[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 223 (Thursday, November 19, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 72460-72465]
[FR Doc No: 2015-29488]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-76436; File No. SR-NYSE-2015-35]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; New York Stock Exchange LLC;
Notice of Filing of Amendment Nos. 3 and 5 and Order Granting
Accelerated Approval of a Proposed Rule Change, as Modified by
Amendment Nos. 1, 3 and 5, Amending Exchange Disciplinary Rules To
Facilitate the Reintegration of Certain Regulatory Functions From
Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc.

November 13, 2015.

I. Introduction

    On August 5, 2015, New York Stock Exchange LLC (``NYSE'' or
``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') pursuant

to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (``Act'')
\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ a proposed rule change amending its
disciplinary rules to facilitate the reintegration of certain
regulatory functions from Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc.
(``FINRA''). On August 14, 2015, the Exchange filed Amendment No. 1 to
the proposed rule change, which amended and replaced the proposed rule
change in its entirety. The proposed rule change, as modified by
Amendment No. 1, was published in the Federal Register on August 24,
2015.\3\ On October 6, 2015, the Exchange filed Amendment No. 2 to the
proposal.\4\ On October 7, 2015, the Commission extended the time
period in which to either approve the proposal, disapprove the
proposal, or institute proceedings to determine whether to approve or
disapprove the proposal, to November 22, 2015.\5\ On October 8, 2015,
the Exchange filed Amendment No. 3 to the proposed rule change, which
amended and replaced Amendment No. 2 in its entirety.\6\ On October 28,
2015 and November 6, 2015, the Exchange filed Amendment Nos. 4 \7\ and
5,\8\ respectively, to the proposed rule change. Amendment No. 5
superseded Amendment No. 4 in its entirety. The Commission received no
comments on the proposed rule change. The Commission is publishing this
notice to solicit comment on this filing as amended by Amendment Nos. 3
and 5 from interested persons, and is approving the proposed rule
change, as modified by Amendment Nos. 1, 3 and 5, on an accelerated
basis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 19s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 75721 (August 18,
2015), 80 FR 51334 (``Notice'').
    \4\ In Amendment No. 2, the Exchange revised proposed NYSE Rules
9216, 9270 and 9310 to allow any Director or member of the Committee
for Review (``CFR'') to require a review by the Board of any
determination or penalty, or both, imposed in connection with an
Acceptance, Waiver, and Consent (``AWC'') letter or offer of
settlement determined to be uncontested before a hearing on the
merits has begun pursuant to Rules 9216 and 9270, respectively. The
Exchange also amended its proposed rules to permit any party to
require review by the Board of any rejection by the Chief Regulatory
Officer (``CRO'') of an AWC letter or offer of settlement determined
to be uncontested before a hearing on the merits has begun. The
Exchange further amended Rule 9310(a)(2) to provide that the
transmission of the record of a disciplinary proceeding applied only
to review of determinations made or penalties imposed by a Hearing
Panel or Extended Hearing Panel, and not to determination made or
penalties imposed pursuant to an AWC letter or an offer of
settlement determined to be uncontested before a hearing on the
merits has begun as no hearing record would exist. Finally, the
Exchange also amended proposed Rule 9120(t), Interested Staff, to
reflect that the terms ``Regulatory Staff'' and ``Exchange Staff''
have the same meaning for purposes of the 8000 and 9000 series as
defined in proposed Rule 9120(x), Regulatory Staff. The amendment
makes clear that ``Interested Staff'' encompasses any staff of the
Exchange or FINRA that directly or indirectly participated in any
proceeding brought under the Code of Procedure, not just Regulatory
Staff. The Exchange further represented that the proposed definition
of ``Interested Staff'' is not intended to substantively amend the
rule and would encompass all staff referenced in and covered by the
current definition.
    \5\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 76088, 80 FR 61857
(October 14, 2015).
    \6\ In Amendment No. 3, the Exchange restated Amendment No. 2
and made the following changes: (i) Clarified in its discussion that
proposed NYSE Rule 9310(a)(2) would apply to a review of a
determination or penalty imposed by a Hearing Panel or Extended
Hearing Panel, (ii) made a technical change to its rule text to
harmonize its Exhibits 4 and 5, and (iii) amended proposed NYSE Rule
9310(a) to reflect rule text recently approved in NYSE-2015-27. See
Securities Exchange Act Release No. 75991 (September 28, 2015), 80
FR 59837 (October 2, 2015) (``NYSE ROC Filing''). The Commission
recently approved the Exchange's filing to, among other things,
establish a Regulatory Oversight Committee (``ROC''); terminate the
agreement delegating regulatory functions to NYSE Regulation, Inc.
(``NYSE Regulation''); and establish a CFR modeled on the current
NYSE Regulation Board committee as a subcommittee of the ROC.
    \7\ In Amendment No. 4, the Exchange clarified the call for
review process between January 1, 2016, when the proposed amendments
to Rule 9216, 9270, and 9310 would be effective, if approved, and
the termination of the delegation agreement and creation of the
NYSE's ROC and CFR. The Exchange represented that the NYSE ROC and
CFR would be created and the delegation agreement terminated no
later than June 1, 2016. The Exchange further represented that it
would be able to operate consistent with its proposed call for
review process in proposed Rule 9310. Prior to the termination of
the delegation agreement, a member of NYSE Regulation's CFR could
call a matter for review. A matter called for review would be heard
by the current NYSE Regulation's CFR and would be considered final
action of the Exchange and could not be appealed to the Exchange
Board. After the termination of the delegation agreement, a member
of NYSE's CFR would have the authority to call a matter for review.
    \8\ In Amendment No. 5, the Exchange substantially restated
Amendment No. 4, but further clarified that prior to the termination
of the delegation agreement, the NYSE Regulation's CFR would be
acting on behalf of the Exchange's Board of Directors and any
decision would be considered final action of the Exchange. The
Exchange also deleted the final sentence of Amendment No. 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Description of the Proposal \9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ A full description of the proposed rule change may be found
in the Notice, supra note 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange proposes to amend its disciplinary rules to permit the
reintegration of certain regulatory functions from FINRA as of January
1, 2016.

