[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 32 (Thursday, February 15, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 6927-6929]
[FR Doc No: 2018-03043]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

[Docket No. FMCSA-2006-25854; FMCSA-2013-0108; FMCSA-2014-0382]

Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; Epilepsy and
Seizure Disorders

AGENCY: Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of renewal of exemptions; request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: FMCSA announces its decision to renew exemptions for five
individuals from the requirement in the Federal Motor Carrier Safety
Regulations (FMCSRs) that interstate commercial motor vehicle (CMV)
drivers have ``no established medical history or clinical diagnosis of
epilepsy or any other condition which is likely to cause loss of
consciousness or any loss of ability to control a CMV.'' The exemptions
enable these individuals who have had one or more seizures and are
taking anti-seizure medication to continue to operate CMVs in
interstate commerce.

DATES: The exemptions were applicable on December 23, 2017. The
exemptions expire on December 23, 2019. Comments must be received on or
before March 19, 2018.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments bearing the Federal Docket
Management System (FDMS) Docket No. FMCSA-2006-25854; FMCSA-2013-0108;
FMCSA-2014-0382; using any of the following methods:

     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting
comments.
     Mail: Docket Management Facility; U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, West Building

Ground Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
     Hand Delivery: West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140,
1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
ET, Monday through Friday, except Federal Holidays.
     Fax: 1-202-493-2251.
    Instructions: Each submission must include the Agency name and the
docket number(s) for this notice. Note that all comments received will
be posted without change to http://www.regulations.gov, including any
personal information provided. Please see the Privacy Act heading below
for further information.
    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or
comments, go to http://www.regulations.gov at any time or Room W12-140
on the ground level of the West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE,
Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., ET, Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays. The FDMS is available 24 hours each day ET,
365 days each year. If you want acknowledgment that we received your
comments, please include a self-addressed, stamped envelope or postcard
or print the acknowledgement page that appears after submitting
comments online.
    Privacy Act: In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits
comments from the public to better inform its rulemaking process. DOT
posts these comments, without edit, including any personal information
the commenter provides, to http://www.regulations.gov, as described in
the system of records notice (DOT/ALL-14 FDMS), which can be reviewed
at http://www.dot.gov/privacy.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Christine A. Hydock, Chief,
Medical Programs Division,<PHONE_NUMBER>, [email protected], FMCSA,
Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Room W64-224,
Washington, DC 20590-0001. Office hours are from 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m.,
ET, Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. If you have
questions regarding viewing or submitting material to the docket,
contact Docket Services, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    Under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, FMCSA may grant an exemption
for five years if it finds ``such exemption would likely achieve a
level of safety that is equivalent to or greater than the level that
would be achieved absent such exemption.'' The statute also allows the
Agency to renew exemptions at the end of the five-year period. FMCSA
grants exemptions from the FMCSRs for a two-year period to align with
the maximum duration of a driver's medical certification.
    The physical qualification standard for drivers regarding epilepsy
found in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(8) states that a person is physically
qualified to drive a CMV if that person has no established medical
history or clinical diagnosis of epilepsy or any other condition which
is likely to cause the loss of consciousness or any loss of ability to
control a CMV.
    In addition to the regulations, FMCSA has published advisory
criteria to assist Medical Examiners in determining whether drivers
with certain medical conditions are qualified to operate a CMV in
interstate commerce. [49 CFR part 391, APPENDIX A TO PART 391--MEDICAL
ADVISORY CRITERIA, section H. Epilepsy: Sec.  391.41(b)(8), paragraphs
3, 4, and 5.]
    The five individuals listed in this notice have requested renewal
of their exemptions from the epilepsy and seizure disorders prohibition
in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(8), in accordance with FMCSA procedures.
Accordingly, FMCSA has evaluated these applications for renewal on
their merits and decided to extend each exemption for a renewable two-
year period.

II. Request for Comments

    Interested parties or organizations possessing information that
would otherwise show that any, or all, of these drivers are not
currently achieving the statutory level of safety should immediately
notify FMCSA. The Agency will evaluate any adverse evidence submitted
and, if safety is being compromised or if continuation of the exemption
would not be consistent with the goals and objectives of 49 U.S.C.
31136(e) and 31315, FMCSA will take immediate steps to revoke the
exemption of a driver.

III. Basis for Renewing Exemptions

    In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, each of the five
applicants has satisfied the renewal conditions for obtaining an
exemption from the epilepsy and seizure disorders prohibition. The five
drivers in this notice remain in good standing with the Agency, have
maintained their medical monitoring and have not exhibited any medical
issues that would compromise their ability to safely operate a CMV
during the previous two-year exemption period. In addition, for
Commercial Driver's License (CDL) holders, the Commercial Driver's
License Information System (CDLIS) and the Motor Carrier Management
Information System (MCMIS) are searched for crash and violation data.
For non-CDL holders, the Agency reviews the driving records from the
State Driver's Licensing Agency (SDLA). These factors provide an
adequate basis for predicting each driver's ability to continue to
safely operate a CMV in interstate commerce. Therefore, FMCSA concludes
that extending the exemption for each renewal applicant for a period of
two years is likely to achieve a level of safety equal to that existing
without the exemption.
    As of December 23, 2017, and in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e)
and 31315, the following five individuals have satisfied the renewal
conditions for obtaining an exemption from the epilepsy and seizure
disorders prohibition in the FMCSRs for interstate CMV drivers:

Gary Freeman (AL)
Aaron Gillette (SD)
David L. Kestner (VA)
Chad B. Smith (MA)
Trever A. Williams (MN)

    The drivers were included in docket numbers FMCSA-2006-25854;
FMCSA-2013-0108; FMCSA-2014-0382. Their exemptions are applicable as of
December 23, 2017, and will expire on December 23, 2019.

IV. Conditions and Requirements

    The exemptions are extended subject to the following conditions:
(1) Each driver must remain seizure-free and maintain a stable
treatment during the two-year exemption period; (2) each driver must
submit annual reports from their treating physicians attesting to the
stability of treatment and that the driver has remained seizure-free;
(3) each driver must undergo an annual medical examination by a
certified Medical Examiner, as defined by 49 CFR 390.5; and (4) each
driver must provide a copy of the annual medical certification to the
employer for retention in the driver's qualification file, or keep a
copy of his/her driver's qualification file if he/she is self-employed.
The driver must also have a copy of the exemption when driving, for
presentation to a duly authorized Federal, State, or local enforcement
official. The exemption will be rescinded if: (1) The person fails to
comply with the terms and conditions of the exemption; (2) the
exemption has resulted in a lower level of safety than was maintained
before it was granted; or (3) continuation of the exemption would not
be consistent with the goals and objectives of 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and
31315.

V. Preemption

    During the period the exemption is in effect, no State shall
enforce any law or regulation that conflicts with this exemption with
respect to a person operating under the exemption.

VI. Conclusion

    Based upon its evaluation of the five exemption applications, FMCSA
renews the exemptions of the aforementioned drivers from the epilepsy
and seizure disorders prohibition in 49 CFR 391.41 (b)(8). In
accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, each exemption will be
valid for two years unless revoked earlier by FMCSA.

