13014 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 46 / Wednesday, March 9, 2011 / Notices 

11See S. Rep. No. 111–176, at 136 (2010). 

12The Commission has not, to date, adopted rules 

concerning other significant matters where 

uninstructed broker votes should be prohibited, 

although it may do so in the future. Should the 

Commission adopt such rules, we would expect BX 

to adopt coordinating rules promptly to comply 

with the statute. 

13As the Commission stated in approving NYSE 

rules prohibiting broker voting in the election of 

directors, having those with an economic interest in 

the company vote the shares, rather than the broker 

who has no such economic interest, furthers the 

goal of enfranchising shareholders. See Securities 

Exchange Act Release No. 60215 (July 1, 2009), 74 

FR 33293 (July 10, 2009) (SR–NYSE–2006–92). 

14 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2). 

15See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 62992 

(September 24, 2010), 75 FR 60844 (October 1, 

2010) (SR–Nasdaq–2010–114). 

16 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2). 

17 17 CFR 200.30–3(a)(12). 

1 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1). 

2 17 CFR 240.19b–4. 

Section 6(b)(10), reflects the principle 

that ‘‘final vote tallies should reflect the 

wishes of the beneficial owners of the 

stock and not be affected by the wishes 

of the broker that holds the shares.’’ 11

The proposed rule change will make BX 

compliant with the new requirements of 

Section 6(b)(10) by specifically 

prohibiting, in BX’s rule language, 

broker-dealers, who are not beneficial 

owners of a security, from voting 

uninstructed shares in connection with 

a shareholder vote on the election of a 

member of the board of directors of an 

issuer (except for a vote with respect to 

the uncontested election of a member of 

the board of directors of any investment 

company registered under the 

Investment Company Act of 1940), 

executive compensation, or any other 

significant matter, as determined by the 

Commission by rule, unless the member 

receives voting instructions from the 

beneficial owner of the shares.12

The Commission believes that the 

proposal is consistent with Section 

6(b)(5) of the Act because the proposal 

will further investor protection and the 

public interest by assuring that 

shareholder votes on the election of the 

board of directors of an issuer (except 

for a vote with respect to the 

uncontested election of a member of the 

board of directors of any investment 

company registered under the 

Investment Company Act of 1940) and 

on executive compensation matters are 

made by those with an economic 

interest in the company, rather than by 

a broker that has no such economic 

interest, which should enhance 

corporate governance and accountability 

to shareholders.13

Based on the above, the Commission 

finds that the BX proposal will further 

the purposes of Sections 6(b)(5) and 

6(b)(10) of the Act because it should 

enhance corporate accountability to 

shareholders while also serving to fulfill 

the Congressional intent in adopting 

Section 6(b)(10) of the Act. 

The Commission also finds good 

cause, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of 

the Act,14 for approving the proposed 

rule change prior to the 30th day after 

the date of publication of notice in the 

Federal Register. Section 6(b)(10) of the 

Act, enacted under Section 957 of the 

Dodd-Frank Act, does not provide for a 

transition phase, and requires rules of 

national securities exchanges to prohibit 

broker voting on the election of a 

member of the board of directors of an 

issuer (except for a vote with respect to 

the uncontested election of a member of 

the board of directors of any investment 

company registered under the 

Investment Company Act of 1940), 

executive compensation, or any other 

significant matter, as determined by the 

Commission by rule. The Commission 

believes that good cause exists to grant 

accelerated approval to the Exchange’s 

proposal, because it will conform BX 

Rule 2251 to the requirements of 

Section 6(b)(10) of the Act. Moreover, 

the Commission notes that BX’s 

proposed rule change is identical to 

Nasdaq Rule 2251(d), which was 

previously approved by the Commission 

and for which no comments were 

received.15 Therefore, the Exchange’s 

proposed rule change raises no new 

regulatory issues. 

V. Conclusion 

It is therefore ordered, pursuant to 

Section 19(b)(2) of the Act,16 that the 

proposed rule change (SR–BX–2011– 

012) be, and it hereby is, approved on 

an accelerated basis. 

