
                                            elevation **          Elevation in meters
                                                                         (MSL)
                                                              --------------------------
                                                                Effective     Modified
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                Larimer County, Colorado, and Incorporated Areas
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Little Thompson River...............  At the downstream side          None        +4935  Town of Berthoud,
                                       of Weld County Road 1.                             Unincorporated Areas
                                                                                of Larimer County.
                                      Approximately 0.38 mile         None        +5093
                                       upstream of Little
                                       Thompson Drive.
Little Thompson River-Spill Reach...  Approximately 285 feet          None        +5009  Unincorporated Areas of
                                       upstream of the Little                             Larimer County.
                                       Thompson River
                                       confluence.
                                      Approximately 1,500             None        +5015
                                       feet upstream of the
                                       Little Thompson River
                                       confluence.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* National Geodetic Vertical Datum.
+ North American Vertical Datum.
 Depth in feet above ground.
[caret] Mean Sea Level, rounded to the nearest 0.1 meter.
** BFEs to be changed include the listed downstream and upstream BFEs, and include BFEs located on the stream
 reach between the referenced locations above. Please refer to the revised Flood Insurance Rate Map located at
 the community map repository (see below) for exact locations of all BFEs to be changed.

Send comments to Luis Rodriguez, Chief, Engineering Management Branch, Federal Insurance and Mitigation
 Administration, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street, SW., Washington, DC 20472.

                                                    ADDRESSES
Town of Berthoud
Maps are available for inspection at 935 10th Street, Berthoud, CO 80513.

                                     Unincorporated Areas of Larimer County
Maps are available for inspection at 200 West Oak Street, 2nd Floor, Fort Collins, CO 80522.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance No. 97.022, ``Flood
Insurance.'')

    Dated: October 17, 2011.
Sandra K. Knight,
Deputy Associate Administrator for Mitigation, Department of Homeland
Security, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2011-27889 Filed 10-27-11; 8:45 a.m.]
BILLING CODE 9110-12-P


UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

REGION III

	1650 Arch Street

	Philadelphia, Pennsylvania  19103

DATE:	February 22, 2011

SUBJECT:	Technical Support Document - Delaware, 7 DE Administrative Code
1125 – Requirements for Preconstruction Review, Section 3.0 –
Prevention of Significant Deterioration of Air Quality

			/s/

FROM:	Sharon McCauley, Environmental Protection Specialist

Office of Permits and Air Toxics (3AP10)

TO:		File

THRU: 	Kathleen Anderson, Associate Director

Office of Permits and Air Toxics (3AP10)

I.	BACKGROUND

This State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision request governs the
permits for constructing and significantly modifying major stationary
sources of air pollutants in Prevention of Significant Deterioration
(PSD) areas located in Delaware.  This regulatory revision was made
effective as a legislative rule in Delaware on April 11, 2010.  These
current Delaware regulations can be found in Regulation 1125, Section
3.0.  This SIP revision, as proposed, will only replace the current
regulations found in 1125 which establish NOx as a precursor to Ozone,
but will keep in tact the formally approved Delaware SIP increments for
NOx found in the Federal Register notice for Delaware dated July 27,
1993.

Delaware’s proposed SIP submission addresses changes needed in the
part C PSD permit program.  This SIP submission also corrects
deficiencies identified by EPA in the March 27, 2008 Federal Register
notice entitled, “Completeness Findings for Section 110(a) State
implementation Plans for the 8 hour Ozone National Ambient Air Quality
Standards (1997 Ozone NAAQS)”, (73 FR 16205).  EPA’s proposed
approval of this SIP submission addresses Delaware’s  compliance with
the portion of Clean Air Act (CAA) Section 110 (a)(2)(C) & (J) relating
to the Part C permit program for the 1997 NAAQS Ozone NAAQS, because
this proposed approval would approve regulating  NOx as a precursor to
ozone in Delaware’s  SIP in accordance with the Federal Register
notice dated November 29, 2005 (70 FR 71612) that finalized NOx as a
precursor for ozone regulations set forth at 40 CFR 51.166 and in 40 CFR
52.21.

