[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 177 (Wednesday, September 12, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 56258-56261]
[FR Doc No: 2012-22463]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

[Docket No. FMCSA-2012-0219]

Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; Diabetes
Mellitus

AGENCY: Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA).

ACTION: Notice of applications for exemption from the diabetes mellitus
requirement; request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: FMCSA announces receipt of applications from 14 individuals
for exemption from the prohibition against persons with insulin-treated
diabetes mellitus (ITDM) operating commercial motor vehicles (CMVs) in
interstate commerce. If granted, the exemptions would enable these
individuals with ITDM to operate CMVs in interstate commerce.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before October 12, 2012.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments bearing the Federal Docket
Management System (FDMS) Docket No. FMCSA-2012-0219 using any of the
following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line 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.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal Holidays.
     Fax: 1-202-493-2251.
    Instructions: Each submission must include the Agency name and the
docket numbers 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., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays. The Federal Docket Management System (FDMS) is
available 24 hours each day, 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 on-line.
    Privacy Act: Anyone may search the electronic form of all comments
received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual
submitting the comment (or of the person signing the comment, if
submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.).
You may review DOT's Privacy Act Statement for the FDMS published in
the Federal Register on January 17, 2008 (73 FR 3316), or you may visit
http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/2008/pdf/E8-785.pdf.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Elaine M. Papp, Chief, Medical
Programs Division,<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>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.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    Under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, FMCSA may grant an exemption
from the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations for a 2-year period
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 2-year period. The 14 individuals listed
in this notice have recently requested such an exemption from the
diabetes prohibition in 49 CFR 391.41(b) (3), which applies to drivers
of CMVs in interstate commerce. Accordingly, the Agency will evaluate
the qualifications of each applicant to determine whether granting the
exemption will achieve the required level of safety mandated by the
statutes.

Qualifications of Applicants

Edward K. Belcher

    Mr. Belcher, age 52, has had ITDM since 2008. His endocrinologist
examined him in 2012 and certified that he has had no severe
hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring
the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive
function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no
recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years.
His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Belcher understands diabetes
management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using
insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely.
    Mr. Belcher meets the vision requirements of 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10).
His ophthalmologist examined him in 2012 and certified that he has
stable nonproliferative diabetic retinopathy. He holds an operator's
license from Kentucky.

Philip C. Brooks, Jr.

    Mr. Brooks, 41, has had ITDM since 2010. His endocrinologist
examined him in 2012 and certified that he has had no severe
hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring
the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive
function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no
recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years.
His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Brooks understands diabetes
management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using
insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely.
    Mr. Brooks meets the vision requirements of 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10).
His optometrist examined him in 2012 and certified that he does not
have diabetic retinopathy. He holds an operator's license from
Virginia.

Michael R. Conley

    Mr. Conley, 51, has had ITDM since 2012. His endocrinologist
examined him in 2012 and certified that he has had no severe
hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring
the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive
function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no
recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years.
His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Conley understands diabetes
management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using
insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Conley meets the vision
requirements of 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in
2012 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds
a Class A CDL from Wisconsin.

Patrick J. Connors

    Mr. Connors, 58, has had ITDM since 2010. His endocrinologist
examined him in 2012 and certified that he has had no severe
hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring
the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive
function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no
recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years.
His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Connors understands diabetes
management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using
insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Connors meets the
vision requirements of 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined
him in 2012 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy.
He holds a Class A CDL from Massachusetts.

John C. Halabura

    Mr. Halabura, 58, has had ITDM since 2012. His endocrinologist
examined him in 2012 and certified that he has had no severe
hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring
the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive
function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no
recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years.
His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Halabura understands diabetes
management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using
insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely.
    Mr. Halabura meets the vision requirements of 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10).
His optometrist examined him in 2012 and certified that he does not
have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from Pennsylvania.

Paul L. Harrison III

    Mr. Harrison, 65, has had ITDM since 2011. His endocrinologist
examined him in 2012 and certified that he has had no

severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness,
requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired
cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months
and no recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5
years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Harrison understands
diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes
using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Harrison meets
the vision requirements of 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist
examined him in 2012 and certified that he does not have diabetic
retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from New York.

Daniel T. Kelly

    Mr. Kelly, 69, has had ITDM since 2011. His endocrinologist
examined him in 2012 and certified that he has had no severe
hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring
the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive
function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no
recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years.
His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Kelly understands diabetes
management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using
insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Kelly meets the vision
requirements of 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His ophthalmologist examined him
in 2012 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He
holds a Class A CDL from New York.

Timothy L. Leavelle, Sr.

    Mr. Leavelle, 54, has had ITDM since 2001. His endocrinologist
examined him in 2012 and certified that he has had no severe
hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring
the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive
function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no
recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years.
His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Leavelle understands diabetes
management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using
insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely.
    Mr. Leavelle meets the vision requirements of 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10).
His optometrist examined him in 2012 and certified that he does not
have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class M operator's license from
Virginia.

Robert D. Marshall

    Mr. Marshall, 66, has had ITDM since 2011. His endocrinologist
examined him in 2012 and certified that he has had no severe
hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring
the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive
function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no
recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years.
His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Marshall understands diabetes
management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using
insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely.
    Mr. Marshall meets the vision requirements of 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10).
His ophthalmologist examined him in 2012 and certified that he does not
have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class B CDL from Pennsylvania.

John W. Martinson

    Mr. Martinson, 69, has had ITDM since 2010. His endocrinologist
examined him in 2012 and certified that he has had no severe
hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring
the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive
function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no
recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years.
His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Martinson understands diabetes
management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using
insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Martinson meets the
vision requirements of 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined
him in 2012 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy.
He holds a Class D operator's license from North Dakota.

William Z. Polk

    Mr. Polk, 26, has had ITDM since 2010. His endocrinologist examined
him in 2012 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic
reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance
of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that
occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (2 or
more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years. His
endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Polk understands diabetes management
and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and
is able to drive a CMV safely.
    Mr. Polk meets the vision requirements of 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His
optometrist examined him in 2012 and certified that he does not have
diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class C operator's license from
Georgia.

Thomas E. Swayne

    Mr. Swayne, 58, has had ITDM since 2006. His endocrinologist
examined him in 2012 and certified that he has had no severe
hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring
the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive
function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no
recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years.
His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Swayne understands diabetes
management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using
insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Swayne meets the vision
requirements of 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in
2012 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds
a Class A CDL from Kansas.