    Issued on: February 8, 2018.
Larry W. Minor,
Associate Administrator for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2018-03043 Filed 2-14-18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 92 (Thursday, May 12, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 29584-29587]
[FR Doc No: 2016-11153]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-77778; File No. SR-BOX-2016-21]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; BOX Options Exchange LLC; Notice
of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To
Amend the Fee Schedule on the BOX Market LLC (``BOX'') Options Facility

May 6, 2016.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the ``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given
that on April 29, 2016, BOX Options Exchange LLC (the ``Exchange'')
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'') the
proposed rule change as described in Items I, II, and III below, which
Items have been prepared by the Exchange. The Exchange filed the
proposed rule change pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act,\3\
and Rule 19b-4(f)(2) thereunder,\4\ which renders the proposal
effective upon filing with the Commission. 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.
    \3\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii).
    \4\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange is filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') a proposed rule change to amend the Fee Schedule on
the BOX Market LLC (``BOX'') options facility. While changes to the fee
schedule pursuant to this proposal will be effective upon filing, the
changes will become operative on May 2, 2016. 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://boxexchange.com.

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 Exchange 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 Exchange 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
    The Exchange proposes to amend the Fee Schedule for trading on BOX.

PIP and COPIP Transactions
    The Exchange first proposes to amend certain PIP and COPIP
Transaction fees for Professional Customers, Broker Dealer and Market
Makers in Section I.B of the BOX Fee Schedule. Specifically, the
Exchange proposes to reduce the PIP and COPIP Order fees for
Professional Customers and Broker Dealers from $0.37 to $0.15 and the
PIP and COPIP Order Fees for Market Makers from $0.20 to $0.15.
    The revised pricing structure for PIP and COPIP Transactions will
be as follows:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                   Account type
                                 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                         Professional
                                   Public  customer        customer         Broker  dealer       Market  maker
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PIP Order or COPIP Order........  $0.00.............  $0.15.............  $0.15.............  $0.15.
Improvement Order in PIP or       0.15..............  0.37..............  0.37..............  0.30.
 COPIP.
Primary Improvement Order.......  See Section I. B.1  See Section I. B.1  See Section I. B.1  See Section I.
                                                                                B.1.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange also proposes to make a clerical correction to Section
I.B. of the BOX Fee Schedule. Specifically, the Primary Improvement
Order row references ADV (Average Daily Volume). The Exchange no longer
uses a Participant's ADV to determine volume based tiers for rebates
and fees. Instead, the qualification thresholds are based on a
percentage of the Participant's volume relative to the account type's
overall total industry equity and ETF option volume. Therefore, the
Exchange proposes to remove the reference ADV and only refer to Section
I.B.1.
BVR
    Under the BVR, the Exchange offers a tiered per contract rebate for
all PIP Orders and COPIP orders of 100 contracts and under that do not
trade solely with their contra order. Percentage thresholds are
calculated on a monthly basis by totaling the Participant's PIP and
COPIP volume submitted to BOX, relative to the total national Customer
volume in multiply-listed options classes.
    The Exchange proposes to establish an additional tier within the
BVR for percentage thresholds of 1.250% and above. Participants whose
PIP and COPIP volume submitted to BOX, relative to the total national
Customer volume in multiply-listed options classes, is 1.250% or above
will receive a per contract rebate of $0.18 in PIP transactions and
$0.06 in COPIP transactions. With this, the Exchange also proposes to
adjust the threshold in Tier 4 to end at 1.249%.
    The new BVR set forth in Section I.B.2 of the BOX Fee Schedule will
be as follows:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                    Percentage thresholds of         Per contract rebate (all
                                                  national customer  volume in            account types)
                     Tier                       multiply-listed options  classes -------------------------------
                                                            (monthly)                   PIP            COPIP
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1.............................................  0.000% to 0.159%................         ($0.00)         ($0.00)
2.............................................  0.160% to 0.339%................          (0.04)          (0.02)
3.............................................  0.340% to 0.999%................          (0.11)          (0.04)
4.............................................  1.000% to 1.249%................          (0.14)          (0.06)
5.............................................  1.250% and Above................          (0.18)          (0.06)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Complex Orders
    The Exchange then proposes to adjust certain fees within the
Complex Order Pricing Structure in Section III.A. of the BOX Fee
Schedule (All Complex Orders). The Exchange recently introduced a
pricing structure where Complex Orders are assessed transaction fees
and credits dependent upon three factors: (i) The account type of the
Participant submitting the order; (ii) whether the Participant is a
liquidity provider or liquidity taker; and (iii) the account type of
the contra party.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 77568 (April 8,
2016), 81 FR 22151 (April 14, 2016) (SR-BOX-2016-15).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange now proposes to adjust certain fees and rebates within
the new pricing structure. Specifically, the Exchange proposes to
replace the $0.10 credit applied to Market Makers, Professional
Customer and Broker Dealers making liquidity against a Public Customer
in Penny Pilot Classes. The Exchange proposes to instead assess
Professional Customers or Broker Dealers $0.45 and Market Makers $0.40
when their Penny Pilot Complex Order makes liquidity against a Public
Customer Complex Order.
    For Complex Orders in Non-Penny Pilot Classes, the Exchange
proposes to replace the $0.10 credit applied to Market Makers,
Professional Customer and Broker Dealers making liquidity against a
Public Customer. The Exchange proposes to instead assess Professional
Customers and Broker Dealers $0.80 and Market Makers $0.75 when their
Non-Penny Pilot Complex Order makes liquidity against a Public Customer
Complex Order.
    The revised Complex Order Pricing Structure will be as follows:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                        Penny pilot classes           Non-penny pilot classes
                                                 ---------------------------------------------------------------
         Account type             Contra party      Maker fee/      Taker fee/      Maker fee/      Taker fee/
                                                      credit          credit          credit          credit
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Public Customer...............  Public Customer.           $0.00           $0.00           $0.00           $0.00
                                Professional              (0.35)          (0.35)          (0.70)          (0.70)
                                 Customer/Broker
                                 Dealer.
                                Market Maker....          (0.35)          (0.35)          (0.70)          (0.70)
Professional Customer or        Public Customer.            0.45            0.45            0.80            0.80
 Broker Dealer.
                                Professional              (0.10)            0.30          (0.10)            0.45
                                 Customer/Broker
                                 Dealer.
                                Market Maker....          (0.10)            0.30          (0.10)            0.45
Market Maker..................  Public Customer.            0.40            0.40            0.75            0.75
                                Professional              (0.10)            0.30          (0.10)            0.45
                                 Customer/Broker
                                 Dealer.
                                Market Maker....          (0.10)            0.30          (0.10)            0.45
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For example, if a Market Maker's Complex Order in a Penny Pilot
Class interacted with a Public Customer's Complex Order, regardless of
whether the Complex Order was making or taking liquidity, the Market
Maker would now be charged $0.40 and the Public Customer would be
credited $0.35.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposal is consistent with the
requirements of Section 6(b) of the Act, in general, and Section
6(b)(4) and 6(b)(5)of the Act,\6\ in particular, in that it provides
for the equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees, and other
charges among BOX Participants and other persons using its facilities
and does not unfairly discriminate between customers, issuers, brokers
or dealers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4) and (5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that reducing the PIP and COPIP Order Fees to
$0.15 for Market Makers, Professional Customers and Broker Dealers is
reasonable. Reducing these fees is meant to encourage auction order
flow to the Exchange, which will benefit all market participants on the
Exchange. BOX believes the $0.15 fee is equitable and not unfairly
discriminatory, as it applies to all Market Marker, Professional
Customers and Broker Dealers submitting PIP and COPIP Orders to these
auction mechanisms. Further, the Exchange believes it is equitable and
not unfairly discriminatory to charge Public Customers less than Non-
Public Customers for their PIP and COPIP Orders. The practice of
incentivizing increased Public Customer order flow is common in the
options markets.
    The Exchange believes the proposed amendments to the BVR in Section
I.B.2 of the BOX Fee Schedule are reasonable, equitable and non-
discriminatory. The BVR was adopted to attract Public Customer order
flow to the Exchange by offering these Participants incentives to
submit their PIP and COPIP Orders to the Exchange and the Exchange
believes it is appropriate to now amend the BVR. The Exchange believes
it is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory to establish an
additional tier within the BVR, as all Participants have the ability to
qualify for a rebate, and rebates are provided equally to qualifying
Participants. Finally, the Exchange believes it is reasonable and
appropriate to continue to provide incentives for Public Customers,
which will result in greater liquidity and ultimately benefit all
Participants trading on the Exchange.
    BOX believes it is reasonable, equitable and not unfairly
discriminatory to adjust the monthly Percentage Thresholds of National
Customer Volume in Multiply-Listed Options Classes. The volume
thresholds and applicable rebates are meant to incentivize Participants
to direct order flow to the Exchange to obtain the benefit of the
rebate, which will in turn benefit all market participants by
increasing liquidity on the Exchange. Other exchanges employ similar
incentive programs,\7\ and the Exchange believes that the proposed
changes to the volume thresholds and rebates are reasonable and
competitive when compared to incentive structures at other exchanges.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See Section B of the PHLX Pricing Schedule entitled
``Customer Rebate Program;'' ISE Gemini's Qualifying Tier Thresholds
(page 6 of the ISE Gemini Fee Schedule); and CBOE's Volume Incentive
Program (VIP).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes amending the Complex Order pricing structure
is reasonable, equitable and not unfairly discriminatory. The fee
structure for Complex Orders was recently adopted and the Exchange
believes it is now appropriate to adjust certain fees and credits. The
Complex Order fee structure is generally intended to attract order flow
to the Exchange by offering all market participants incentives to
submit their Complex Orders to the Exchange.
    The Exchange believes that the proposed fees for Professional
Customers, Broker Dealers and Market Makers interacting with Public
Customer Complex Orders are reasonable. A Professional Customer or
Broker Dealer interacting against a Public Customer will now be charged
$0.45 in Penny Pilot Classes and $0.80 Non-Penny Pilot Classes,
regardless if it is making or taking liquidity. A Market Maker
interacting against a Public Customer will now be charged $0.40 in
Penny Pilot Classes and $0.75 Non-Penny Pilot Classes, regardless of
whether it is making or taking liquidity. The Exchange believes these
proposed Complex Order fees remain competitive when compared to the
Complex Order fees on another exchange.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ Comparative Complex Order fees at another exchanges [sic]
range from $0.30 [sic] to $0.88. See Section II of the International
Securities Exchange (``ISE'') Schedule of Fees entitled ``Complex
Order Fees and Rebates.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that charging Professional Customers and
Broker Dealers higher fees than Public Customers for Complex Orders is
equitable and not unfairly discriminatory. Professional Customers,
while Public Customers by virtue of not being Broker Dealers, generally
engage in trading activity more similar to Broker Dealer proprietary
trading accounts (submitting more than 390 standard orders per day on
average). The Exchange believes that the higher level of trading
activity from these Participants will draw a greater amount of BOX
system resources than that of non-professional, Public Customers.
Because this higher level of trading activity will result in greater
ongoing operational costs, the Exchange aims to recover its costs by
assessing Professional Customers and Broker Dealers higher fees for
transactions.
    The Exchange also believes it is equitable and not unfairly
discriminatory for BOX Market Makers to be assessed lower fees than