For the Commission, by the Division of 

Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated 

authority.17

Cathy H. Ahn, 

Deputy Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 2011–5303 Filed 3–8–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 8011–01–P 

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE 

COMMISSION 

[Release No. 34–64024; File No. SR–BX– 

2011–011] 

Self-Regulatory Organizations; 

NASDAQ OMX BX, Inc.; Notice of Filing 

and Order Granting Accelerated 

Approval of Proposed Rule Change To 

Adopt Section 16 (Proxy Voting) to 

Chapter III of the BOX Trading Rules 

Concerning Broker Voting 

March 3, 2011. 

Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the 

Securities Exchange Act of 1934 

(‘‘Act’’),1 and Rule 19b–4 thereunder,2

notice is hereby given that on February 

18, 2011, NASDAQ OMX BX, Inc. (the 

‘‘Exchange’’) filed with the Securities 

and Exchange Commission 

(‘‘Commission’’) the proposed rule 

change as described in Items I and II 

below, which Items have been prepared 

by the self-regulatory organization. The 

Commission is publishing this notice to 

solicit comments on the proposed rule 

from interested persons, and is 

approving the proposed rule change on 

an accelerated basis. 

I. Self-Regulatory Organization’s 

Statement of the Terms of Substance of 

the Proposed Rule Change 

The Exchange proposes to add 

Section 16 (Proxy Voting) to Chapter III, 

of the Rules of the Boston Options 

Exchange Group, LLC (‘‘BOX’’) in 

accordance with the provision of 

Section 957 of the Dodd-Frank Wall 

Street Reform and Consumer Protection 

Act (the ‘‘Dodd-Frank Act’’). The text of 

the proposed rule change is available 

from the principal office of the 

Exchange, at the Commission’s Public 

Reference Room and also on the 

Exchange’s Internet Web site at http:// 

nasdaqomxbx.cchwallstreet.com/ 

NASDAQOMXBX/Filings/. 

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 

Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule 

Change 

1. Purpose 

In accordance with Section 957 of the 

Dodd-Frank Act, the Exchange is 

proposing to adopt Section 16 (Proxy 

Voting) to Chapter III of the BOX 

Trading Rules. As proposed, this section 

will codify a provision to prohibit 

Participants from voting uninstructed 

shares if the matter voted on relates to 

(i) the election of a member of the board 

of directors of an issuer (other than an 


Emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 46 / Wednesday, March 9, 2011 / Notices 13015 

3 15 U.S.C. 78f(b). 

4 15 U.S.C. 781. 5 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5). 

uncontested election of a director of an 

investment company registered under 

the Investment Company Act of 1940 

(‘‘Investment Company Act’’); (ii) 

executive compensation, or (iii) any 

other significant matter, as determined 

by the Securities and Exchange 

Commission (the ‘‘Commission’’), by 

rule. 

Section 957 of the Dodd-Frank Act 

amended Section 6 (b) 3 of the Securities 

Exchange Act of 1934 (the ‘‘Exchange 

Act’’) to require the rules of each 

national securities exchange to prohibit 

any member organization that is not the 

beneficial owner of a security registered 

under Section 12 4 of the Exchange Act 

from granting a proxy to vote the 

security in connection with certain 

stockholder votes, unless the beneficial 

owner of the security has instructed the 

member organization to vote the proxy 

in accordance with the voting 

instructions of the beneficial owner. The 

stockholder votes covered by Section 

957 include any vote with respect to (i) 

the election of a member of the board of 

directors of an issuer (other than an 

uncontested election of a director of an 

investment company registered under 

the Investment Company Act), (ii) 

executive compensation, or (iii) any 

other significant matter, as determined 

by the Commission, by rule. 

Accordingly, in order to carry out the 

requirements of Section 957 of the 

Dodd-Frank Act, the Exchange proposes 

to adopt proposed Section 16 to Chapter 

III of the BOX Trading Rules to prohibit 

any Participant from giving a proxy to 

vote stock that is registered in its name, 

unless: (i) Such Participant is the 

beneficial owner of such stock; (ii) 

pursuant to the written instructions of 

the beneficial owner; or (iii) pursuant to 

the rules of any national securities 

exchange or association of which it is a 

member provided that the records of the 

Participant clearly indicate the 

procedure it is following. The Exchange 

is proposing to adopt these rules 

because other national securities 

exchanges and associations do allow 

proxy voting under certain limited 

circumstances while the current 

Exchange Rules are silent on such 

matters. Therefore, a Participant that is 

also a member of another national 

securities exchange or association may 

vote the shares held for a customer 

when allowed under its membership at 

another national securities exchange or 

association, provided that the records of 

the Participant clearly indicate the 

procedure it is following. 