A. Background of the Proposed Rule Change

    On June 14, 2010, the NYSE, NYSE Regulation and FINRA entered into
a Regulatory Services Agreement (``RSA''), whereby FINRA was retained
to perform the market surveillance and enforcement functions that had
previously been performed by NYSE, through its wholly-owned subsidiary
NYSE Regulation. Pursuant to the RSA, FINRA has been performing
Exchange enforcement-related regulatory services, including
investigating and bringing enforcement actions for violations of
Exchange rules, and conducting disciplinary proceedings arising out of
such enforcement actions, including those relating to NYSE-only rules
and against dual members and non-FINRA members. To facilitate FINRA's
performance of these functions, the Exchange amended its rules to
provide that Exchange rules that refer to NYSE Regulation or its staff,
Exchange staff, and Exchange departments should be understood to also
refer to FINRA staff and FINRA departments acting on behalf of the
Exchange pursuant to the RSA.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See NYSE Rule 0. References to NYSE Regulation and its
staff were removed from NYSE Rule 0 as part of the NYSE ROC Filing.
See NYSE ROC Filing, supra note 6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In 2013, the Exchange adopted new disciplinary rules that are, with
certain exceptions, substantially the same as the FINRA Rule 8000
Series and Rule 9000 Series, which set forth rules for conducting
investigations and enforcement actions.\11\ Those rules were
implemented on July 1, 2013,\12\ and, among other things, the rules:
(i) Identify FINRA's Department of Enforcement and Department of Market
Regulation as the departments permitted to commence disciplinary
proceedings, when authorized by FINRA's Office of Disciplinary Affairs
(``ODA''); (ii) identify ODA as the office permitted to accept or
reject an AWC or minor rule violation plan letter on behalf of the
Board; and (iii) identify ODA as the office permitted to accept or
reject an offer of settlement if not opposed by FINRA's Department of
Enforcement or Department of Market Regulation. Those rules do not,
however, specify whether Exchange staff or departments may perform the
functions described in the rules.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 68678 (January 16,
2013), 78 FR 5213 (January 24, 2013) (SR-NYSE-2013-02), 69045 (March
5, 2013), 78 FR 15394 (March 11, 2013) (SR-NYSE-2013-02), and 69963
(July 10, 2013), 78 FR 42573 (July 16, 2013) (SR-NYSE-2013-49).
    \12\ See NYSE Information Memorandum 13-8 (May 24, 2013).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In October 2014, the Exchange announced that, upon expiration of
the current RSA on December 31, 2015, certain market surveillance,
investigation and enforcement functions performed by FINRA on behalf of
the Exchange would be reintegrated.\13\