Professional Customers and Broker Dealers for certain Complex Order
executions because of the significant contributions to overall market
quality that Market Makers provide. Specifically, Market Makers can
provide higher volumes of liquidity and lowering their fees will help
attract a higher level of Market Maker order flow to the BOX Book and
create liquidity, which the Exchange believes will ultimately benefit
all Participants trading on BOX. As such, the Exchange believes it is
appropriate that Market Makers be charged lower transaction fees than
Professional Customers and Broker Dealers for certain Complex Order
executions.
    The Exchange also believes it is reasonable, equitable and not
unfairly discriminatory to charge Non-Public Customers a higher fee
when their Complex Order interacts with a Public Customer's Complex
Order, when compared to the fee assessed when their Complex Order
interacts with a Non-Public Customer's Complex Order. To attract Public
Customer order flow, Public Customers are given credit when their
Complex Order executes against a non-Public Customer. The securities
markets generally, and BOX in particular, have historically aimed to
improve markets for investors and develop various features within the
market structure for Public Customer benefit. Similar to payment for
order flow and other pricing models that have been adopted by the
Exchange and other exchanges to attract Public Customer order flow, the
Exchange increases fees to non-Public Customers to provide incentives
for Public Customers. The Exchange believes that providing incentives
for Complex Orders by Public Customers is reasonable and, ultimately,
will benefit all Participants trading on the Exchange by attracting
Public Customer order flow.
    Finally, the Exchange also believes it is reasonable to charge
Professional Customers, Broker Dealers, and Market Makers less for
certain executions in Penny Pilot issues compared to Non-Penny Pilot
issues because these classes are typically more actively traded;
assessing lower fees will further incentivize order flow in Penny Pilot
issues on the Exchange, ultimately benefiting all Participants trading
on BOX.

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. The Exchange is simply
proposing to reduce PIP and COPIP Order fees and establish a new
qualification tier in the BVR. The Exchange believes doing so will
increase intermarket and intramarket competition by incenting
Participants to direct their order flow to the exchange, which benefits
all participants by providing more trading opportunities and improves
competition on the Exchange. The Exchange also believes amending
certain Complex Order fees and credits will enhance competition between
exchanges because it is designed to allow the Exchange to better
compete with other exchanges for Complex Order flow.
    Finally, the Exchange notes that it operates in a highly
competitive market in which market participants can readily favor
competing exchanges. In such an environment, the Exchange must
continually review, and consider adjusting, its fees and credits to
remain competitive with other exchanges. For the reasons described
above, the Exchange believes that the proposed rule change reflects
this competitive environment.

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

    No written comments were either solicited or received.