Notwithstanding the above, under the 

proposal, a Participant that is not the 

beneficial owner of a security registered 

under Section 12 of the Exchange Act is 

prohibited from granting a proxy to vote 

the security in connection with a 

shareholder vote with respect to the 

election of a member of the board of 

directors of an issuer (except for a vote 

with respect to uncontested election of 

a member of the board of directors of 

any investment company registered 

under the Investment Company Act), 

executive compensation, or any other 

significant matter, as determined by the 

Commission, by rule, unless the 

beneficial owner of the security has 

instructed the Participant to vote the 

proxy in accordance with the voting 

instructions of the beneficial owner. 

Because Section 957 of the DoddFrank Act does not provide for a 

transition phase, the Exchange is 

proposing to adopt the proposed rule 

change pursuant to Section 19(b) of the 

Exchange Act to comply with Section 

957 of the Dodd-Frank Act and is 

requesting that the Commission approve 

the proposal on an accelerated basis. 

Additionally, the proposed adoption of 

Section 16 to Chapter III of the BOX 

Trading Rules is based upon 

International Securities Exchange, LLC 

(‘‘ISE’’) Rule 421. 

2. Statutory Basis 

The basis under the Exchange Act for 

these proposed rule changes is the 

requirement under Section 6(b)(5) 5 to 

prevent fraudulent and manipulative 

acts and practices, to promote just and 

equitable principles of trade, to remove 

impediments to, and perfect the 

mechanism of a free and open market 

and, in general, to protect investors and 

the public interest. The Exchange is 

adopting this proposed rule change to 

comply with the requirements of 

Section 957 of the Dodd-Frank Act, and 

therefore believes the proposed rule 

change to be consistent with the 

Exchange Act, particularly with respect 

to the protection of investors and the 

public interest. 

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 not 

necessary or appropriate in furtherance 

of the purposes of the Act. 

C. Self-Regulatory Organization’s 

Statement on Comments on the 

Proposed Rule Change Received From 

Members, Participants, or Others 

The Exchange has neither solicited 

nor received comments on the proposed 

rule change. 

III. 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 e-mail to rulecomments@sec.gov. Please include File 

Number SR–BX–2011–011 on the 

subject line. 

Paper Comments 

• Send paper comments in triplicate 

to Elizabeth M. Murphy, Secretary, 

Securities and Exchange Commission, 

100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC 

20549–1090. 

All submissions should refer to File 

Number SR–BX–2011–011. This file 

number should be included on the 

subject line if e-mail 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 

a.m. and 3 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 


Emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with NOTICES
13016 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 46 / Wednesday, March 9, 2011 / Notices 

6 In approving this rule change, the Commission 

notes that it has considered the proposed rule’s 

impact on efficiency, competition, and capital 

formation. See 15 U.S.C. 78c(f). 

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

8See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 63139 

(October 20, 2010), 75 FR 65680 (October 26, 2010) 

(SR–ISE–2010–99). See also NYSE Arca Rule 9.4 

and FINRA Rule 2251, which are similar and 

previously approved by the Commission. See 

Securities Exchange Act Release No. 48735 (October 

31, 2003), 68 FR 63173 (November 7, 2003) (SR– 

PCX–2003–50); 61052 (November 23, 2009), 74 FR 

62857 (December 1, 2009) (SR–FINRA–2009–066) 

(finding that the proposed rule change was 

consistent with the Act because the Rule ‘‘will 

continue to provide FINRA members with guidance 

on the forwarding of proxy and other issuer-related 

materials.’’). 

9 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(10). 

10See S. Rep. No. 111–176, at 136 (2010). 

11The Commission has not, to date, adopted rules 

concerning other significant matters where 

uninstructed broker votes should be prohibited, 

although it may do so in the future. Should the 

Commission adopt such rules, we would expect the 

Exchange to adopt coordinating rules promptly to 

comply with the statute. 