EPA has determined that the current amendments to Delaware's PSD permit
program at 7 DE

Administrative Code 1125 – Requirements for Preconstruction Review,
Section 3.0 – Prevention

of Significant Deterioration of Air Quality, as submitted on April 1,
2010, meet the minimum

requirements of 40 CFR 51.166 and the CAA. This SIP proposal is being
proposed as a full approvable revision to the Delaware SIP.  No other
changes to the currently approved SIP are being proposed for approval at
this time.

II.	SUMMARY OF ACTION

This rule establishes a state construction permit program consistent
with the federal Clean Air Act’s Title I program and implementing
regulations at 40 CFR §51.166, “Prevention of Significant
Deterioration of Air Quality.” 7 DE Administrative Code 1125 –
Requirements for Preconstruction Review, Section 3.0 – Prevention of
Significant Deterioration of Air Quality is part of the SIP and sets
forth the criteria and procedures for major stationary sources to obtain
a permit to construct, operate and/or modify a major stationary source.

As required by 40 CFR Part 51, Subpart I - “Review of New Sources and
Modifications,” this rule adopts criteria and procedures for the
prevention of significant deterioration of air quality that are
consistent with the governing federal regulation at 40 CFR §51.166.
Promulgation of this rule by the Legislature is necessary for Delaware
to fulfill its responsibilities under 40 CFR Part 51 and the CAA, as
amended. Revisions to the Delaware rule are simply adding new references
to include NOx as a precursor to Ozone to comport with federal
counterpart language. The Delaware Department of Natural Resources and
Environmental Control has now submitted a final rule 7 DE Administrative
Code 1125 – Requirements for Preconstruction Review, Section 3.0 –
Prevention of Significant Deterioration of Air Quality as a proposed
revision to the SIP.

III.      INFRASTRUCTURE

Delaware’s proposed SIP submission addresses changes needed in the
part C PSD permit program.  This SIP submission also corrects
deficiencies identified by EPA in the March 27, 2008 Federal Register
notice entitled, “Completeness Findings for Section 110(a) State
implementation Plans for the 8 hour Ozone National Ambient Air Quality
Standards (1997 Ozone NAAQS)”, (73 FR 16205).  EPA’s proposed
approval of this SIP submission addresses Delaware’s  compliance with
the portion of Clean Air Act (CAA) Section 110 (a)(2)(C) & (J) relating
to the Part C permit program for the 1997 NAAQS Ozone NAAQS, because
this proposed approval would approve regulating  NOx as a precursor to
ozone in Delaware’s  SIP in accordance with the Federal Register
notice dated November 29, 2005 (70 FR 71612) that finalized NOx as a
precursor for ozone regulations set forth at 40 CFR 51.166 and in 40 CFR
52.21.

IV.	PROGRAM REVIEW

A.	Delaware Submittal

The Delaware submittal includes new references which were added to the
State rule to include NOx as a precursor to Ozone to comport with
federal counterpart language.

B.	Public Notice

Public notice was provided and a public hearing was held in the State of
Delaware on January 5, 2010 and no comments were received regarding the
changes made to Regulation 1125.

C.	Regulatory Review of Proposed SIP

DNREC Regulation 1125 Section 3.1 Definitions

The following is a brief summary of the changes.

Regulation

3.1	Modified	Definition of Major Stationary Source was modified to
include NOx as a precursor to Ozone along with volatile organic
compounds.

DNREC Regulation 1125 Section <IP_ADDRESS>Review of Major Stationary Sources
and Major Modifications – Source Applicability and Exemptions

The following is a brief summary of the changes.

Section	Status	Description

Regulation <IP_ADDRESS>	Modified 	No de Minimus air quality level is provided
for ozone….

DNREC Regulation 1125 Section <IP_ADDRESS>Air Quality Analysis

The following is a brief summary of the changes.

Section	Status	Description

Regulation <IP_ADDRESS>	Modified	Modified to include NOx as precursor to
ozone.