Anthony Williams

    Mr. Williams, 49, has had ITDM since 1984. His endocrinologist
examined him in 2012 and certified that he has had no severe
hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring
the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive
function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no
recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years.
His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Williams understands diabetes
management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using
insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely.
    Mr. Williams meets the vision requirements of 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10).
His optometrist examined him in 2012 and certified that he does not
have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class B CDL from New Jersey.

Mark S. Wilt

    Mr. Wilt, 56, has had ITDM since 2009. His endocrinologist examined
him in 2012 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic
reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance
of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that
occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (2 or
more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years. His
endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Wilt understands diabetes management
and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and
is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Wilt meets the vision requirements
of 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His ophthalmologist examined him in 2012 and
certified that he does not have

diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class E operator's license from West
Virginia.

Request for Comments

    In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, FMCSA requests
public comment from all interested persons on the exemption petitions
described in this notice. We will consider all comments received before
the close of business on the closing date indicated in the date section
of the notice.
    FMCSA notes that section 4129 of the Safe, Accountable, Flexible
and Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users requires
the Secretary to revise its diabetes exemption program established on
September 3, 2003 (68 FR 52441).\1\ The revision must provide for
individual assessment of drivers with diabetes mellitus, and be
consistent with the criteria described in section 4018 of the
Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (49 U.S.C. 31305).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Section 4129(a) refers to the 2003 notice as a ``final
rule.'' However, the 2003 notice did not issue a ``final rule'' but
did establish the procedures and standards for issuing exemptions
for drivers with ITDM.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Section 4129 requires: (1) Elimination of the requirement for 3
years of experience operating CMVs while being treated with insulin;
and (2) establishment of a specified minimum period of insulin use to
demonstrate stable control of diabetes before being allowed to operate
a CMV.
    In response to section 4129, FMCSA made immediate revisions to the
diabetes exemption program established by the September 3, 2003 notice.
FMCSA discontinued use of the 3-year driving experience and fulfilled
the requirements of section 4129 while continuing to ensure that
operation of CMVs by drivers with ITDM will achieve the requisite level
of safety required of all exemptions granted under 49 USC. 31136 (e).
    Section 4129(d) also directed FMCSA to ensure that drivers of CMVs
with ITDM are not held to a higher standard than other drivers, with
the exception of limited operating, monitoring and medical requirements
that are deemed medically necessary.
    The FMCSA concluded that all of the operating, monitoring and
medical requirements set out in the September 3, 2003 notice, except as
modified, were in compliance with section 4129(d). Therefore, all of
the requirements set out in the September 3, 2003 notice, except as
modified by the notice in the Federal Register on November 8, 2005 (70
FR 67777), remain in effect.

    Issued on: August 27, 2012.
Larry W. Minor,
Associate Administrator for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2012-22463 Filed 9-11-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 153 (Tuesday, August 9, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Page 48841]
[FR Doc No: 2011-20043]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

 [Docket No. AC11-121-000]

Liberty Gas Storage, LLC; Notice of Filing

    Take notice that on July 25, 2011, Liberty Gas Storage, LLC
(Liberty) submitted a request for confirmation that it is not required
to file FERC Form No. 2-A and will not be applicable until such time as
the actual volume transactions on Liberty exceed 200,000 Dth for three
consecutive calendar years. Liberty argues that given the low levels of
total volume transactions on Liberty's pipeline system during the
preceding three calendar years, Liberty does not meet the threshold for
filing a Form 2-A. Liberty, in fact, has never met this threshold since
it placed its initial facilities into service in 2007. Since the Form
No. 3-Q filing requirement is applicable only when a natural gas
company is obligated to file a Form 2-A, Liberty likewise believes that
it is not required to file a Form No. 3-Q under present circumstances.
Liberty requests the issuance of an order or other determination on
this request for confirmation by September 1, 2011, which is the
requested effective date for new, cost-based rates on Liberty's system.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 or 385.214). Protests will be
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to
be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the
proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of
intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices,
motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date. On or
before the comment date, it is not necessary to serve motions to
intervene or protests on persons other than the Applicant.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an
original and 14 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC
20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the
``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription''
link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For
assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For
TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Comment Date: August 29, 2011.

    Dated: July 29, 2011.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2011-20043 Filed 8-8-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//-//W3C//DTD HTML 3.2//EN">

<META name="generator" content="PDFCreactiveX HTML Export">
<META name="creation-date" content="02/05/2008 10:50:25 ">
<TITLE></TITLE>


Jan Tierney 08/ 26/ 2004 10: 59 AM To: hfox@ earthjustice. o vpatton@ environmentaldefense. org cc: JohnJ Kelly/ R9/ USE Subject: Information you requested Howard, Vickie, Jonathan

In response to your request on our phone call several weeks ago, below is the information that Region 9 gathered regarding emissions from federal facilities in Clark County. Richard Beckstead ( 702 455 1669) of CCAQMD provided the Region with the information below. NDEP ( Matthew DeBurle, 775 687 9391) informed EPA that they have no jurisdiction over any federal sources in Clark County. We hope this information responds to your question. If you wish to discuss this further, please let me know and I can arrange a call with the appropriate people in the regional office. Also, if any of the other litigants in 8 Hour designation deadline suit ( D. D. C. No. 02CV02239) are interested in this information, please forward it to them.

Thanks  Jan Tierney We have identified only two sources that are federal facilities in Clark County. The reported actuals for 2003 are listed below:

Nellis Air Force Base  USAF  99 CES/ CEV PM10  36.56 NOx  43.50 CO  33.76 SOx  3.97 VOC  17.89 HAP  3.22 Indian Springs  USAF  99 CES/ CEV PM10  14.65 NOx  19.73 CO  4.26 SOx  2.21 VOC  2.81 HAP  0.32


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 181 (Tuesday, September 18, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Page 47218]
[FR Doc No: 2018-20279]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Proposed Collection; Comment Request

Upon Written Request, Copies Available From: Securities and Exchange
Commission, Office of FOIA Services, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC
20549-2736.

Extension:
    Form N-8A, SEC File No. 270-135, OMB Control No. 3235-0175.