12 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5). 

13As the Commission stated in approving NYSE 

rules prohibiting broker voting in the election of 

directors, having those with an economic interest in 

the company vote the shares, rather than the broker 

who has no such economic interest, furthers the 

goal of enfranchising shareholders. See Securities 

Exchange Act Release No. 60215 (July 1, 2009), 74 

FR 33293 (July 10, 2009) (SR–NYSE–2006–92). 

14 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2). 

should refer to File Number SR–BX– 

2011–011 and should be submitted on 

or before March 30, 2011. 

IV. Commission’s Findings and Order 

Granting Accelerated Approval of the 

Proposed Rule Change 

In its filing, the Exchange requested 

that the Commission approve the 

proposal on an accelerated basis so that 

the Exchange could immediately 

comply with the requirements imposed 

by the Dodd-Frank Act, and because the 

proposed rule text is based upon ISE 

Rule 421. After careful consideration, 

the Commission finds that the proposed 

rule change is consistent with the 

requirements of the Act and the rules 

and regulations thereunder applicable to 

a national securities exchange.6

The Commission believes that 

proposed Section 16(a) to Chapter III is 

consistent with Section 6(b)(5) 7 of the 

Act, which provides, among other 

things, that the rules of the Exchange 

must be designed to promote just and 

equitable principles of trade, 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, and are not designed to 

permit unfair discrimination between 

customers, issuers, brokers, or dealers. 

Under proposed Section 16(a) to 

Chapter III, a Participant shall be 

prohibited from voting uninstructed 

shares unless (1) that Participant is the 

beneficial owner of the stock; (2) 

pursuant to the written instructions of 

the beneficial owner; or (3) pursuant to 

the rules of any national securities 

exchange or association of which it is 

also a member, provided that the 

Participant’s records clearly indicate the 

procedure it is following. This provision 

is based upon ISE Rule 421, which was 

previously approved by the 

Commission.8 The Commission notes 

that the proposed change to Section 

16(a) to Chapter III will provide clarity 

to Exchange Participants going forward 

on whether broker discretionary voting 

is permitted by Exchange Participants 

under limited circumstances when the 

Exchange Participant is also a member 

of another national securities exchange 

that permits broker discretionary voting. 

In approving this portion of the 

Exchange proposal, the Commission 

notes that proposed Section 16(a) to 

Chapter III is consistent with the 

approach taken under the rules of other 

national securities exchanges or 

national securities association, and for 

Exchange Participants who are not also 

members of another national securities 

exchange prohibits broker discretionary 

voting on any matter, consistent with 

investor protection and the public 

interest. 

The Commission believes that 

proposed Section 16(b) to Chapter III is 

consistent with Section 6(b)(10) 9 of the 

Act, which requires that national 

securities exchanges adopt rules 

prohibiting members that are not 

beneficial holders of a security from 

voting uninstructed proxies with respect 

to the election of a member of the board 

of directors of an issuer (except for 

uncontested elections of directors for 

companies registered under the 

Investment Company Act), executive 

compensation, or any other significant 

matter, as determined by the 

Commission by rule. 

The Commission believes that 

proposed Section 16(b) to Chapter III is 

consistent with Section 6(b)(10) of the 

Act because it adopts revisions that 

comply with that section. As noted in 

the accompanying Senate Report, 

Section 957, which enacted Section 

6(b)(10), reflects the principle that ‘‘final 

vote tallies should reflect the wishes of 

the beneficial owners of the stock and 

not be affected by the wishes of the 

broker that holds the shares.’’ 10 The 

proposed rule change will make the 

Exchange compliant with the new 

requirements of Section 6(b)(10) by 

specifically prohibiting, in the 

Exchange’s rule language, brokerdealers, who are not beneficial owners 

of a security, from voting uninstructed 

shares in connection with a shareholder 

vote on the election of a member of the 

board of directors of an issuer (except 

for a vote with respect to the 

uncontested election of a member of the 

board of directors of any investment 

company registered under the 

Investment Company Act of 1940), 

executive compensation, or any other 

significant matter, as determined by the 

Commission by rule, unless the 

Participant receives voting instructions 

from the beneficial owner of the 

shares.11

The Commission also believes that 

proposed Section 16(b) to Chapter III is 

consistent with Section 6(b)(5) 12 of the 

Act, which provides, among other 

things, that the rules of the Exchange 

must be designed to promote just and 

equitable principles of trade, 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, and are not designed to 

permit unfair discrimination between 

customers, issuers, brokers, or dealers. 