Therefore, effective January 1, 2016, the Exchange would perform
certain of the market surveillance, investigation and enforcement
functions FINRA was retained to perform in 2010. According to the
Exchange, the proposed changes to the disciplinary rules in the present
filing are necessary to permit the Exchange to perform these functions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ According to the Exchange, it anticipates that FINRA, under
a new RSA currently being negotiated, would continue to conduct,
inter alia, the registration, testing and examination of broker-
dealer members of the Exchange, and certain cross-market
surveillance and related investigation and enforcement activities.
See Notice, supra note 3, at n.9.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Proposal

    The Exchange proposes the following changes to facilitate the
reintegration of certain regulatory functions from FINRA by providing
that investigative and enforcement functions of the Exchange under the
Rule 8000 and 9000 Series would be performed by personnel and
departments reporting to the CRO of the Exchange \14\ or by FINRA
personnel and departments. These changes would be operative on January
1, 2016.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ Prior to the NYSE ROC Filing, NYSE Regulation staff
reported to the Chief Executive Officer of NYSE Regulation, who was
also the CRO of the Exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. Replacement of References to Exchange and FINRA Departments and
Personnel With References to Enforcement and Regulatory Staff
    NYSE Rule 9210 sets forth the definitions applicable to the
disciplinary code. The Exchange proposes to add definitions of
``Enforcement,'' referring to any department reporting to the CRO of
the Exchange with responsibility for investigating or imposing
sanctions on a member organization or covered person, in addition to
FINRA's Departments of Enforcement and Market Regulation; \15\ and
``Regulatory Staff,'' referring to any officer or employee reporting,
directly or indirectly, to the CRO of the Exchange, in addition to
FINRA staff acting on behalf of the Exchange in connection with the
Rule 8000 and 9000 Series.\16\ According to the Exchange, the proposed
amendments would allow disciplinary actions to be investigated and
prosecuted on the Exchange's behalf by officers or employees reporting
to the CRO beginning on January 1, 2016, while still enabling FINRA
staff to continue to perform investigative and disciplinary activities
that FINRA is authorized to perform on the Exchange's behalf.
Accordingly, the Exchange proposes to amend Rules 9120, 9131, 9146,
9211, 9212, 9213, 9215, 9216, 9251, 9253, 9264, 9269, 9270, 9551, 9552,
9554, 9556, 9810, 9820 and 9830 to replace references to Exchange and
FINRA departments and personnel \17\ with references to the defined
terms ``Enforcement'' and ``Regulatory Staff.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ See Proposed Rule 9120(m).
    \16\ See Proposed Rule 9210(x). Certain rules in the Rule 8000
and 9000 Series currently refer to ``Exchange staff.'' The proposed
definition of ``Regulatory Staff'' also provides that for purposes
of the Rule 8000 Series and Rule 9000 Series (except for Rule 9557),
the term ``Exchange staff'' would have the same meaning as
``Regulatory Staff.'' The Commission notes that Exchange Rule 9557
already defines ``Exchange staff'' for purposes of that Rule. See
NYSE Rule 9557(h).
    \17\ The Exchange also proposes to delete the definitions of
``Head of Enforcement'' (Rule 9120(q)) and ``Head of Market
Regulation'' (Rule 9120(r)), which refer to the FINRA department
heads. The Commission notes that these defined terms only appear in
the 8000 and 9000 series in the definition of ``Interested Staff,''
which the Exchange is also proposing to amend. The Exchange also
proposes to delete the definition of ODA (Rule 9120(v)) and replace
all references to ODA in the Exchange's rules with CRO, for the
reasons discussed in ``Substitution of CRO for ODA in Rules 9211,
9216 and 9270,'' infra. The remaining definitions in Rule 9120 would
be renumbered.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange further proposes to streamline the definition of
``Interested Staff'' (Rule 9120(u)) to eliminate references to Exchange
and FINRA departments and staff, and provide that ``Interested Staff''
under any proceeding brought under the Code of Procedure (``Code'')
means Regulatory Staff or staff \18\ who (i) report, directly or
indirectly, to any Enforcement employee, or to the head of any
department or office that issues a notice or decision or is designated
as a Party under the Rule 9000 Series, (ii) directly participated in
the authorization or initiation of a complaint or proceeding, (iii)
directly participated in the proceeding, or (iv) directly participated
in an examination, investigation, prosecution, or litigation related to
a proceeding, as well as any person(s) who supervises such staff. Thus,
according to the Exchange, as in the current definition, the new
definition of ``Interested Staff'' in a particular matter encompasses
supervisory personnel up to the most senior level, including the CRO,
when staff reporting to such supervisory personnel directly
participated in the matter.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ See Amendment No. 3, supra note 6 (replacing the term
``Exchange staff'' with ``staff'' in proposed Rule 9120(t)). The
Exchange has represented that the proposed definition is not
intended to substantively amend the rule and would encompass all
staff referenced in and covered by the current definition. Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Independence of the CRO and Staff in the Disciplinary Process
    The Exchange proposes to amend Rules 8210 and 9110 to add rule text
providing that in performing functions under the Code, as well as in
performing the functions necessary to an investigation, developing a
complaint, examination, or proceeding authorized by Exchange rules, the
CRO and Regulatory Staff would function independently of the commercial
interests of the Exchange and the commercial interests of the member
organizations.
3. One Year Revolving Door Restriction and Prohibition on Serving as
Expert Witness
    The Exchange proposes to amend Rules 9141 and 9242 to prohibit
former Regulatory Staff from appearing on behalf of any other person in
a proceeding under the Rule 9000 Series and from providing expert
testimony on behalf of any other person in a proceeding under the Rule
9000 Series within one year of termination of employment with the
Exchange or FINRA, respectively. However, Regulatory Staff would be
permitted to testify as a witness on behalf of the Exchange or FINRA.
4. Substitution of CRO for ODA in Rules 9211, 9216 and 9270
    The Exchange proposes to amend Rules 9211, 9216 and 9270 to provide
that the CRO would be responsible for (i) authorizing Enforcement to
issue a complaint; (ii) accepting or rejecting AWC letters and minor
rule violation plan letters; and (iii) accepting or rejecting
uncontested offers of settlement before a hearing on the merits has
begun, rather than FINRA's ODA.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ After a hearing on the merits has begun, an uncontested
offer of settlement would continue to be considered by a Hearing
Panel or Extended Hearing Panel as provided for under the current
rule. See Proposed Rule 9270(f). The Exchange has represented that,
because the Exchange does not have sanction guidelines, the CRO,
Hearing Panel, or Extended Hearing Panel, as applicable, would
consider Exchange precedent or such other precedent as it deemed
appropriate in determining whether or not to accept a settlement
offer under Rule 9270. See Notice, supra note 3, at n.19.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