    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 (the ``Commission'') is soliciting comments on the
collection of information summarized below. The Commission plans to
submit this existing collection of information to the Office of
Management and Budget (``OMB'') for extension and approval.
    The Investment Company Act of 1940 (``Investment Company Act'') (15
U.S.C. 80a-1 et seq.) requires investment companies to register with
the Commission before they conduct any business in interstate commerce.
Section 8(a) of the Investment Company Act provides that an investment
company shall be deemed to be registered upon receipt by the Commission
of a notification of registration in such form as the Commission
prescribes. Form N-8A (17 CFR 274.10) is the form for notification of
registration that the Commission has adopted under section 8(a). The
purpose of such notification of registration provided on Form N-8A is
to notify the Commission of the existence of investment companies
required to be registered under the Investment Company Act and to
enable the Commission to administer the provisions of the Investment
Company Act with respect to those companies. After an investment
company has filed its notification of registration under section 8(a),
the company is then subject to the provisions of the Investment Company
Act which govern certain aspects of its organization and activities,
such as the composition of its board of directors and the issuance of
senior securities. Form N-8A requires an investment company to provide
its name, state of organization, form of organization, classification,
the name and address of each investment adviser of the investment
company, the current value of its total assets, and certain other
information readily available to the investment company. If the
investment company is filing a registration statement as required by
Section 8(b) of the Investment Company Act concurrently with its
notification of registration, Form N-8A requires only that the
registrant file the cover page (giving its name, address, and agent for
service of process) and sign the form in order to effect registration.
    Based on recent filings of notifications of registration on Form N-
8A, we estimate that about 96 investment companies file such
notifications each year. An investment company must only file a
notification of registration on Form N-8A once. The currently approved
average hour burden per investment company of preparing and filing a
notification of registration on Form N-8A is one hour. Based on the
Commission staff's experience with the requirements of Form N-8A and
with disclosure documents generally--and considering that investment
companies that are filing notifications of registration on Form N-8A
simultaneously with the registration statement under the Investment
Company Act are only required by Form N-8A to file a signed cover
page--we continue to believe that this estimate is appropriate.
Therefore, we estimate that the total annual hour burden to prepare and
file notifications of registration on Form N-8A is 96 hours. The
currently approved cost burden of Form N-8A is $449. We continue to
believe that this estimate is appropriate. Therefore, we estimate that
the total annual cost burden to associated with preparing and filing
notifications of registration on Form N-8A is about $43,104.
    Estimates of average burden hours and costs are made solely for the
purposes of the Paperwork Reduction Act, and are not derived from a
comprehensive or even representative survey or study of the costs of
Commission rules and forms. Compliance with the collection of
information requirements of Form N-8A is mandatory. Responses to the
collection of information will not be kept confidential. An agency may
not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a
collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB
control number.
    Written comments are invited on: (a) Whether the collection of
information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of
the Commission, including whether the information has practical
utility; (b) the accuracy of the Commission's estimate of the burden of
the collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality,
utility, and clarity of the information 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.
    Please direct your written comments to Pamela Dyson, Director/Chief
Information Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission, C/O Candace
Kenner, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549; or send an email to:
[email protected].

    Dated: September 12, 2018.
Eduardo A. Aleman,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2018-20279 Filed 9-17-18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 114 (Wednesday, June 13, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 35446-35448]
[FR Doc No: 2012-14405]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-67162; File No. SR-BATS-2012-019]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; BATS Exchange, Inc.; Notice of
Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To Modify
Exchange Rule 11.19, Entitled ``Short Sales''

 June 7, 2012.
    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 May 24, 2012, BATS Exchange, Inc. (the ``Exchange'' or
``BATS'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I and
II below, which Items have been prepared by the 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 is filing with the Commission a proposal to amend
Exchange Rule 11.19, entitled ``Short Sales,'' to adopt certain changes
related to Regulation SHO in connection with the Exchange's recent
status as the primary listing market for certain securities.
    The text of the proposed rule change is available at the Exchange's
Web site at http://www.batstrading.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 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 parts of such
statements.

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

1. Purpose
    On February 26, 2010, the Commission adopted amendments to Rules
200(g) and 201 of Regulation SHO.\3\ Rule 201 of Regulation SHO, as
amended, requires trading centers \4\ such as the Exchange to
establish, maintain, and enforce certain written policies and
procedures reasonably designed to comply with the rule.\5\ The Exchange
has proposed and received approval of rule changes \6\ in connection
with the amendments to Rules 201 and 200 of Regulation SHO that were
implemented in 2011.\7\ The Exchange recently began operation as a
primary listing market of certain securities, and is thus proposing
additional rules in connection with Regulation SHO, as amended.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ 17 CFR 242.200(g); 17 CFR 242.201. See Securities Exchange
Act Release No. 61595 (Feb. 26, 2010), 75 FR 11232 (Mar. 10, 2010)
(``Adopting Release'') (amending Rules 201 and 200 of Regulation SHO
to adopt a short sale price test restriction and ``short exempt''
marking requirement).
    \4\ Rule 201(a)(9) states the term ``trading center'' will have
the same meaning as in Rule 600(b)(78). 17 CFR 242.201(a)(9). Rule
600(b)(78) of Regulation NMS defines a ``trading center'' as ``a
national securities exchange or national securities association that
operates an SRO trading facility, an alternative trading system, an
exchange market maker, an OTC market maker, or any other broker or
dealer that executes orders internally by trading as principal or
crossing orders as agent.'' 17 CFR 242.600(b)(78).
    \5\ See 17 CFR 242.201(b). The amendments to Rule 200(g) of
Regulation SHO provide a ``short exempt'' marking requirement. See
17 CFR 242.200(g).
    \6\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 63948 (Feb. 23,
2011), 76 FR 11303 (Mar. 1, 2011) (SR-BATS-2011-002). See Rule
11.9(g)(2), which describes the handling of orders pursuant to
Exchange ``short sale price sliding'' functionality in connection
with the short sale price test restriction; see also, Rule 11.13,
which codifies in the Exchange's rules the execution restrictions of
Rule 201; see also Rule 11.19, which requires marking of short sale
orders as either ``short'' or ``short exempt.''
    \7\ See supra note 3; see also Securities Exchange Act Release
No. 63247 (Nov. 4, 2010), 75 FR 68702 (Nov. 9, 2010) (extending the
compliance date of the amendments to Rules 201 and 200 of Regulation
SHO until February 28, 2011).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Proposed Exchange Rule 11.19(b)(1), ``Definitions,'' defines the
terms ``covered security,'' ``listing market,'' and ``national best
bid'' as having the same meaning as such terms have in Rule 201 of
Regulation SHO.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See Rule 201(a) of Regulation SHO. The System will utilize
the national best bid from the systems information processor. Rule
201(a)(1) defines ``covered security'' to mean any ``NMS stock'' as
defined under Rule 600(b)(47) of Regulation NMS. 17 CFR
242.201(a)(1). Rule 600(b)(47) of Regulation NMS defines an ``NMS
stock'' as ``any NMS security other than an option.'' 17 CFR
242.600(b)(47). Rule 600(b)(46) of Regulation NMS defines an ``NMS
security'' as ``any security or class of securities for which
transaction reports are collected, processed, and made available
pursuant to an effective transaction reporting plan, or an effective
national market system plan for reporting transactions in listed
options.'' 17 CFR 242.600(b)(46).