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

    The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Exchange Act \9\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(2)
thereunder,\10\ because it establishes or changes a due, or fee.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii).
    \10\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule
change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend the rule
change if it appears to the Commission that the action is necessary or
appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or
would otherwise further the purposes of the Act. If the Commission
takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings to
determine whether the proposed rule should be approved or disapproved.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-BOX-2016-21 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-BOX-2016-21. 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 Number SR-BOX-2016-21, and should be
submitted on or before June 2, 2016.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Robert W. Errett,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2016-11153 Filed 5-11-16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: June 14, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 114)]
[Notices]
[Page 32931-32933]
[DOCID:fr14jn07-99]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-55882; File No. SR-CBOE-2007-54]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Chicago Board Options Exchange,
Incorporated; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed
Rule Change Relating to CBOE and CBSX Market Data Fees

June 8, 2007.
    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 May 29, 2007, the Chicago Board Options Exchange, Incorporated
(``Exchange'' or ``CBOE'') filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission (``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described

in Items I, II, and III below, which Items have been substantially
prepared by the Exchange. The Commission is publishing this notice to
solicit comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange proposes to amend its Fees Schedule to amend fees
relating to CBOE's TickerXpress market data delivery service. The
Exchange also proposes to amend the CBOE Stock Exchange (``CBSX'') Fees
Schedule to establish a market data infrastructure fee. The text of the
proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Web site (http://www.cboe.org/legal
), at the Exchange's principal office, and at the

Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

    In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange 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 Exchange 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
a. TickerXpress Fees
    TickerXpress (``TX'') is an Exchange service that supplies market
data to Exchange market-makers trading on the Hybrid Trading System.
The Exchange proposes to amend its Fees Schedule as it relates to TX
fees.
    Currently, the Exchange charges members receiving TX market data a
fee of $100 per month and charges members receiving ``enhanced'' TX
market data a fee of $200 per month. Enhanced TX data are data that
have been processed so that they can be used by market-makers utilizing
quoting software. Recently, the Exchange's costs to process TX data
have increased. The Exchange proposes to eliminate the $100 per month
and $200 per month TX fees and replace them with a fee of $300 per
month for enhanced TX market data only. The proposed fee would help
compensate the Exchange for its increased costs in providing this data
to Exchange members.
    From time to time one or more third-party service providers may
make available for license to TX users software for the use and display
of market data (``TX Software''). The Exchange may also in the future
make such software available to TX users. The Exchange proposes to
adopt a fee of $100 per TX user per month for use of TX Software. The
proposed fee will help the Exchange offset the license fees the
Exchange pays its third-party service provider for providing the TX
Software to Exchange members or offset the Exchange's own costs in
making such software available.
b. CBSX Market Data Infrastructure Fee
    CBSX has contracted with a third-party market data vendor and other
parties to help establish facilities at CBSX through which the third-
party market data vendor can provide CBSX participants with certain
market data. The monthly cost to CBSX for maintaining the
infrastructure to help make this market data available is $19,400. CBSX
proposes to assess CBSX participants that receive this market data a
monthly fee to recoup the fees CBSX pays for providing the
infrastructure to make this market data available. The amount of the
monthly fee shall be equal to $19,400 divided by the number of CBSX
participants receiving the data.
    The Exchange implemented the proposed fee changes on June 1, 2007.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with Section 6(b) of the Act \3\ in general, and furthers the
objectives of Section 6(b)(4) \4\ in particular, in that it is designed
to provide for the equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees, and
other charges among CBOE members.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ 15 U.S.C. 78f.
    \4\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    Because the foregoing proposed rule change establishes or changes a
due, fee, or other charge imposed by the Exchange, it has become
effective upon filing pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \5\
and Rule 19b-4(f)(2) \6\ thereunder. At any time within 60 days of the
filing of the 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \6\ 17 CFR 19b-4(f)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include

File No. SR-CBOE-2007-54 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-CBOE-2007-54. 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. Copies of such filing also will be available for
inspection and copying at the principal office of the CBOE. 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-CBOE-2007-54 and should be
submitted on or before July 5, 2007.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation,
pursuant to delegated authority.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Nancy M. Morris,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E7-11488 Filed 6-13-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 242 (Wednesday, December 16, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 81537-81540]
[FR Doc No: 2020-27595]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-90624; File No. SR-NYSENAT-2020-36]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE National, Inc.; Notice of
Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Shorten
the Time Period Before a Letter of Acceptance, Waiver, and Consent
Under Rule 10.9216 and an Uncontested Offer of Settlement Under Rule
10.9270(f)

December 10, 2020.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) \1\ of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 (the ``Act'') \2\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\3\ notice is hereby
given that on December 3, 2020, NYSE National, Inc. (``NYSE National''
or the ``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I and
II, 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\ 15 U.S.C. 78a.
    \3\ 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 shorten the time period before a letter of
acceptance, waiver, and consent under Rule 10.9216 and an uncontested
offer of settlement under Rule 10.9270(f) becomes final and the
corresponding time period to request review of these settlements under
Rule 10.9310 from 25 days to 10 days. The proposed rule change is
available on the Exchange's website at www.nyse.com, at the principal
office of the Exchange, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

    In its filing with the Commission, the self-regulatory organization
included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the
proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the
proposed rule change. The text of those statements may be examined at
the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared
summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most
significant parts of such statements.