5. Call for Review Process \20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ See Amendment No. 3, supra note 6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange proposes to amend Rules 9216, 9270 and 9310 to permit
a Director and any member of the CFR to require a review by the Board
of any AWC letter under Rule 9216 and any offer of settlement under
Rule 9270. The Exchange also proposes to permit any party to require a
review by the Board of any rejection by the CRO or Hearing Panel or
Extended Hearing Panel of an AWC letter or uncontested offer of
settlement.

a. Call for Review of AWC Letters and Offers of Settlement
    The Exchange proposes to add subparagraph (B)(i) to Rule
9310(a)(1), providing that 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 9216 or an offer of
settlement determined to be uncontested before a hearing on the merits
has begun under Rule 9270(f), except that none of those persons could
request Board review of a determination or penalty concerning an
Exchange member or member organization that is an affiliate of the
Exchange. Under current Rule 9310(a)(1), the call for review process
encompasses only determinations or penalties imposed by a Hearing Panel
or Extended Hearing Panel, and thus is not available with respect to
AWC letters and offers of settlement determined to be uncontested
before a hearing on the merits has begun. The Exchange further proposes
that a request for review would be 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 9216(a)(4) or Rule 9270(f)(3).\21\ The Exchange proposes that the
Secretary of the Exchange would give notice of any such request for
review to the parties.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ Conforming changes would be made to Rule 9216(a)(3) and (4)
and Rule 9270(f)(3) and (g). Rule 9216(a)(3) would be further
amended to provide that if an AWC letter is rejected by the CRO, the
member organization or covered person who executed the letter would
be notified in writing and the letter deemed withdrawn.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