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

    Under Proposed Exchange Rule 11.19(b)(2), Short Sale Price Test,
the System \9\ will not execute or display a short sale order with
respect to a covered security at a price that is less than or equal to
the current national best bid if the price of that security decreases
by 10% or more from the security's closing price on the listing market
as of the end of regular trading hours on the prior day (``Trigger
Price'').\10\ For covered securities for which the Exchange is the
listing market, the BATS Official Closing Price for each security is
established by the Exchange pursuant to procedures set forth in
Exchange Rule 11.23.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See Exchange Rule 1.5(aa). The term ``System'' means the
electronic communications and trading facility designated by the
Board through which securities orders of Users are consolidated for
ranking, execution and, when applicable, routing away.
    \10\ See Rule 201(b)(1)(i) of Regulation SHO. Such execution or
display needs to be in compliance with applicable rules concerning
minimum pricing increments. See 17 CFR 242.612.
    \11\ See Exchange Rule 11.23. The Closing Auction for any BATS
listed security will occur at 4:00 p.m. EST on each day when the
Exchange is open for business. The Exchange's Closing Auction
establishes the Closing Auction price by determining the price level
that maximizes the number of shares of eligible interest that can be
executed, subject to certain price collars.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Under Proposed Exchange Rule 11.19(b)(3), ``Determination of
Trigger Price,'' the Exchange will continuously compare each execution
by the System with the BATS Official Closing Price \12\ and alert the
single plan processor \13\ when a Trigger Price has been reached.\14\
The single plan processor will then disseminate a notice to market
participants in accordance with procedures established by the single
plan processor. When the single plan processor disseminates such
notice, the Exchange will systematically apply the short sale price
test restriction for short sale orders in the covered security in the
manner described in Proposed Exchange Rule 11.19(b)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ Under Proposed Rule 11.19(b)(3)(B), if a covered security
did not trade on the Exchange on the prior trading day (due to a
trading halt, trading suspension, or otherwise), the Exchange's
determination of the Trigger Price shall be based on the last sale
price on the Exchange for that security on the most recent day on
which the security traded. See also Division of Trading and Markets:
Responses to Frequently Asked Questions Concerning Rule 201 of
Regulation SHO, Q&A No. 3.1.
    \13\ See 17 CFR 242.201(a)(6).
    \14\ See Rule 201(b)(3) of Regulation SHO. See Division of
Trading and Markets: Responses to Frequently Asked Questions
Concerning Rule 201 of Regulation SHO, Q&A No. 1.1 (explaining
calculation of the Trigger Price).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Under Proposed Exchange Rule 11.19(b)(4), ``Duration of Short Sale
Price Test,'' once triggered, the short sale price test restriction
shall remain in effect until the next trading day when a national best
bid for the covered security is calculated and disseminated on a
current and continuing basis by a plan processor pursuant to an effect
[sic] national market system [sic],\15\ as provided for in Regulation
SHO Rule 201(b)(1)(ii) (the ``Short Sale Period''). There are two
exceptions in the proposed rule.\16\ First, if the Exchange determines
pursuant to Proposed Exchange Rule 11.19(b)(4)(A) that the short sale
price test restriction for a covered security was triggered because of
a clearly erroneous execution,\17\ the Exchange may lift the short sale
price test restriction before the Short Sale Period ends for covered
securities for which the Exchange is the listing market.\18\ The
Exchange also proposes to include language in Exchange Rule
11.19(b)(4)(A) to provide that the Exchange may also lift the short
sale price test restrictions before the Short Sale Period ends, for
covered securities for which the Exchange is the listing market, if the
Exchange has been informed by another exchange or self-regulatory
organization (``SRO'') that a transaction in the covered security that
occurred at the Trigger Price was a clearly erroneous execution, as
determined by that exchange or SRO under its rules.\19\ Second, if the
Exchange determines pursuant to Proposed Exchange Rule 11.19(b)(4)(B)
that the prior day's closing price for a covered security is incorrect
in the System and resulted in an incorrect determination of the Trigger
Price, the Exchange may correct the prior day's BATS Official Closing
Price and lift the short sale price test restriction before the Short
Sale Period ends.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ See 17 CFR 242.201(b)(1)(ii). See also Division of Trading
and Markets: Responses to Frequently Asked Questions Concerning Rule
201 of Regulation SHO, Q&A No. 2.1.
    \16\ If the price of a covered security declines intra-day by at
least 10% on a day on which the security is already subject to the
short sale price test restriction of Rule 201, the restriction will
be re-triggered and, therefore, will continue in effect for the
remainder of that day and the following day. See Adopting Release,
75 FR at 11253, n. 290. In addition, Rule 201 does not place any
limit on the frequency or number of times the circuit breaker can be
re-triggered with respect to a particular stock. See Division of
Trading and Markets: Responses to Frequently Asked Questions
Concerning Rule 201 of Regulation SHO, Q&A No. 2.2.
    \17\ See Exchange Rule 11.17, which sets forth the standards for
determining when a trade is ``clearly erroneous.'' The terms of a
transaction executed on the Exchange are ``clearly erroneous'' when
there is an obvious error in any term, such as price, number of
shares or other unit of trading, or identification of the security.
A transaction made in clearly erroneous error and cancelled by both
parties or determined by the Exchange to be clearly erroneous will
be removed from the consolidated tape.
    \18\ See 17 CFR 242.201(a)(3).
    \19\ The Exchange will only lift the short sale price test
restrictions before the Short Sale Period ends under these
circumstances when informed by another exchange or SRO that a
triggering transaction has been determined to be a clearly erroneous
execution under the rules of the exchange or SRO, consistent with
the authority of that exchange or SRO for making such
determinations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed language for Exchange Rule 11.19(b) is substantively
identical to paragraphs (a) through (d) of Rule 4763 of the rules of
The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC (``Nasdaq''), paragraphs (a) through (d) of
Rule 440B of the rules of the New York Stock Exchange, LLC (``NYSE'')
and sub-paragraphs (i) through (iv) of Rule 7.16(f) of the rules of
NYSE Arca Equities, Inc. (``NYSE Arca''). The Exchange has separately
adopted rules implementing other aspects related to the amendments to
Regulation SHO, which are described in the remainder of Nasdaq Rule
4763, NYSE Rule 440B and NYSE Arca Rule 7.16.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ See supra note 6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with the
requirements of the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder that
are applicable to a national securities exchange, and, in particular,
with the requirements of Section 6(b) of the Act.\21\ In particular,
the proposal is consistent with Section 6(b)(5) of the Act,\22\ because
it would promote just and equitable principles of trade. Regulation
SHO, among other purposes, was implemented to help to strengthen
investor confidence in the markets and, thus, was intended to enhance
and promote capital formation.\23\ The Exchange believes that the
proposed rule promotes just and equitable principles of trade in that
it implements rules adopted by the Commission in