The Commission believes that the rule 

assures that shareholder votes on the 

election of the board of directors of an 

issuer (except for a vote with respect to 

the uncontested election of a member of 

the board of directors of any investment 

company registered under the 

Investment Company Act of 1940) and 

on executive compensation matters are 

made by those with an economic 

interest in the company, rather than by 

a broker that has no such economic 

interest, which should enhance 

corporate governance and accountability 

to shareholders.13

Based on the above, the Commission 

finds that the Exchange proposal will 

further the purposes of Sections 6(b)(5) 

and 6(b)(10) of the Act because it should 

enhance corporate accountability to 

shareholders while also serving to fulfill 

the Congressional intent in adopting 

Section 6(b)(10) of the Act. 

The Commission also finds good 

cause, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of 

the Act,14 for approving the proposed 

rule change prior to the 30th day after 

the date of publication of notice in the 

Federal Register. The Commission 

believes that good cause exists to grant 

accelerated approval to proposed 

Section 16(a) to Chapter III, because this 

proposed rule will conform the BOX 

rule to ISE Rule 421, NYSE Arca Rule 

9.4, and FINRA Rule 2251, which were 

published for public comment in the 

Federal Register and approved by the 

Commission, and for which no 


Emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 46 / Wednesday, March 9, 2011 / Notices 13017 

15See note 8 supra. 

16 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2). 

17 17 CFR 200.30–3(a)(12). 

comments were received.15 Because 

proposed Section 16(a) is substantially 

similar to the ISE, NYSE Arca, and 

FINRA rules, it raises no new regulatory 

issues. 

The Commission also believes that 

good cause exists to grant accelerated 

approval to proposed Section 16(b) to 

Chapter III, which conforms the 

Exchange rule to the requirements of 

Section 6(b)(10) of the Act. Section 

6(b)(10) of the Act, enacted under 

Section 957 of the Dodd-Frank Act, does 

not provide for a transition phase, and 

requires rules of national securities 

exchanges to prohibit broker voting on 

the election of a member of the board of 

directors of an issuer (except for a vote 

with respect to the uncontested election 

of a member of the board of directors of 

any investment company registered 

under the Investment Company Act of 

1940), executive compensation, or any 

other significant matter, as determined 

by the Commission by rule. The 

Commission believes that good cause 

exists to grant accelerated approval to 

proposed Section 16(b) to Chapter III, 

because it will conform the Box rules to 

the requirements of Section 6(b)(10) of 

the Act. 

V. Conclusion 

It is therefore ordered, pursuant to 

Section 19(b)(2) of the Act,16 that the 

proposed rule change (SR–BX–2011– 

011) be, and it hereby is, approved on 

an accelerated basis. 

For the Commission, by the Division of 

Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated 

authority.17

Cathy H. Ahn, 

Deputy Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 2011–5304 Filed 3–8–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 8011–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Highway Administration 

Environmental Impact Statement: Los 

Angeles County, CA 

AGENCY: Federal Highway 

Administration (FHWA), DOT. 

ACTION: Notice of intent. 

SUMMARY: The FHWA, on behalf of the 

California Department of Transportation 

(Caltrans), is issuing this notice to 

advise the public that a Draft 

Environmental Impact Statement will be 

prepared for a proposed highway project 

in Los Angeles County, California. 

DATES: Public Scoping Meetings will be 

held at the following locations: 

San Gabriel, March 15, 2011, 6 p.m. 

to 8 p.m. 

Alhambra, March 16, 2011, 6 p.m. to 

8 p.m. 

Glendale, March 22, 2011, 6 p.m. to 

8 p.m. 

South Pasadena, March 23, 2011, 6 

p.m. to 8 p.m. 

El Sereno, March 29, 2011, 6 p.m. to 

8 p.m. 

Pasadena, March 30, 2011, 6 p.m. to 

8 p.m. 