Note:  While reviewing the proposed SIP submittal it was noted that the
previously approved NOx increments as approved in Federal Register
notice 58 FR 40065 dated July 27, 1993 were not found in the current
submittal of Delaware’s regulation under 1125, Section 3.0 and Section
1.9.  EPA will propose approving the addition of NOx as a precursor to
Ozone to the regulations noted above, and will in effect, maintain the
prior SIP approval of the NOx increments, as previously approved in
1993.

V.	RECOMMENDED AGENCY ACTION

EPA recommends approving the revision to Delaware's SIP to include
changes to 7 DE Administrative Code 1125 – Requirements for
Preconstruction Review, Section 3.0 – Prevention

of Significant Deterioration of Air Quality. As previously noted, this
revision will establish NOx as a precursor to ozone in the State of
Delaware SIP.

  PAGE   \* MERGEFORMAT  1


[Federal Register: September 28, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 187)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 59673-59674]
[DOCID:fr28se10-22]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Parts 85, 86, and 600

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

49 CFR Part 575

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0865; FRL-9208-1; NHTSA-2010-0087]
RIN 2060-AQ09; RIN 2127-AK73

Public Hearing Locations for the Proposed Fuel Economy Labels

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of public hearings.

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

SUMMARY: EPA and NHTSA are announcing the location addresses for the
public hearings to be held for ``Revisions and Additions to Motor
Vehicle Fuel Economy Label,'' published in the Federal Register on
September 23, 2010. The goal of a revised label will be to provide
consumers with simple, straightforward comparisons across all vehicles
types, including electric vehicles (EV), plug-in hybrid electric
vehicles (PHEV), and conventional gasoline and diesel vehicles. NHTSA
and EPA are proposing these changes in compliance with the Energy
Independence and Security Act (EISA) of 2007, which imposes several new
labeling requirements. Also, the agencies believe that the current
labels can be improved to help consumers make more informed vehicle
purchase decisions and to address the entrance of advanced technology
vehicles into the U.S. market. The new labels are proposed to be
displayed on new vehicles beginning with the 2012 model year.

DATES: NHTSA and EPA will jointly hold two public hearings on the
following dates: Thursday, October 14, 2010, in Chicago, Illinois, and
Thursday, October 21, 2010, in Los Angeles, California. The hearing
sessions will be from 12 p.m. to 4 p.m. and 6 p.m. to 10 p.m. local
time and continue until everyone has had a chance to speak. Note that
the times have changed from those indicated in the proposed rule.

ADDRESSES: NHTSA and EPA will jointly hold two public hearings at the
following locations: Wyndham Hotel, 633 North St. Clair St., Chicago,
Illinois 60611 on Thursday, October 14, 2010; and Sheraton Los Angeles
Downtown Hotel, 711 South Hope Street, Los Angeles, California 90017 on
Thursday, October 21, 2010.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: EPA: Lucie Audette, Office of
Transportation and Air Quality, Assessment and Standards Division,
Environmental Protection Agency, 2000 Traverwood Drive, Ann Arbor, MI
48105; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail
address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or Assessment and Standards Division
Hotline; telephone number<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail address:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>NHTSA: Gregory Powell, National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590.
Telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail address:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The purpose of the public hearings is to
obtain public testimony or comment on the Agency's proposed revisions
and additions to the motor vehicle fuel economy label.\1\ If you would
like to present testimony at the public hearings, we ask that you
notify the EPA and NHTSA contact persons listed under FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT at least ten days before the hearing. Once EPA and
NHTSA learn how many people have registered to speak at the public
hearing, we will allocate an appropriate amount of time to each
participant, allowing time for necessary breaks throughout the hearing.
For planning purposes, each speaker should anticipate speaking for
approximately ten minutes, although we may need to adjust the time for
each speaker if there is a large turnout. We suggest that you bring
copies of your statement or other material for the EPA and NHTSA panels
and the audience. It would also be helpful if you send us a copy of
your statement or other materials before the hearing. To accommodate as
many speakers as possible, we prefer that speakers not use
technological aids (e.g., audio-visuals, computer slideshows). However,
if you