Regulation SHO under the Act. The proposed rule change is also
consistent with Section 11A(a)(1) of the Act \24\ in that it seeks to
assure fair competition among brokers and dealers and exchange
markets.\25\ The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change
promotes just and equitable principles of trade in that it promotes
uniformity across listing markets concerning the application of
Regulation SHO, as amended.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \22\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
    \23\ The Commission notes that Rule 201 of Regulation SHO was
adopted to prevent short selling, including potentially manipulative
or abusive short selling, from driving down further the price of a
security that has already experienced a significant intra-day price
decline, facilitate the ability of long sellers to sell first upon
such a decline and address erosions in investor confidence.
    \24\ 15 U.S.C. 78k-1(a)(1).
    \25\ See supra note 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

(B) Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change imposes
any burden on competition.

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

    The Exchange has neither solicited nor received written comments on
the proposed rule change.

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

    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) of the Act \26\ and Rule 19b-
4(f)(6)(iii) thereunder.\27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \27\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A proposed rule change filed under Rule 19b-4(f)(6) normally does
not become operative for 30 days after the date of filing. However,
Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii) permits the Commission to designate a shorter
time if such action is consistent with the protection of investors and
the public interest. The Commission believes that waiving the 30-day
operative delay is consistent with the protection of investors and the
public interest.\28\ The Commission notes the proposal is substantially
similar to and based on the rules of other exchanges,\29\ and does not
raise any new regulatory issues. In addition, the Exchange's operation
as a listing market for certain securities requires it to comply with
the provisions of Rule 201 of Regulation SHO. Codification within the
Exchange's rules of the provisions of Rule 201 of Regulation SHO as
described above will help to avoid any confusion regarding the
Exchange's status as a listing market, including, but not limited to,
the manner in which the Exchange calculates the Trigger Price and the
Exchange's ability to lift a Short Sale Price Test in the event it was
triggered by a clearly erroneous execution. Accordingly, waiver of the
operative delay will help to ensure uniformity across listing markets
concerning the application of Rule 201 of Regulation SHO. For these
reasons, the Commission designates the proposed rule change as
operative upon filing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ For purposes only of waiving the 30-day operative delay,
the Commission has also considered the proposed rule's impact on
efficiency, competition, and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C.
78c(f).
    \29\ See, e.g., Nasdaq Rule 4763(a)-(d); NYSE Rule 440B(a)-(d);
NYSE Arca Rule 7.16(f)(i)-(iv).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File No. SR-BATS-2012-019 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File No. SR-BATS-2012-019. 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 changes 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 will also be available
for inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All
comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does
not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should
submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All
submissions should refer to File No. SR-BATS-2012-019 and should be
submitted on or before July 5, 2012.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\30\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \30\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-14405 Filed 6-12-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 195 (Tuesday, October 9, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 50723-50726]
[FR Doc No: 2018-21906]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-84354; File No. SR-BX-2018-042]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Nasdaq BX, Inc.; Notice of Filing
and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Align Existing
Investigatory and Disciplinary Processes and Related Rules With the
Investigatory and Disciplinary Processes and Related Rules of Nasdaq
PHLX LLC

October 3, 2018.
    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 September 21, 2018, Nasdaq BX, Inc. (``BX'' or ``Exchange'') filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'') the
proposed rule change as described in Items I and II below, which Items
have been prepared by the 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 a proposal [sic] to align its existing
investigatory and disciplinary processes and related rules with the
investigatory and disciplinary processes and related rules of Nasdaq
PHLX LLC (``Phlx'').
    The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's
website at http://nasdaqbx.cchwallstreet.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 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
    BX proposes to amend certain of its rules to align its existing
investigatory and disciplinary processes and related rules with the
investigatory and disciplinary processes and related rules of Phlx. BX
notes that Phlx amended its rules recently to adopt an investigatory
and disciplinary process identical in all material respects to the
investigatory and disciplinary processes of Nasdaq, Inc. and BX.\3\ The
amendment also vested the Phlx Regulation Department with the same
authority proposed herein. The Exchange therefore proposes the below
changes to the 8000 and 9000 Series of the BX Rules in order to conform
its rules to those of Phlx 8000 and 9000 Series rules in all
respects.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 82143 (November 22,
2017), 82 FR 56672 (November 29, 2017) (Notice of Filing and
Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Adopt
Investigatory and Disciplinary Processes Substantially Similar to
Nasdaq BX, Inc. and The Nasdaq Stock Market LLC for Phlx, which,
among other things, similarly enabled Phlx to retain discretion to
perform these functions).
    \4\ The Exchange notes that the Financial Industry Regulatory
Authority (``FINRA'') amended its rules recently to reflect an
internal reorganization of FINRA's Enforcement Operations. See
Securities Exchange Act Release No. 83781 (August 6, 2018), 83 FR
39802 (August 10, 2018). In July 2017, FINRA announced its plan to
consolidate its existing enforcement functions into a unified
Department of Enforcement. FINRA's recent rule change makes
technical and other non-substantive changes to FINRA Rules 9000
Series Code of Procedure (the ``Code'') to reflect the single
Department of Enforcement. The rule change removed references to the
Market Regulation department, its head and employees from the Code
where those references reflect the previously separate Market
Regulation enforcement function. In light of FINRA's reorganization,
the Exchange is likewise removing references to the Market
Regulation department, its head and employees from the Code, and re-
lettering the remainder of those sections where such re-lettering is
necessary (i.e. Rule 9120). Phlx will also submit a similar rule
filing to remove those references in due course.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Definition of Exchange Regulation
    The Exchange proposes to revise the definition of [sic] BX Current
Rule 9120(w) (``Exchange's Regulation Department'') to expressly
include the Exchange's Enforcement Department. The Exchange's
Enforcement Department is specifically charged with pursuing
disciplinary action against members, persons associated with a member,
and persons subject to the Exchange's jurisdiction, in addition to
FINRA's departments of Enforcement and Market Regulation.
    Similarly, the Exchange proposes to add references to the
``Exchange's Regulation Department'' in BX Current Rule 9120(aa)
(definition of the term ``Party''). The Exchange also proposes to add a
definition for the term ``Party'' as used in the BX Rule 9400
series,\5\ and to add references to ``FINRA'' in BX Current Rule
9120(aa)(4) to clarify that FINRA falls under the definition of
``Party'' as used in the BX Rule 9550 series. In addition, the Exchange
is adding references to the Exchange's Regulation Department throughout
the BX Rule 8000 and 9000 series.\6\ These amendments will conform the
text of BX 8000 and 9000 rules to those of Phlx.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ The Exchange notes that, like Phlx, it is likewise including
the Department of Enforcement as a potential party to a matter under
the Rule 9400 Series. The Exchange believes that including these
departments in Rule 9400 Series is appropriate because they may be
involved in the initiation of such a matter for BX currently. The
Exchange is also adding FINRA to other parts of Rule 9400 where it
is appropriate to show that FINRA may be the entity that initiated
an action under the rule.
    \6\ See BX Current Rules 9120, 9212, 9213, 9215, 9216, 9251,
9253, 9264, 9269, 9270, 9311, 9400, 9810, 9820, 9830, and 9840.
    \7\ The Exchange is also amending Current BX Rule 9120(aa)(2),
to align that rule text with FINRA's recent rule change. The term
``Party'' when used in the Rule 9520 Series, now means FINRA's
Department of Enforcement, rather than Member Regulation. See
Securities Exchange Act Release No. 83781 (August 6, 2018), 83 FR
39802 (August 10, 2018).