b. Call for Review of Rejected AWC Letters and Offers of Settlement
    In addition to broadening the types of settlements with respect to
which a Director or member of the CFR may require Board review, the
Exchange proposes that any party could require a review by the Exchange
Board of Directors of any rejection by the CRO of an AWC letter under
Rule 9216 or an offer of settlement determined to be uncontested before
a hearing on the merits has begun under Rule 9270(f), except that no
party could request Board review of a rejection of an AWC letter or
offer of settlement concerning an Exchange member or member
organization that is an affiliate of the Exchange. Thus, while current
Rule 9310(a)(1) permits parties to request Board review of a
determination by a Hearing Panel or Extended Hearing Panel to reject an
uncontested offer of settlement, the proposed rule change would also
allow parties to request Board review of any rejection of an AWC letter
or uncontested offer of settlement by the CRO. Under subparagraph
(B)(ii) of proposed Rule 9310(a)(1), such a request for review would be
made by filing with the Secretary of the Exchange a written request
therefor, which states the basis and reasons for such review, within 25
days after notification pursuant to Rule 9216(a)(3) or Rule 9270(h)
that an AWC letter or uncontested offer of settlement or order of
acceptance is not accepted by the CRO. The Exchange proposes that the
Secretary of the Exchange would give notice of any such request for
review to the parties.
6. Miscellaneous Amendments to Rules 476, 8120, 9001, 9110, 9217, 9232,
9310 and 9810
    The Exchange also proposes amending Rules 476, 8120, 9001, 9110,
9217, 9232, 9310 and 9810 to make certain technical changes and correct
a typographical error in Exchange Rule 9217. Specifically, the Exchange
proposes to (i) include a reference to the 8000 series in Rule 476(a)
and Exchange Rule 9001, (ii) delete obsolete text in Rule 476 and 9110,
(iii) cross-reference the term ``Regulatory Staff'' in Rule 8120, (iv)
revise Rule 9232 to provide that the Board shall from time to time
appoint a Hearing Board in lieu of the Chairman of the Board subject to
the Board's approval, (v) revise the title of Rule 9810(a) from
``Department of Enforcement or Department of Regulation'' to
``Enforcement; Service and Filing of Notice,'' and (vi) amend Rule 9310
to provide that none of the persons referenced in the Rule, i.e., Board
Directors, members of the Committee for Review, and the parties, may
request Board review of a decision concerning an Exchange member
organization that is an affiliate. Under the current Rule, only the
parties are prohibited from requesting Board review of a decision in
such circumstances.

III. Discussion and Commission Findings

    The Commission believes that the proposed rule change, as modified
by Amendment Nos. 1, 3 and 5, is consistent with Section 6 of the
Act,\22\ and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to a
national securities exchange.\23\ Specifically, the Commission finds
that the proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b)(5) of the
Act,\24\ which requires among other things, that the Exchange's rules
be 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 regulating,
clearing, settling, processing information with respect to, and
facilitating transactions in securities, and to remove impediments to
and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national
market system. In addition, the Commission finds that the proposed rule
change is consistent with Section 6(b)(7) of the Act,\25\ which
requires in part, that the rules of the Exchange provide 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \23\ In approving the proposed rule change, as modified by
Amendment Nos. 1, 3 and 5, the Commission notes that it has
considered the proposed rule's impact on efficiency, competition,
and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).
    \24\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
    \25\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(7).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission believes that (i) eliminating specific references to
FINRA departments and replacing them with ``Enforcement,'' which would
include departments reporting to the CRO of the Exchange with
responsibility for investigating or sanctioning member organizations or
covered persons, as well as FINRA's Departments of Enforcement and
Market Regulation, and (ii) using the term ``Regulatory Staff, '' which
would include both Exchange employees, including officers, reporting
directly or indirectly to the CRO and FINRA staff acting on behalf of
the Exchange in connection with the 8000 and 9000 series, should enable
the Exchange to perform the functions described in the rules after it
resumes certain regulatory functions next year. In addition, the
proposed rule change would continue to allow FINRA to perform certain
functions, such as cross-market surveillance and related investigation
and enforcement activities, on behalf of the Exchange.\26\ According to
the Exchange, the substance of the rules would remain unchanged.\27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ See supra note 13.
    \27\ See Notice, supra note 3, at 51339. The Exchange is also
proposing to streamline its definition of ``Interested Staff'' under
proposed Rule 9120(t). While specific references to the heads of
departments have been deleted, the Exchange has represented that it
is not substantively amending the rule and it would encompass all
staff referenced in and covered by the current definition. See
Amendment No. 3, supra note 6.

