Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 51 / Wednesday, March 18, 2009 / Notices 11625 

9See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 53549 

(March 24, 2006), 71 FR 16388 (March 31, 2006) 

(SR–NYSE–2006–11) (making certain amendments 

to the Moratorium). 

10 17 CFR 240.19b–4. 

11 15 U.S.C. 78s(a)(1). 

12 Id. 

13 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A). 14 17 CFR 240.19b–4(f)(6). 15 17 CFR 200.30–3(a)(12). 

The Exchange therefore proposes to 

extend the Moratorium as amended 9 for 

an additional two (2) months to May 31, 

2009 in order to complete the 19b–4 

filing process.10 The Exchange’s 

proposal will be filed consistent with 

the Act 11 in order to afford interested 

persons an opportunity to submit 

written data, views, and arguments 

concerning the Exchange’s proposal.12

The Exchange will issue an 

Information Memo announcing the 

extension of the Moratorium. 

2. Statutory Basis 

The basis under the Securities 

Exchange Act of 1934 (the ‘‘Act’’) for 

this proposed rule change is the 

requirement under Section 6(b)(5) that 

an exchange have rules that are 

designed 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 instant filing is consistent with 

these principles. Based on its review of 

data associated with RCMM and CT 

trading, the Exchange has concluded 

that RCMMs and CTs no longer serve as 

viable supplemental market makers. In 

this instant filing, the Exchange seeks an 

extension of the Moratorium to finalize 

its proposal to eliminate RCMMs and 

CTs from the NYSE and will file that 

proposal with the Commission. 

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. 

C. Self-Regulatory Organization’s 

Statement on Comments on the 

Proposed Rule Change Received From 

Members, Participants, or Others 

No written comments were solicited 

or received with respect to the proposed 

rule change. 

III. Date of Effectiveness of the 

Proposed Rule Change and Timing for 

Commission Action 

The proposed rule change is effective 

upon filing pursuant to Section 

19(b)(3)(A) of the Act.13 The Exchange 

asserts that the proposed rule change (i) 

will not significantly affect the 

protection of investors or the public 

interest, (ii) will not impose any 

significant burden on competition, and 

(iii) by its terms, will not become 

operative for 30 days after the date of 

this filing, or such shorter time as the 

Commission may designate, if 

consistent with the protection of 

investors and the public interest; 

provided that the self-regulatory 

organization has given the Commission 

written notice of its intent to file the 

proposed rule change, along with a brief 

description and text of the proposed 

rule change, at least five business days 

prior to the date of filing of the 

proposed rule change, or such shorter 

time as designated by the Commission. 

An extension of the Moratorium does 

not burden competition because it does 

not restrict RCMMs from joining any 

RCMM firm or becoming or remaining 

an independent RCMM nor does it 

restrict any RCMM firm from hiring 

existing RCMMs. For the foregoing 

reasons, this rule filing qualifies for 

immediate effectiveness as a ‘‘noncontroversial’’ rule change under 

paragraph (f)(6) of Rule 19b–4.14

At any time within 60 days of the 

filing of such proposed rule change, the 

Commission may summarily abrogate 

such rule change if it appears to the 

Commission that such action is 

necessary or appropriate in the public 

interest, for the protection of investors, 

or otherwise in furtherance of the 

purposes of the Act. 

IV. Solicitation of Comments 

Interested persons are invited to 

submit written data, views, and 

arguments concerning the foregoing, 

including whether the proposed rule 

change is consistent with the Act. 

Comments may be submitted by any of 

the following methods: 

Electronic Comments 

• Use the Commission’s Internet 

comment form (http://www.sec.gov/ 

rules/sro.shtml); or 

• Send an e-mail to rulecomments@sec.gov. Please include File 

Number SR–NYSE–2009–24 on the 

subject line. 

Paper Comments 

• Send paper comments in triplicate 

to Elizabeth M. Murphy, Secretary, 

Securities and Exchange Commission, 

100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC 

20549–1090. 

All submissions should refer to File 

Number SR–NYSE–2009–24. 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 inspection and copying 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 the filing will also be available 

for inspection and copying at the 

principal office of the self-regulatory 

organization. All comments received 

will be posted without change; the 

Commission does not edit personal 

identifying information from 

submissions. You should submit only 

information that you wish to make 

available publicly. All submissions 

should refer to File Number SR–NYSE– 

2009–24 and should be submitted on or 

before April 8, 2009. 

For the Commission, by the Division of 

Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated 

authority.15

Florence E. Harmon, 

Deputy Secretary. 

[FR Doc. E9–5766 Filed 3–17–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 8011–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Highway Administration 

Environmental Impact Statement: 

Davidson County and Forsyth County, 

NC 

AGENCY: Federal Highway 

Administration (FHWA), DOT. 

ACTION: Notice of intent. 

SUMMARY: The FHWA is issuing this 

notice to advise the public that an 

environmental impact statement will be 

prepared for the proposed roadway 

improvements to NC 109 between Old 

Greensboro Road (SR 1798) in Davidson 

County and I–40/US 311 in Forsyth 

County, North Carolina. 


tjames on PRODPC61 with NOTICES
11626 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 51 / Wednesday, March 18, 2009 / Notices 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Clarence W. Coleman, PE, Director of 

Preconstruction and Environment, 

Federal Highway Administration, 310 

New Bern Avenue, Suite 410, Raleigh, 

North Carolina 27601–1418, Telephone: 

(919) 747–7014, or Vincent J. Rhea, PE, 

Project Engineer, North Carolina 

Department of Transportation, 1548 

Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North 

Carolina 27699–1548, Telephone: (919) 

733–7844, ext. 261. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 

FHWA, in cooperation with the North 

Carolina Department of Transportation, 

will prepare an environmental impact 

statement (EIS) on a proposal for 

improving NC 109, through widening 

and/or constructing new roadway, 

between Old Greensboro Road and I–40/ 

US 311. The project is included in the 

North Carolina Department of 

Transportation (NCDOT) 2009–2015 

Transportation Improvement Program 

(TIP) as TIP No. R–2568C. 