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

Role of FINRA
    The Exchange proposes to add rule text to certain rules to clarify
that FINRA may act on behalf of the Exchange. Today, FINRA is empowered
to act on behalf of the Exchange.\8\ The revisions to these rules will
therefore clarify FINRA's authority as it currently exists today.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See BX Current Rule 8001 (``The Exchange and FINRA are
parties to the FINRA Regulatory Contract pursuant to which FINRA has
agreed to perform certain functions described in these rules on
behalf of the Exchange. Exchange rules that refer to the Exchange's
Regulation Department, Exchange Regulation staff, Exchange staff,
and Exchange departments should be understood as also referring to
FINRA staff and FINRA departments acting on behalf of the Exchange
pursuant to the FINRA Regulatory Contract.'').
    \9\ See BX Current Rules 9400, 9522, 9552, 9553, 9554, 9555,
9556, 9557, and 9558. The Exchange notes that FINRA currently
performs the functions described in these rules. The proposed
changes further clarify that in the rule text.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Jurisdiction
    The Exchange proposes to replace the current rule text related to
jurisdiction of BX to initiate disciplinary actions with text
substantially similar to the Phlx's jurisdiction rule text. Current BX
Rules 1012(h) \10\ and 1031(f) \11\ permit a disciplinary action to be
brought within two years after the effective date of resignation,
cancellation, or revocation of a member or associated person. The
current BX provisions are more limited than Phlx's jurisdictional
language. Phlx Rule 9110(d) does not contain a time limit on when a
matter may be brought against a member or associated person following
its termination or deregistration, so long as the Exchange serves
written notice within one year of receipt by the Exchange of notice of
such termination or deregistration that the Exchange is making inquiry
into a matter or matters which occurred prior to the termination of
such person's status as a member or associated person.\12\ The
substantive amendment with respect to jurisdiction is with the
timeframe for bringing a disciplinary action against a member or
associated person. The proposed rule expands the timeframe.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ A resigned Exchange member or an Exchange member that has
had its membership canceled or revoked shall continue to be subject
to the filing of a complaint under the Rules of the Exchange based
upon conduct that commenced prior to the effective date of the
Exchange member's resignation from the Exchange or the cancellation
or revocation of its membership. Any such complaint, however, shall
be filed within two years after the effective date of resignation,
cancellation, or revocation.
    \11\ A person whose association with an Exchange member has been
terminated and who is no longer associated with any member of the
Exchange or a person whose registration has been revoked or canceled
shall continue to be subject to the filing of a complaint under the
Rules of the Exchange based upon conduct which commenced prior to
the termination, revocation, or cancellation or upon such person's
failure, while subject to the Exchange's jurisdiction as provided
herein, to provide information requested by the Exchange pursuant to
the Rules of the Exchange, but any such complaint shall be filed
within: (A) Two years after the effective date of termination of
registration pursuant to subsection (c); provided, however, that any
amendment to a notice of termination filed pursuant to paragraph
(c)(2) that is filed within two years of the original notice that
discloses that such person may have engaged in conduct actionable
under any applicable statute, rule, or regulation shall operate to
recommence the running of the two-year period under this subsection;
(B) two years after the effective date of revocation or cancellation
of registration pursuant to the Rules of the Exchange; or (C) in the
case of an unregistered person, within two years after the date upon
which such person ceased to be associated with the Exchange member.
    A person whose association with a member has been terminated and
is no longer associated with any Exchange member shall continue to
be subject to a proceeding to suspend, consistent with Section 12.2
of the Exchange By-Laws, his or her ability to associate with a
member based on such person's failure to comply with an arbitration
award or a written and executed settlement agreement obtained in
connection with an arbitration or mediation submitted for
disposition pursuant to the Rules of the Exchange, provided that
such proceeding is instituted within two years after the date of
entry of such award or settlement.
    \12\ Any member or any partner, officer, director or person
employed by or associated with any member (the Respondent) who is
alleged to have violated or aided and abetted a violation of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (Exchange Act), the rules and
regulations thereunder, the By-Laws and Rules of the Exchange or any
interpretation thereof, and the Rules, Regulations, resolutions and
stated policies of the Board of Directors or any Committee of the
Exchange, shall be subject to the disciplinary jurisdiction of the
Exchange, and after notice and opportunity for a hearing may be
appropriately disciplined by expulsion, suspension, fine, censure,
limitation or termination as to activities, functions, operations,
or association with a member organization, or any other fitting
sanction in accordance with the provisions of these disciplinary
Rules.
    An individual member, or a partner, officer, director or person
employed by or associated with a member may be charged with any
violation within the disciplinary jurisdiction of the Exchange
committed by employees under his supervision or by the member with
which he is associated, as though such violations were his own. A
member may be charged with any violation within the disciplinary
jurisdiction of the Exchange committed by its officers, directors,
or employees or by a member or other person who is associated with
such member, as though such violation were its own.
    Any member, or any partner, officer, director, or person
employed by or associated with a member organization, and any member
organization shall continue to be subject to the disciplinary
jurisdiction of the Exchange following the termination of such
person's permit or the termination of the employment by or the
association with a member organization of such member or partner,
officer, director or person, or following the deregistration of a
member organization from the Exchange; provided, that the Exchange
serves written notice to such former member, partner, officer,
director, employee, associated person or member organization within
one year of receipt by the Exchange of notice of such termination or
deregistration that the Exchange is making inquiry into a matter or
matters which occurred prior to the termination of such person's
status as a member, or as a partner, officer, director or person
employed by or associated with a member organization, or prior to
the deregistration of such member organization.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The amendment to expand jurisdiction will not apply retroactively
and any complaints not filed within the existing two year time-period
will be time-barred. The new jurisdiction rule will only apply to the
applicable members or associated persons who terminate with the
Exchange on or after October 15, 2018.
    The Exchange also proposes to eliminate the rule text contained
within BX Current Rules 1012(h) and 1031(f) and reserve those sections.
Interested Staff Definition
    The definition of Interested Staff is being conformed to Phlx's
definition and includes references to Exchange and FINRA employees as
those terms are proposed to be defined.\13\ The proposed BX definition
better defines who falls within the category of Interested Staff
without substantively amending the definition. At this time, BX's
proposal mirrors the Phlx definition, except insofar as BX's proposal
omits references to FINRA's Department of Market Regulation for the
reasons set forth in footnote 6 above.\14\ The Exchange also notes that
it is removing the words ``a district director or'' from BX Current
Rules 9120(t)(1)(D), 9120(t)(2)(D), and 9120(t)(3)(D) because there is
no such position at the Exchange. The use of those words in the current
definition refers to the individual to whom a FINRA employee may
report. Those words are therefore being preserved as they relate to
FINRA in Proposed BX New Rules 9120(r)(1)(H), 9120(r)(2)(E),
9120(4)(3)(E), and 9120(4)(r)(F).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ As noted in n.6 above, the Exchange is, however, omitting
references to FINRA's Department of Market Regulation in light of
FINRA's recent rule filing that similarly omitted references to its
Department of Market Regulation.
    \14\ The Exchange notes that it is adopting a more comprehensive
definition of ``Interested Staff'' under BX Current Rule 9120(t) to
align it with the definition used by Phlx. Specifically, the
Exchange is adopting new text that accounts for the role of the
Exchange's Regulation Department, including the involvement of
employees thereof. Thus, the proposed new definition will include
all individuals that should be considered as ``Interested Staff''
for purposes of the BX Rule 9000 Series.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Other Non-Substantive and Technical Amendments
    The Exchange proposes to add a sentence within Current BX Rule
9270(e)(2), similar to Phlx, to add more