An online Virtual Scoping Meeting 

will be held on March 21, 2011. Register 

to participate at metro.net/ 

sr710conversations and click the 

‘‘Participate from Home’’ tab. (It will 

begin live at 6 p.m. and continue on 

demand through April 14, 2011). 

ADDRESSES: San Gabriel—Jefferson 

Middle School, 1372 East Las Tunas 

Drive, San Gabriel, CA 91776. 

Alhambra—Civic Center Library, 101 

S. First Street, Alhambra, CA 91801. 

Glendale—Glendale Community 

College, (Student Center RM 212), 1500 

North Verdugo Road, Glendale, CA 

91208. 

South Pasadena—South Pasadena 

High School, (Auditorium), 1401 

Fremont Ave., South Pasadena, CA 

91030. 

El Sereno—LA Christian Presbyterian 

Church, (Gymnasium), 2241 N. Eastern 

Ave., Los Angeles, CA 90032. 

Pasadena—Lake Avenue Church, (4th 

floor above Harris Hall), 393 N. Lake 

Ave., Pasadena, CA 91101. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Ronald Kosinski, Deputy District 

Director, California Department of 

Transportation, District 7, Division of 

Environmental Planning, 100 South 

Main Street, Mail Stop 16A, Los 

Angeles, CA 90012. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Effective 

July 1, 2007, the Federal Highway 

Administration (FHWA) assigned, and 

the California Department of 

Transportation (Caltrans) assumed, 

environmental responsibilities for this 

project pursuant to 23 U.S.C. 327. 

Caltrans as the delegated National 

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) 

agency will prepare a Draft 

Environmental Impact Statement on a 

proposal for the State Route 710 Gap 

North Closure project in Los Angeles 

County, California. The proposed 

project, depending on the results of a 

thorough environmental analysis of all 

possible transportation improvements 

during the NEPA/CEQA process, may 

include, but not be limited to: surface 

and subsurface highway/freeway 

construction, heavy rail and bus/light 

rail systems, local street upgrades, 

traffic management systems and a no 

build alternative. There currently is a 

gap in the I–710 corridor, for a distance 

of approximately 4.5 miles (7.2 km), 

which extends between Valley 

Boulevard to the south and Del Mar 

Boulevard to the north. As originally 

identified in the April 13, 1998 Record 

of Decision for the Meridian Variation 

alignment, this gap contributes to 

congestion on local streets and the 

regional freeway system. The objective 

of this project is to relieve congestion 

and improve mobility within the study 

area. 

It is anticipated that the proposed 

project may require the following 

federal approvals and permits: a 

Biological Opinion from the United 

States Fish and Wildlife Service, 

approval of a PM10 and PM2.5 Hot Spot 

Analysis by the Conformity Working 

Group for transportation conformity 

determination under the Clean Air Act. 

Section 404 nationwide permit from the 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Section 

401 Water Quality Certification from the 

California Regional Water Quality 

Control Board, Section 1601 Streambed 

Alteration Agreement from the 

California Department of Fish and 

Game, and encroachment permits from 

the various cities in which project 

construction would occur. 

Letters describing the proposed action 

and soliciting comments will be sent to 

appropriate Federal, State, Participating 

Agencies, Tribal Governments and local 

agencies, and to private organizations 

and citizens who have previously 

expressed or are known to have interest 

in this proposal. The public scoping 

process will officially begin in March 

2011. Public scoping meeting(s) will be 

held in San Gabriel, Alhambra, 

Glendale, South Pasadena, Los Angeles, 

El Sereno, and Pasadena in March 2011. 

In addition, one online Virtual Scoping 

Meeting will be held on March 21, 2011. 

(It will begin live at 6 p.m. and continue 

on demand through April 14, 2011). 

Further, a public hearing will be held 

once the Draft Environmental Impact 

Statement is completed. Public notice 

will be given of the time and place of 

the meeting and hearing. The Draft 

Environmental Impact Statement will be 

available for public and agency review 

and comment prior to the public hearing 

to ensure that the full range of issues 

related to this proposed action are 

addressed and all significant issues 

identified, comments, and suggestions 

are invited from all interested parties. 

Comments or questions concerning this 

proposed action and the EIS should be 

directed to Caltrans at the address 

provided above. 


Emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with NOTICES