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to shorten the time period before a letter of
acceptance, waiver, and consent (``AWC'') under Rule 10.9216 and an
uncontested offer of settlement under Rule 10.9270(f) becomes final and
the corresponding time period to request review of these settlements
under Rule 10.9310 from 25 days to 10 days.
    In 2018, NYSE National adopted disciplinary rules that are, with
certain exceptions, substantially the same as the FINRA Rule 8000
Series and Rule 9000 Series, and which set forth rules for conducting
investigations and enforcement actions.\4\ In adopting disciplinary
rules modeled on FINRA's rules, the Exchange established processes for
settling disciplinary matters both before and after issuance of a
complaint.\5\ As adopted, Rules 10.9216, 10.9270 and 10.9310 permit a
Director and any member of the Committee for Review (``CFR'') to
require a review by the Board of any AWC letter under Rule 10.9216 and
any offer of settlement under Rule 10.9270 within 25 days after the AWC
letter or offer of settlement was sent to each Director and each member
of the CFR.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 34-83289 (May 17,
2018), 83 FR 23968 (May 23, 2018) (SR-NYSENAT-2018-02) (``Approval
Order'').
    \5\ See Approval Order, 83 FR at 23973.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Proposed Rule Change
    Rule 10.9216 (Acceptance, Waiver, and Consent; Procedure for
Imposition of Fines for Minor Violation(s) of Rules) establishes AWC
procedures by which a ETP Holder or Associated Person, prior to the
issuance of a complaint, may execute a letter accepting a finding of
violation, consenting to the imposition of sanctions, and agreeing to
waive such ETP Holder's or Associated Person's right to a hearing,
appeal and certain other procedures. The rule also establishes
procedures for executing a minor rule violation plan letter.
    Under Rule 10.9216(a)(4), an AWC accepted by the Chief Regulatory
Officer (``CRO'') must be sent to each Director and each member of the
CFR and would be deemed final and constitute the complaint, answer, and
decision in the matter 25 days after being sent to each Director and
each member of the CFR, unless review by the Exchange Board of
Directors is requested pursuant to Rule 10.9310(a)(1)(B).\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Requests for review of an AWC accepted by the CRO are
governed by Rule 10.9310(a)(1)(B)(i). For the sake of clarity and
transparency, the Exchange proposes the non-substantive change of
including the omitted reference to subsection (B)(i) of Rule
10.9310(a)(1) in both in the current and proposed text of Rule
10.9216(a)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange proposes that an AWC accepted by the CRO would be
deemed final and constitute the complaint, answer, and decision in a
matter 10 days after being sent to each Director and each member of the
CFR, unless review is requested pursuant to Rule 10.9310(a)(1)(B)(i).
As described below, the time period to request review under Rule
10.9310(a)(1)(B)(i) would also be shortened to 10 days.
    Rule 10.9270 (Settlement Procedure) provides a settlement procedure
for a Respondent who has been notified of the initiation of a
proceeding. Specifically, Rule 10.9270(f) provides that uncontested
settlement offers accepted by the CRO, the Hearing Panel or, if
applicable, Extended Hearing Panel must be issued and sent to each
Director and each member of the CFR and becomes final 25 days after
being sent to each Director and each member of the CFR, unless review
by the Exchange Board of Directors is requested pursuant to Rule
10.9310(a)(1).
    The Exchange proposes that uncontested settlement offers accepted
by the CRO, the Hearing Panel or, if applicable, Extended Hearing Panel
(together, a ``Panel'') under Rule 10.9270(f) would become final 10
days after being sent to each Director and each member of the CFR,
unless review by the Exchange Board of Directors is requested pursuant
to Rule 10.9310(a)(1). As noted, the time to request review of an
uncontested settlement under Rule 10.9310(a)(1) would also be shortened
to 10 days.
    Finally, under Rule 10.9310(a)(1)(B)(i), any Director and any
member of the CFR may require a review by the Board of any
determination or penalty, or both, imposed in connection with an AWC
letter under Rule 10.9216 or an offer of settlement determined to be
uncontested before a hearing on the merits has begun under Rule
10.9270(f), except that none of those persons could request Board
review of a determination or penalty concerning an affiliate of the
Exchange as such term is defined in Rule 12b-2 under the Exchange Act.
A request for review under this provision is made by filing with the
Secretary of the Exchange a written request stating the basis and
reasons for such review, within 25 days after an AWC letter or an offer
of settlement has been sent to each Director and each member of the CFR
pursuant to Rule 10.9216(a)(4) or Rule 10.9270(f)(3).
    To permit AWC letters and uncontested settlements to become final
within 10 days as proposed, the Exchange would amend Rule
10.9310(a)(1)(B)(i) to provide that a request for review of these
settlements as permitted by the rule must be made by filing the
requisite written request with the Secretary of the Exchange within 10
days after the AWC letter or an offer of settlement is sent to each
Director and each member of the CFR pursuant to Rule 10.9216(a)(4) or
Rule 10.9270(f)(3).\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ The time period for requesting review pursuant to Rule
10.9310(a)(1)(B)(ii) of any rejection by the CRO of any AWC letter
under Rule 10.9216 or of an uncontested offer of settlement under
Rule 10.9270(f), would remain unchanged as would the time period to
request for review of any determination or penalty, or both, imposed
by a Panel under the Rule 10.9310(a)(1)(A) other than an offer of
settlement determined to be uncontested after a hearing on the
merits have begun under Rule 10.9270(f). For the avoidance of doubt,
the Exchange would add text to Rule 10.9310(a)(1)(A) providing that
any request for review of an offer of settlement determined to be
uncontested after a hearing on the merits has begun under Rule
10.9270(f) that has been accepted by a Panel shall be governed by
Rule 10.9310(a)(1)(B)(i).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes maintaining a 25 day waiting period for
negotiated settlements under Rule 10.9216 and uncontested settlements
pursuant to 10.9270(f) unnecessarily delays final resolution of matters
that have been resolved by the parties and accepted by the CRO or a
Panel. Shortening the waiting period to 10 days, and requiring requests
for Board of Directors review to be made within that same 10 day
period, would significantly expedite the settlement process in
situations where ETP Holders, Associated Persons and Respondents have
entered into a consensual, negotiated settlement with Enforcement or
made settlement offers that Enforcement does not oppose, while
continuing to ensure the independence and integrity of the regulatory
process by preserving the ability of Directors and CFR members to call
those settlements for review.
    Further, the Exchange believes that the proposed 10 day period to
call a settlement for review under Rule 10.9310(a)(1)(B)(i) is
reasonable and sufficient. Like the current 25 day period, the time to
call a settlement for review would begin when the AWC or uncontested
settlement is sent to each Director and member of the CFR. Rules
10.9216 and 10.9270 specify that an AWC or uncontested settlement
accepted by the CRO or a Panel can be sent to each Director and each
CFR member via courier, express delivery or electronic means. As a
practical matter,