specificity to this rule and make clear that the Office of Disciplinary
Affairs may accept an offer of settlement and order of acceptance or
refer them to the Exchange Review Council. The Exchange notes that
today the Office of Disciplinary Affairs may accept an offer of
settlement and order of acceptance or refer them to the Exchange Review
Council, so this language is intended to clarify the current practice
under the rule.
    The Exchange also proposes to make certain technical amendments
throughout these rules to: (i) Amend ``NASD'' to the updated name
``FINRA'' \15\; (ii) replace ``Association'' with ``FINRA'' \16\; (iii)
update certain incorrect cross-references to both FINRA and Nasdaq rule
citations \17\; (iv) add rule text in certain rules to conform the rule
text of BX to Phlx \18\; (v) include the phrase ``or person'' in
various places throughout the rule to make it clear that inclusion of
the person associated with a member is applicable \19\; and correct
typographical errors.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ See BX Current Rules 8110 and 9120(f).
    \16\ See BX Current Rules 9558(a), 9558(a)(2), and 9610(a).
    \17\ See BX Current Rules 9231(c) and 9331(a)(2).
    \18\ See BX Current Rules IM-8310-3, 9211(a)(1)-(2), and
9270(e)(2).
    \19\ See BX Current Rules 9552(b), 9553(b), 9554(b), 9555(b),
and 9556(e).
    \20\ See BX Current Rules 9215(f), 9523(a)(4) and 9554(a).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section
6(b) of the Act,\21\ in general, and furthers the objectives of Section
6(b)(5) of the Act,\22\ in particular, in that it is 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. In addition, the Exchange believes that the proposed rule
changes [sic] further the objectives of Section 6(b)(7) of the Act,\23\
in particular, in that these changes provide for fair procedures for
the disciplining of members and persons associated with members, the
denial of membership to any person seeking membership therein, the
barring of any person from becoming associated with a member thereof,
and the prohibition or limitation by the Exchange of any person with
respect to access to services offered by the Exchange or a member
thereof.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \22\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
    \23\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(7).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, the Exchange believes that the proposed rule changes
are consistent with Section 6(b)(6) of the Act,\24\ which requires the
rules of an exchange provide that its members be appropriately
disciplined for violations of the Act as well as the rules and
regulations thereunder, or the rules of the 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that the proposed changes are consistent with
these requirements because the changes further harmonize BX's
investigative and adjudicatory processes with similar processes used by
Phlx. The new processes are well-established as fair and designed to
protect investors and the public interest. Because the Exchange is
conforming the BX rule text to the Phlx rule text to eliminate any
differences (except for those noted herein), the Exchange believes that
the proposed changes should facilitate prompt, appropriate, and
effective discipline of members and their associated persons consistent
with the Act. The Exchange believes that adding references to the
Exchange's Regulation Department within the 8000 and 9000 BX Series
rules as described in this proposal clarifies the involvement that the
Exchange's Regulation Department plays in the investigation and
enforcement of BX's disciplinary rules. In addition, the Exchange
believes that adding references to FINRA within the 8000 and 9000 BX
Series rules as described in this proposal brings greater transparency
to its rules and clarifies the process as it exists today. Today, FINRA
is empowered to act on behalf of the Exchange.\25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ See BX Current Rule 8001.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that harmonizing the rule text of the
investigative and adjudicatory processes with those of Phlx will reduce
the burden on members and their associated persons as they only will
need to be familiar with a single rule set going forward. Because the
substance of the rules would remain unchanged, the Exchange believes
that the proposed change would continue to provide fair procedures for
the suspending and disciplining of members and associated persons, the
denial of membership to any person seeking membership therein, the
barring of any person from becoming associated with a member thereof,
and the prohibition or limitation by the Exchange of any person with
respect to access to services offered by the Exchange or a member
thereof.
    The Exchange's proposal to replace the current rule text related to
jurisdiction of BX to initiate disciplinary actions with text
substantially similar to the Phlx's jurisdiction rule text will permit
the Exchange to initiate a disciplinary action beyond two years after
the effective date of the member's or associated person's termination
with the Exchange. This provision would not apply retroactively, but
would permit the Exchange to bring actions after the effective date of
termination, so long as the Exchange serves written notice within one
year of receipt by the Exchange of notice of such termination that the
Exchange is making inquiry into a matter or matters which occurred
prior to the termination of status as a member or associated person.
The Exchange believes that this provision will provide the Exchange
with the same latitude as Phlx to bring actions against its members and
associated persons for violations of its rule. The Exchange believes
that it is consistent with the Act to provide the Exchange with the
ability to initiate violations for members and their associated persons
for violations which took place while these members and associated
persons were members of the Exchange. The rule change will better
protect investors and the public interest by allowing actions to
proceed that may otherwise have been time barred under the old rule.
    The Exchange's proposal to amend the definition of Interested Staff
will conform BX's definition to Phlx's definition, except insofar as
BX's proposal omits references to FINRA's Department of Market
Regulation for the reasons set forth in footnote 6 above. The Exchange
believes that it is consistent with the Act because the definition
better defines who falls within the category of Interested Staff
without substantively amending the definition.
    Finally, making technical amendments in BX Rules 8110, IM-8310-3,
9120, 9211, 9231, 9270, 9331, 9522, 9523, 9552, 9553, 9554, 9555, 9556,
9558, and 9610 removes impediments to and perfects the mechanism of a
free and open market by removing confusion that may result from having
incorrect or incomplete material in the Exchange's rulebook.
    The Exchange believes that its proposal furthers the objectives of
Section 6(b)(7) of the Act,\26\ in that it is designed to provide a
fair procedure for the disciplining of members and persons associated
with members, the denial of membership to any person