Improvements to the section of NC 109 

south of Old Greensboro Road, 

extending south to Business I–85 in the 

City of Thomasville, were completed in 

2007. The current project includes one 

alternative mainly on existing location 

and four alternatives mainly on new 

location. The project would be 

constructed as a four-lane, mediandivided roadway with partial control of 

access. Directional crossovers with 

offset left turns will be used at many of 

the major intersections. Improvements 

to NC 109 are considered necessary to 

improve traffic flow and service and to 

reduce conflicts between through traffic 

and local traffic. As required by Section 

6002 of the Safe Accountable Flexible 

Efficient Transportation Equity Act: ‘‘A 

Legacy for Users’’, opportunities have 

been provided for involvement with the 

public in defining the project purpose 

and need and determining the range of 

alternatives to be considered for the 

project. Further opportunities for the 

public to comment on the 

environmental review process will be 

provided throughout the remainder of 

the project development process. 

Prior to the initiation of 

environmental studies in preparation of 

an Environmental Impact Statement 

(EIS), a scoping letter soliciting 

comments on the proposed project was 

sent in December 2003 to the local, 

state, and federal agencies by NCDOT. 

The agency scoping meeting for the 

project was held in January 2004. No 

further scoping actions are planned. 

Since the start of the project, NCDOT 

has hosted two rounds of Citizens 

Informational Workshops. The first 

round was held in April 2004 to 

announce the start of the project and to 

obtain public input concerning the 

location of potential alternatives. The 

second round was held in November 

2005 to present and obtain public 

comments on five alternative corridors 

identified for the project. 

In 1997, the U.S. Army Corp of 

Engineers (USACE), FHWA, and 

NCDOT signed an Interagency 

Agreement integrating Section 404 and 

the National Environmental Policy Act 

(NEPA) of 1969, known as the Section 

404/NEPA Merger Process. The 

agreement requires the establishment of 

a project team at the beginning of each 

transportation project and outlines the 

coordination process with a series of 

Concurrence Points in order to promote 

cooperation and coordination during the 

study process and to ensure 

compatibility with local, state and 

federal planning projects and policies. 

To date, project merger team meetings 

have been held in September 2004 and 

August 2006. Upon completion of the 

draft EIS, a public hearing will be held, 

with public notice of the time and place 

of the hearing. The draft EIS 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 the FHWA at the address 

provided above. 

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance 

Program Number 20.205, Highway Planning 

and Construction. The regulations 

implementing Executive Order 12372 

regarding intergovernmental consultation on 

Federal programs and activities apply to this 

program.) 

Issued on: March 12, 2009. 

Clarence W. Coleman, 

Director of Preconstruction & Environment, 

Raleigh, North Carolina. 

[FR Doc. E9–5800 Filed 3–17–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–22–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Highway Administration 

Notice of Final Federal Agency Actions 

on Proposed Highway in California 

AGENCY: Federal Highway 

Administration (FHWA), DOT. 

ACTION: Notice of Limitation on Claims 

for Judicial Review of Actions by the 

California Department of Transportation 

(Caltrans), pursuant to 23 U.S.C. 327. 

SUMMARY: The FHWA, on behalf of 

Caltrans, is issuing this notice to 

announce actions taken by Caltrans that 

are final within the meaning of 23 

U.S.C. 139(l)(1). The actions relate to a 

proposed highway project, improvement 

of the Interstate 680 and State Route 4 

interchange in the community of 

Pacheco, County of Contra Costa, State 

of California. The improvements will be 

between post mile 20.2 and 22.2 on 

Interstate 680, and between post mile 

R10.5 and R15.1 on State Route 4. Those 

actions grant approvals for the project. 

DATES: By this notice, the FHWA, on 

behalf of Caltrans, is advising the public 

of final agency actions subject to 23 

U.S.C. 139(l)(1). A claim seeking 

judicial review of the Federal agency 

actions on the highway project will be 

barred unless the claim is filed on or 

before September 14, 2009. If the 

Federal law that authorizes judicial 

review of a claim provides a time period 

of less than 180 days for filing such 

claim, then that shorter time period still 

applies. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

Caltrans: Melanie Brent, Chief, Office of 

Environmental Analysis, California 

Department of Transportation, District 

4, 111 Grand Avenue, Oakland, 9 a.m. 

to 4 p.m., 510–286–5231, 

melanie.brent@dot.ca.gov. 

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. 

Notice is hereby given that the Caltrans 

has taken final agency actions subject to 

23 U.S.C. 139(l)(1) by issuing approvals 

for the following highway project in the 

State of California: Replacing the 

northbound I–680 to westbound SR 4 

loop ramp with a two-lane direct 

connector, and the eastbound SR 4 to 

southbound I–680 diagonal ramp with 

another two-lane connector in the first 

two phases of the project to improve 

operational deficiencies. Subsequent 

phases add another lane in the median 

of both directions of SR 4 to provide 

additional weaving capacity, add an 

auxiliary lane on eastbound SR 4 from 

the interchange to the Solano Way offramp, and replace the southbound I–680 

to eastbound SR 4 loop ramp, the 

northbound I–680 to eastbound SR 4 

diagonal ramp, and the westbound SR 4 

to northbound I–680 diagonal ramp 

with new connectors and ramps, and 

widen the westbound SR 4 to 

southbound I–680 loop ramp from one 

to two lanes. The project had a No Build 

Alternative in addition to the Build 


tjames on PRODPC61 with NOTICES