AWCs and settlements are sent to the Directors and CFR members by
email, which ensures prompt and instantaneous communication. As a
result, the Directors and members of the CFR will have the full 10 day
period to determine whether to call these settlements for review.
Moreover, the requirement in Rule 10.9310(a)(1)(B)(i) that a request
for review be in writing and state the basis and reasons for such
review can similarly be satisfied by a Director or CFR member sending
an email to the Secretary of the Exchange requesting that a specific
matter be reviewed within the proposed 10 day period. The Director or
CFR member would need to take no additional steps nor include any
additional information in order to call a matter for review under Rule
10.9310(a)(1)(B)(i). In light of these facts, and the relative
infrequency of calls for review of AWCs and uncontested settlements,\8\
the Exchange believes that 10 days are more than sufficient for a
Director or member of the CFR to determine whether to call a settlement
for review. Once accepted by the CRO or Panel, the proposed 10 day
period for negotiated settlements to be called for review or become
final would expedite disciplinary proceedings and provide finality to
the disciplinary process sooner, to the benefit of the parties and the
investing public.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ For example, no AWC letter or uncontested settlement has
been called for review in the past year.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, the Exchange also believes that shortening these time
periods would further promote efficiency in connection with cross-
market settlements involving multiple self-regulatory organizations
(``SROs''). Often such settlements are contingent upon the acceptance
of a settlement by all of the SROs involved in the matter. In these
situations, a settlement with the Exchange would not be final until the
end of the time period specified in Rules 10.9216 and 10.9270 while a
settlement with other SROs could be final once accepted.\9\ Thus by
reducing the amount of time these settlements are outstanding at the
Exchange, the proposed change could speed up the settlement process for
cross-market settlements involving multiple SROs, to the benefit of the
parties and the investing public.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See, e.g., FINRA Rule 9216(a)(4) (``If the [AWC] letter is
accepted by the National Adjudicatory Council, the Review
Subcommittee, or the Office of Disciplinary Affairs, it shall be
deemed final and shall constitute the complaint, answer, and
decision in the matter.''); FINRA Rule 9270(e)(3) (``If the offer of
settlement and order of acceptance are accepted by the National
Adjudicatory Council, the Review Subcommittee, or the Office of
Disciplinary Affairs, they shall become final and the Director of
the Office of Disciplinary Affairs shall issue the order and notify
the Office of Hearing Officers. The Department of Enforcement shall
provide a copy of an issued order of acceptance to each FINRA member
with which a Respondent is associated.''). See also e.g., Nasdaq
Rule 9216(a)(4) & 9270(e)(3); Cboe BZX Exchange, Inc. Rule 8.8(a);
Cboe EDGA Exchange, Inc. Rule 8.8(a).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange intends to announce the operative date of the amended
time periods in Rules 10.9216(a)(4), 10.9270(f)(3) and 10.9310(a)(1) at
least 30 days in advance via regulatory notice.\10\ To further
facilitate an orderly transition from the current rules to the new
rules, the Exchange proposes that matters already initiated under the
current rules would be completed under such rules. Specifically, the
Exchange proposes to apply the current 25 day period for AWCs prepared
and submitted to an ETP Holder or Associated Person under Rule
10.9216(a)(1) prior to the operative date and to uncontested settlement
offers in proceedings where a Party was served with a complaint by
Enforcement pursuant to Rule 10.9131 prior to the operative date. Rules
10.9216(a)(4), 10.9270(f)(3) and 10.9310(a)(1)(B)(i) would be amended
to reflect the transition process. When the transition is complete, the
Exchange intends to submit a proposed rule change that would delete the
unnecessary transition provisions of 10.9216(a)(4), 10.9270(f)(3) and
10.9310(a)(1)(B)(i).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ The effective date of the new time periods would be
simultaneously communicated to the Directors and to the members of
the CFR.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b) of the
Act,\11\ in general, and furthers the objectives of Section
6(b)(5),\12\ in particular, because it is designed to prevent
fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to promote just and
equitable principles of trade, to foster cooperation and coordination
with persons engaged in facilitating transactions in securities, 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. Additionally, the Exchange believes
the proposed rule change is consistent with the Section 6(b)(5) \13\
requirement that the rules of an exchange not be designed to permit
unfair discrimination between customers, issuers, brokers, or dealers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \12\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
    \13\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Specifically, the Exchange believes that shortening the waiting
period for negotiated settlements and uncontested offers of settlement
would serve to expedite the final resolution of both Exchange and
cross-market matters that have been resolved by the parties and
accepted by the CRO or Panel, thereby protecting investors and the
public interest by addressing rule violations and achieving finality in
disciplinary matters sooner. The proposed rule change to shorten the
waiting period before an AWC letter and offer of settlement becomes
final and the member of CFR or Board's time to call such settlements
for review will therefore provide for a more efficient, streamlined
disciplinary process.
    The Exchange further believes that the proposed amendments are
consistent with Section 6(b)(6) of the Act,\14\ which provides that
members and persons associated with members shall be appropriately
disciplined for violation of the provisions of the rules of an exchange
by expulsion, suspension, limitation of activities, functions, and
operations, fine, censure, being suspended or barred from being
associated with a member, or any other fitting sanction. As noted, the
proposed changes will not affect the ability of Enforcement to enter
into negotiated settlements or accepting uncontested settlement offers
when appropriate, and will not alter the requirement that settlements
be scrutinized by the CRO or Panel, who will continue to approve them,
or the Directors and members of the CFR, whose right to call both types
of voluntary settlements for review will not change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For the same reasons, the Exchange believes that the proposed
changes are designed to provide a fair procedure for the disciplining
of members and persons associated with members, consistent with
Sections 6(b)(7) and 6(d) of the Act.\15\ Moreover, as noted, the
Exchange believes that the proposed 10 day period to call a settlement
for review under Rules 10.9310(a)(1)(B)(i) is reasonable and
sufficient, and provides an appropriate balance between the procedural
safeguards of the call for review process and the benefits of
expediting the resolution of disciplinary matters and providing
finality to the disciplinary process sooner. Reducing the period for
review would also mean that AWCs and uncontested settlements would be
published two weeks earlier, thereby allowing ETP Holders, Associated
Persons and the investing public to be educated about the issues they
addressed sooner. Finally, the Exchange believes that the proposed
transition plan is designed to provide a

fair procedure for the disciplining of ETP Holders and Associated
Persons by providing for a clearly demarcated and orderly transition
from the current 25 day period to the proposed 10 day period.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(7) and 78f(d).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, the Exchange believes that the non-substantive changes to
clarify the cross-reference to Rule 10.9310 in Rules 10.9216 would
remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open
market and a national market system and, in general, protect investors
and the public interest because the proposed non-substantive changes
would add clarity, transparency and consistency to the Exchange's
disciplinary rules. The Exchange believes that market participants
would benefit from the increased clarity, thereby reducing potential
confusion and ensuring that persons subject to the Exchange's
jurisdiction, regulators, and the investing public can more easily
navigate and understand the Exchange's rules.

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 proposed rule change is
not intended to address competitive issues but is rather concerned with
facilitating less burdensome regulatory compliance and processes and
enhancing the quality of the regulatory process. The Exchange believes
the proposed rule changes would reduce the burdens within the
disciplinary process, as well as move matters through the process
expeditiously by providing for more efficient finality of negotiated
settlements and offers of settlement, to the benefit of all ETP
Holders, Associated Persons and the investing public.

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

    Because the foregoing 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 for 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or
such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become
effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act \16\ and
subparagraph (f)(6) of Rule 19b-4 thereunder.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(iii).
    \17\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). In addition, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)
requires a self-regulatory organization to give the Commission
written notice of its intent to file 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 the 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 to
determine whether the proposed rule should be approved or disapproved.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-NYSENAT-2020-36 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NYSENAT-2020-36. 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 website (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 website 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 the filing also will be available for inspection
and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All comments
received will be posted without change. Persons submitting comments are
cautioned that we do not redact or edit personal identifying
information from comment submissions. You should submit only
information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions
should refer to File Number SR-NYSENAT-2020-36, and should be submitted
on or before January 6, 2021.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

J. Matthew DeLesDernier,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2020-27595 Filed 12-15-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


			  UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

		        DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

			  OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY

			          WASHINGTON, D.C.

Issued by the Department of Transportation on June 10, 2003

NOTICE OF ACTION TAKEN -- DOCKET OST 2002-12188

________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________

This serves as notice to the public of the action described below, taken
by the Department official indicated (no additional confirming order
will be issued in this matter).

Applicant:  COMPANIA MEXICANA de AVIACION, S.A. de C.V.
            Date Filed:  May 22, 2003

Relief requested:  Exemption from 49 USC section 41301 to permit the
applicant to continue to conduct scheduled, combination services between
the two Mexican coterminal points Mexico City/Guadalajara, and the U.S.
point Sacramento, California.

If renewal, date and citation of last action:  May 22, 2002, in this
Docket.

Applicant representative(s):  Charles F. Donley II,<PHONE_NUMBER>
DOT analyst:  Allen F. Brown,<PHONE_NUMBER>

Responsive pleadings:  None.

	DISPOSITION

Action:  Approved.			       			                            Action date:
June 10, 2003

Effective dates of authority granted:  June 10, 2003, through June 10,
2004.