seeking membership therein, the barring of any person from becoming
associated with a member thereof, and the prohibition or limitation by
the exchange of any person with respect to access to services offered
by the exchange or a member thereof. Specifically, the Exchange
believes that the proposed investigatory and disciplinary process is
consistent with Section 6(b)(7) of the Act \27\ because it is based on
the existing processes used by Phlx.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(7).
    \27\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 proposed rule change is
intended to more clearly align the text of Phlx's and the Exchange's
rules. Specifically and as described in detail above, the Exchange
believes that this change will bring efficiency and consistency to the
investigative and adjudicatory processes, thereby reducing the burden
on members and their associated persons who are also members of Phlx.

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

    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 \28\ and
subparagraph (f)(6) of Rule 19b-4 thereunder.\29\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(iii).
    \29\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A proposed rule change filed under Rule 19b-4(f)(6) \30\ normally
does not become operative prior to 30 days after the date of the
filing. However, pursuant to Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii),\31\ the Commission
may designate a shorter time if such action is consistent with the
protection of investors and the public interest. The Exchange has asked
the Commission to waive the 30-day operative delay so the Exchange may
immediately amend its disciplinary rules to conform to Phlx's
disciplinary process. The Exchange states that the proposed amendment
to expand its current jurisdiction will not apply retroactively and any
complaints not filed within the existing two-year time period will be
time-barred. The Exchange further states that its new jurisdiction rule
will only apply to applicable members or associated persons who
terminate their membership or association on October 15, 2018 or
thereafter. The Commission believes that waiving the 30-day operative
delay is consistent with the protection of investors and the public
interest as it will allow BX to conform its disciplinary rules to those
of Phlx. In addition, the proposal does not present any novel issues.
Therefore, the Commission hereby waives the operative delay and
designates the proposal as operative upon filing.\32\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \30\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
    \31\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii).
    \32\ For purposes only of waving the 30-day operative delay, the
Commission has considered the purposed rule's impact on efficiency,
competition, and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 protected]. Please include
File Number SR-BX-2018-042 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-BX-2018-042. 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-BX-2018-042 and should be submitted on
or before October 30, 2018.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \33\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\33\
Eduardo A. Aleman,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2018-21906 Filed 10-5-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 230 (Tuesday, December 1, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 75099-75100]
[FR Doc No: 2015-30372]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[FRL-9939-40-OAR]

Stratospheric Protection Division; Teleconference on the Clean
Air Act Section 608 Technician Certification Program Test Bank

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of Section 608 Technician Certification Program Test
Bank teleconference.

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

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that the Stratospheric Protection
Division will hold a public teleconference on December 9, 2015 on the
Section 608 Technician Certification Test Bank. The teleconference will
be an opportunity for stakeholders and members of the public to provide
feedback on updating Test Bank questions. For further information
regarding the teleconference, please contact Robert Burchard at the
number and email below.

DATES: The Stratospheric Protection Division will hold a public
teleconference on December 9, 2015 from 1 p.m. to 3 p.m. Eastern
Standard Time.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    Background: Under the authority of Section 608 of the Clean Air Act
(CAA) of 1990, as amended, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
established a technician certification program for persons
(``technicians'') who perform maintenance, service, repair, or disposal
activities on appliances (with some enumerated exceptions) that could
be

reasonably expected to release refrigerants from those appliances into
the atmosphere. This program was established in regulations at 40 CFR
part 82, subpart F. Under these regulations, at 40 CFR 82.152, the
definition of ``technician'' specifically includes activities as
follows:
     Attaching and detaching hoses and gauges to and from the
appliance to measure pressure within the appliance;
     adding refrigerant to or removing refrigerant from the
appliance; and
     any other activity that is reasonably expected to violate
the integrity of the refrigerant circuit.
    The Agency has four types of certification:
     For servicing small appliances (Type I).
     For servicing or disposing of high- or very high-pressure
appliances, except small appliances and motor vehicle air conditioning
systems (Type II).
     For servicing or disposing of low-pressure appliances
(Type III).
     For servicing all types of equipment (Universal).
    Technicians are required to pass a test given by an EPA-approved
certifying organization to become certified under the program. EPA
requires that all test questions come from its Test Bank.
    Purpose of Meeting: The teleconference will be an opportunity for
stakeholders and members of the public to provide feedback on updating
Test Bank questions.
    General Information: The agenda and materials are posted at
Eventbrite. Go to: https://www.eventbrite.com/e/test-bank-teleconference-tickets-19478479657. The event is: ``Test Bank
Teleconference,'' Washingtonn DC, Wednesday December 9, 11:00 a.m.
    Meeting Access: For information on access or services for
individuals with disabilities, please contact Robert Burchard at (202)
343-9126 or email at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
Drusilla Hufford,
Director, Stratospheric Protection Division.
[FR Doc. 2015-30372 Filed 11-30-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P