plan to do so, you must notify the contact persons in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section above. You also must make arrangements to
provide your presentation or any other aids to NHTSA and EPA in advance
of the hearing in order to facilitate set-up. In addition, we will
reserve a block of time for anyone else in the audience who wants to
give testimony.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ FR-9197-3; EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0865; NHTSA-2010-0087.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The hearing will be held at a site accessible to individuals with
disabilities. Individuals who require accommodations such as sign
language interpreters should contact the persons listed under FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section above no later than ten days before
the date of the hearing.
    NHTSA and EPA will conduct the hearing informally, and technical
rules of evidence will not apply. We will arrange for a written
transcript of the hearing and keep the official record of the hearing
open for 30 days to allow you to submit supplementary information. You
may make arrangements for copies of the transcript directly with the
court reporter.

    Dated: September 24, 2010.
Lori Stewart,
Acting Director, Office of Transportation and Air Quality,
Environmental Protection Agency.
    Dated: September 23, 2010.
Joseph S. Carra,
Acting Associate Administrator, Office of Rulemaking, National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration, Department of Transportation.
[FR Doc. 2010-24409 Filed 9-27-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register: October 11, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 196)]
[Notices]
[Page 59765]
[DOCID:fr11oc06-66]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. RP06-619-000]

Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Corporation; Notice of Proposed
Changes in FERC Gas Tariff

October 3, 2006.
    Take notice that on September 29, 2006, Transcontinental Gas Pipe
Line Corporation (Transco) tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas
Tariff, Third Revised Volume No. 1, Ninth Revised Sheet No. 30, and
Second Revised Sheet No. 30A to be effective November 1, 2006.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Protests will be
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to
be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the
proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of
intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices,
motions, or protests must be filed in accordance with the provisions of
section 154.210 of the Commission's regulations (18 CFR 154.210).
Anyone filing an intervention or protest must serve a copy of that
document on the Applicant. Anyone filing an intervention or protest on
or before the intervention or protest date need not serve motions to
intervene or protests on persons other than the Applicant.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov.
 Persons unable to file electronically should submit an

original and 14 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC
20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the

``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription''
link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For
assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For

TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Magalie R. Salas,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E6-16776 Filed 10-10-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 175 (Tuesday, September 10, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Page 55330]
[FR Doc No: 2013-21887]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Notice of Approval of Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI)
for Murdo Municipal Airport, Murdo, SD

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA is announcing approval of Finding of No Significant
Impact for proposed development at the Murdo Municipal Airport, Murdo,
South Dakota. The FAA approved the FONSI on August 22, 2013.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The FONSI approved the Sponsor's proposed
action to extend primary Runway 14-32 (approximately 600' x 60') and
construct turnaround (approximately 200' x 75') on Runway 14 end.
Extend graded safety area (approximately 200' x 120') on Runway 14 end.
Acquire approximately 63.0 acres of land in fee and acquire
approximately 2.0 acres of restrictive easements.
    The approved action is to enhance the safety and utility of the
airport in order to meet the needs of current and projected aviation
activity by the design family. The need for the action is to bring the
Murdo Municipal Airport in compliance with FAA design standards for 95%
of A/B-I Small Aircraft (design aircraft family), specifically runway
length.
    The FONSI indicates the project is consistent with existing
environmental policies and objectives as set forth in the National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969, as amended and will not
significantly affect the quality of the environment.
    In reaching this decision, the FAA has given careful consideration
to: (a) The role of Murdo plays in the national air transportation
system, (b) aviation safety, and (c) preferences of the airport owner/
operator, and (d) anticipated environmental impact.
DATES: This notice is effective September 10, 2013.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Lindsay Butler, Federal Aviation
Administration, Great Lakes Regional Office, 2300 East Devon Avenue,
Des Plaines, IL 60018. Telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Issued in Des Plaines, IL: August 26, 2013.
Jesse Carriger,
Manager, Planning/Programming Branch, FAA Great Lakes Region.
[FR Doc. 2013-21887 Filed 9-9-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P