Basis for approval:  United States-Mexico Air Transport Services
Agreement

Except to the extent exempted/waived, this authority is subject to the
terms, conditions, and limitations indicated: Standard exemption
conditions.

Special conditions/Remarks:

Action taken by:   Paul L. Gretch, Director

		      Office of International Aviation

________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________

Under authority assigned by the Department in its regulations, 14 CFR
Part 385, we found that (1) our action was consistent with Department
policy; (2) the applicant was qualified to perform its proposed
operations; (3) grant of the authority was consistent with the public
interest; and (4) grant of the authority would not constitute a major
regulatory action under the Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975.
To the extent not granted/deferred/dismissed, we denied all requests in
the referenced Docket.  We may amend, modify, or revoke the authority
granted in this Notice at any time without hearing at our discretion.

Persons entitled to petition the Department for review of the action set
forth in this Notice under the Department’s regulations, 14 CFR
§385.30, may file their petitions within seven (7) days after the date
of issuance of this Notice.  This action was effective when taken, and
the filing of a petition for review will not alter such effectiveness.

An electronic version of this document is available on the World Wide
Web at:

http://dms.dot.gov//reports/reports_aviation.asp


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 30 (Tuesday, February 13, 2018)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 6120-6123]
[FR Doc No: 2018-02748]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2017-0694; Product Identifier 2017-NM-007-AD; Amendment
39-19192; AD 2018-03-19]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Dassault Aviation Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of
Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain

Dassault Aviation Model FALCON 7X airplanes. This AD was prompted by a
report indicating that fuselage panels were manufactured with defects
that could reduce panel fatigue limits. This AD requires a one-time
inspection of the affected panels and repair if necessary, and for
certain airplanes, installation of a stiffener. We are issuing this AD
to address the unsafe condition on these products.

DATES: This AD is effective March 20, 2018.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of March 20,
2018.

ADDRESSES: For service information identified in this final rule,
contact Dassault Falcon Jet Corporation, Teterboro Airport, P.O. Box
2000, South Hackensack, NJ 07606; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; internet
http://www.dassaultfalcon.com. You may view this referenced service
information at the FAA, Transport Standards Branch, 1601 Lind Avenue
SW, Renton, WA. For information on the availability of this material at
the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>. It is also available on the internet at
http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No.
FAA-2017-0694.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2017-
0694; or in person at the Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and
5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket
contains this AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and
other information. The street address for the Docket Office (telephone
800-647-5527) is Docket Management Facility, U.S. Department of
Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor,
Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tom Rodriguez, Aerospace Engineer,
International Section, Transport Standards Branch, FAA, 1601 Lind
Avenue SW, Renton, WA 98057-3356; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax 425-227-
1149.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

    We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR
part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to certain Dassault Aviation
Model FALCON 7X airplanes. The NPRM published in the Federal Register
on July 14, 2017 (82 FR 32498) (``the NPRM''). The NPRM was prompted by
a report indicating that fuselage panels were manufactured with defects
that could reduce panel fatigue limits. The NPRM proposed to require a
one-time inspection of the affected panels and corrective actions if
necessary. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct discrepancies
of certain fuselage lateral panels, which could lead to crack
propagation and possible reduced structural integrity of the fuselage.
    The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical
Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA
Airworthiness Directive 2016-0250, dated December 15, 2016 (referred to
after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or
``the MCAI''), to correct an unsafe condition for certain Dassault
Aviation Model FALCON 7X airplanes. The MCAI states:

    A few pockets of fuselage Section T5 lateral panels were
manufactured with defects in certain chemically-milled profiles. The
technical investigation concluded that the fatigue limit of the
affected panels might be reduced, depending on the defect
characteristics.
    This condition, if not detected and corrected, could lead to
crack propagation, possibly resulting in reduced structural
integrity of the fuselage.
    To address this potential unsafe condition, DA published Service
Bulletin (SB) F7X-042 providing inspection instructions.
    For the reasons described above, this [EASA] AD requires a one-
time [detailed] inspection of the chemically-milled profiles of the
pockets of the Section T5 fuselage lateral panels and, depending on
findings, accomplishment of applicable corrective action(s). This
[EASA] AD also requires, for some aeroplanes, the installation of a
stiffener on the forward pocket.

    Applicable corrective actions include repair, if necessary. You may
examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2017-
0694.

Comments

    We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing
this final rule. We received no comments on the NPRM or on the
determination of the cost to the public.

Conclusion

    We reviewed the relevant data and determined that air safety and
the public interest require adopting this AD as proposed, except for
minor editorial changes. We have determined that these minor changes:
     Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the
NPRM for correcting the unsafe condition; and
     Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was
already proposed in the NPRM.

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    We reviewed Dassault Service Bulletin 7X-042, Revision 1, dated May
3, 2016. This service information describes the inspection of the
chemically milled profiles of the pockets of the Section T5 fuselage
lateral panels and the installation of a stiffener on the forward
pocket on affected airplanes. This service information is reasonably
available because the interested parties have access to it through
their normal course of business or by the means identified in the
ADDRESSES section.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this AD affects 4 airplanes of U.S. registry.
    We estimate the following costs to comply with this AD:

                                                 Estimated Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Action                  Labor cost        Parts cost     Cost per product    Cost on U.S. operators
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Panel inspections..............  Up to 10 work-                  $0  Up to $850........  Up to $3,400.
                                  hours x $85 per
                                  hour = $850.
Stiffener installation (up to 3  2 work-hours x $85           8,769  $8,939............  Up to $26,817.
 airplanes).                      per hour = $170.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    According to the manufacturer, all of the costs of this AD may be
covered under warranty, thereby reducing the cost impact on affected
individuals. We do not control warranty coverage for affected
individuals. As a result, we have included all costs in our cost
estimate.

Authority for This Rulemaking

    Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to
issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the
authority of the FAA Administrator. ``Subtitle VII: Aviation
Programs,'' describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's
authority.
    We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in
``Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General
requirements.'' Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with
promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing
regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator
finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within
the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition
that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this
rulemaking action.
    This AD is issued in accordance with authority delegated by the
Executive Director, Aircraft Certification Service, as authorized by
FAA Order 8000.51C. In accordance with that order, issuance of ADs is
normally a function of the Compliance and Airworthiness Division, but
during this transition period, the Executive Director has delegated the
authority to issue ADs applicable to transport category airplanes to
the Director of the System Oversight Division.

Regulatory Findings

    We determined that this AD will not have federalism implications
under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct
effect on the States, on the relationship between the national
government and the States, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various levels of government.
    For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:
    1. Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive Order
12866,
    2. Is not a ``significant rule'' under the DOT Regulatory Policies
and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979),
    3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and
    4. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or
negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

    Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by
reference, Safety.

Adoption of the Amendment

    Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the
Administrator, the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows:

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

0
1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

0
2. The FAA amends Sec.  39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness
directive (AD):

2018-03-19 Dassault Aviation: Amendment 39-19192; Docket No. FAA-
2017-0694; Product Identifier 2017-NM-007-AD.

(a) Effective Date

    This AD is effective March 20, 2018.

(b) Affected ADs

    None.

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to Dassault Aviation Model FALCON 7X airplanes,
certificated in any category, serial numbers (S/Ns) 2 through 19
inclusive, except S/Ns 3 and 8.

(d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 51, Structure.

(e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by a report indicating that a few pockets
of fuselage Section T5 lateral panels were manufactured with defects
that could reduce the fatigue limit of the affected panels. We are
issuing this AD to detect and correct discrepancies of certain
fuselage lateral panels, which could lead to crack propagation and
possible reduced structural integrity of the fuselage.

(f) Compliance

    Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified,
unless already done.

(g) Inspection

    Within 99 months or 4,100 flight cycles, whichever occurs first,
after the effective date of this AD, do a detailed inspection to
measure the pocket depth of the Section T5 fuselage lateral panels,
in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Dassault
Service Bulletin 7X-042, Revision 1, dated May 3, 2016.

(h) Repair

    During the inspection required by paragraph (g) of this AD, if
any discrepancy is found, as defined in Accomplishment Instructions
of Dassault Service Bulletin 7X-042, Revision 1, dated May 3, 2016,
before further flight, contact the FAA, the European Aviation Safety
Agency (EASA), or Dassault Aviation's EASA Design Organization
Approval (DOA) for approved repair instructions, and, within the
compliance time specified in those instructions, accomplish the
repair accordingly.

(i) Installation

    For airplanes having S/Ns 16, 17, and 19: Within 99 months or
4,100 flight cycles, whichever occurs first, after the effective
date of this AD, install a stiffener on the forward pocket of
Section T5 fuselage lateral panels, in accordance with the
Accomplishment Instructions of Dassault Service Bulletin 7X-042,
Revision 1, dated May 3, 2016.

(j) Credit for Previous Actions

    This paragraph provides credit for actions required by
paragraphs (g) and (i) of this AD, if those actions were performed
before the effective date of this AD using Dassault Service Bulletin
7X-042, dated January 3, 2011.

(k) Other FAA AD Provisions

    The following provisions also apply to this AD:
    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager,
International Section, Transport Standards Branch, FAA, has the
authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the
procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19,
send your request to your principal inspector or local Flight
Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending information
directly to the manager of the International Branch, send it to the
attention of the person identified in paragraph (l)(2) of this AD.
Information may be emailed to: [email protected].
Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate principal
inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the
local flight standards district office/certificate holding district
office.
    (2) Contacting the Manufacturer: For any requirement in this AD
to obtain corrective actions from a manufacturer, the action must be
accomplished using a method approved by the Manager, International
Section, Transport Standards Branch, FAA; or the EASA; or Dassault
Aviation's EASA DOA. If approved by the DOA, the approval must
include the DOA-authorized signature.

(l) Related Information

    (1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information
(MCAI) EASA Airworthiness Directive 2016-0250, dated December 15,
2016, for related information. This MCAI may be found in the AD
docket on the internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching
for and locating Docket No. FAA-2017-0694.
    (2) For more information about this AD, contact Tom Rodriguez,
Aerospace Engineer, International Section, Transport Standards
Branch, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW, Renton, WA 98057-3356; telephone
425-227-1137; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    (3) Service information identified in this AD that is not
incorporated by reference is available at the addresses specified in
paragraphs (m)(3) and (m)(4) of this AD.

(m) Material Incorporated by Reference

    (1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the
incorporation by reference (IBR) of the service information listed
in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
    (2) You must use this service information as applicable to do
the actions required by this AD, unless this AD specifies otherwise.
    (i) Dassault Service Bulletin 7X-042, Revision 1, dated May 3,
2016.
    (ii) Reserved.
    (3) For service information identified in this AD, contact
Dassault Falcon Jet Corporation, Teterboro Airport, P.O. Box 2000,
South Hackensack, NJ 07606; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; internet http://www.dassaultfalcon.com.
    (4) You may view this service information at the FAA, Transport
Standards Branch, 1601 Lind Avenue SW, Renton, WA. For information
on the availability of this material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (5) You may view this service information that is incorporated
by reference at the National Archives and Records Administration
(NARA). For information on the availability of this material at
NARA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>, or go to: http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on January 30, 2018.
Michael Kaszycki,
Acting Director, System Oversight Division, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2018-02748 Filed 2-12-18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 55 (Tuesday, March 22, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Page 16018]
[FR Doc No: 2011-6655]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Proposed Collection; Comment Request

Upon Written Request, Copies Available From: U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission, Office of Investor Education and Advocacy,
Washington, DC 20549-0213.
Extension:
    Rule 17a-22; SEC File No. 270-202; OMB Control No. 3235-0196.

    Notice is hereby given that pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act
of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), the Securities and Exchange
Commission (``Commission'') is soliciting comments on the collection of
information provided for in the following rule: Rule 17a-22 (17 C.F.R.
240.17a-22) under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78a et
seq.). The Commission plans to submit this existing collection of
information to the Office of Management and Budget for extension and
approval.
    Rule 17a-22 requires all registered clearing agencies to file with
the Commission three copies of all materials they issue or make
generally available to their participants or other entities with whom
they have a significant relationship. The filings with the Commission
must be made within ten days after the materials are issued or made
generally available. When the Commission is not the clearing agency's
appropriate regulatory agency, the clearing agency must file one copy
of the material with its appropriate regulatory agency.
    The Commission is responsible for overseeing clearing agencies and
uses the information filed pursuant to Rule 17a-22 to determine whether
a clearing agency is implementing procedural or policy changes. The
information filed aides the Commission in determining whether such
changes are consistent with the purposes of Section 17A of the Exchange
Act. Also, the Commission uses the information to determine whether a
clearing agency has changed its rules without reporting the actual or
prospective change to the Commission as required under Section 19(b) of
the Exchange Act.
    The respondents to Rule 17a-22 are registered clearing agencies.
The frequency of filings made by clearing agencies pursuant to Rule
17a-22 varies but on average there are approximately 200 filings per
year per active clearing agency. There are four active registered
clearing agencies. The Commission staff estimates that each response
requires approximately .25 hour (fifteen minutes), which represents the
time it takes for a staff person at the clearing agency to properly
identify a document subject to the rule, print and makes copies, and
mail that document to the Commission. Thus, the total annual burden for
all active clearing agencies is 200 hours (4 clearing agencies
multiplied by 200 filings per clearing agency multiplied by .25 hours)
and a total of 50 hours (800 responses multiplied by .25 hours, divided
by 4 active clearing agencies) per year are expended by each respondent
to comply with the rule.
    Written comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed
collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of
the functions of the Commission, including whether the information
shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the Commission's
estimates of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (c)
ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to
be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of
information on respondents, including through the use of automated
collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Consideration will be given to comments and suggestions submitted in
writing within 60 days of this publication.
    The Commission may not conduct or sponsor a collection of
information unless it displays a currently valid control number. No
person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a
collection of information subject to the PRA that does not display a
valid Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number.
    Please direct your written comments to: Thomas Bayer, Chief
Information Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission, c/o Remi
Pavlik-Simon, 6432 General Green Way, Alexandria, VA 22312 or send an
e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
     Dated: March 16, 2011.
Cathy H. Ahn,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2011-6655 Filed 3-21-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P