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

    The Commission also believes that making the CRO responsible for
authorizing complaints and approving AWC letters, minor rule violation
plan letters and offers of settlement determined to be uncontested
prior to a hearing on the in merits, in place of FINRA's ODA is
consistent with the Act. These changes are similar to the rules of
other self-regulatory organizations.\28\ Moreover, as part of the
proposed rule change, the Exchange proposes codifying the requirement
that the CRO and Regulatory Staff function independently of the
commercial interests of the Exchange and member organizations in
performing their functions under the 8000 and 9000 series. These
provisions recognize the importance of maintaining the integrity and
independence of the disciplinary process and should help to ensure that
the Exchange acts in an independent and impartial manner in performing
its regulatory functions.\29\ The call for review process proposed in
Rule 9310(a) \30\ should provide additional oversight of the AWC and
settlement process and further help to ensure impartial results.\31\
These changes are consistent with the statutory requirement to provide
a fair procedure for disciplining members.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ For example, the International Securities Exchange
(``ISE'') requires its CRO to approve the statement of charges. See
ISE Rule 1604. The ISE also requires offers of settlement to be
approved by its CRO if a panel has not yet been appointed. However,
letters of consent must be found acceptable by the CRO and then
approved by its business conduct committee. See ISE Rules 1603 and
1609. BATS Exchange, Inc. (``BATS'') Rule 8.3, however, allows its
CRO to accept letters of consent; BATS Rule 8.8 permits its CRO to
accept or reject settlement agreements, subject to a call for review
by its Board pursuant to BATS Rule 8.10(c).
    \29\ See Proposed rules 8210(a) and 9110(a). The Commission
expects the Exchange to affirmatively monitor and enforce compliance
with these proposed rules, as it does with the other rules of the
Exchange and consistent with its statutory obligations.
    \30\ See Amendment No. 3, supra note 6.
    \31\ Furthermore, the Commission notes that the Exchange has
represented that, because the Exchange does not have sanction
guidelines, the CRO, Hearing Panel, or Extended Hearing Panel, as
applicable, would consider Exchange precedent or such other
precedent as it deemed appropriate in determining whether or not to
accept a settlement offer under Rule 9270. See Notice, supra note 3,
at n.19. The Commission would also expect the Exchange to consider
precedent in determining whether to accept or reject an AWC letter
under Rule 9216.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission also believes that it is consistent with the Act for
the Exchange to have a rule prohibiting former Regulatory Staff from
representing respondents and providing expert testimony in Exchange
disciplinary matters within one year of termination of employment with
either FINRA or the Exchange. These provisions are substantially
similar to FINRA Rules 9141(c) and 9242(b),\32\ which the Exchange did
not adopt in 2013 when the Exchange adopted its 8000 and 9000 series
based on FINRA's rules. At the time, the Exchange believed such
provisions were unnecessary as its employees were not generally
involved in the regulatory and disciplinary functions which were
carried out by FINRA on behalf of the Exchange. As such, their
appearance would not have created the same type of conflict of
interest.\33\ Given that the Exchange now proposes to perform functions
under the 8000 and 9000 series, in addition to FINRA, the Commission
believes that it is appropriate for the Exchange to adopt similar
provisions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \32\ FINRA's rules only apply to officers of FINRA and
termination of employment with FINRA, while the Exchange's proposed
rules would apply to all Regulatory Staff and termination of
employment with FINRA or the Exchange.
    \33\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 69045, supra note
11, at n.14 and 21. The Commission notes that the Exchange, similar
to FINRA, would permit a former Regulatory Staff member to testify
as a witness on behalf of the Exchange or FINRA. See Proposed Rule
9242(b). The Commission does not believe that this poses the same
potential conflict of interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, with respect to the Exchange's proposed miscellaneous
changes to Rules 476, 8120, 9001, 9110, 9217, 9232, 9310 and 9810, the
Commission notes that most of these changes, such as deleting obsolete
text, correcting a typographical error, adding cross-references, and
amending the title of a rule to better reflect the rule, are merely
technical in nature. With respect to the Exchange's proposed change to
Rule 9232, which would require the Board to appoint a Hearing Board in
lieu of the Chairman of the Board, subject to the Board's approval, the
Commission believes that as the Board is currently required to approve
the appointment of the Hearing Board, it is unnecessary to require the
Chairman to appoint the Hearing Board as an initial matter. Also, with
respect to the Exchange's proposed changes to Rule 9310(a), the
Commission notes that some of the changes to this filing are necessary
to reflect recently approved rule text.\34\ Moreover, the Exchange's
proposed change to prohibit any party, Director, or CFR member from
appealing a decision concerning an affiliate of the Exchange to the
Exchange Board is consistent with the Exchange's current Rule 9268(e),
which states that a majority decision of the Hearing Panel or Extended
Hearing Panel with respect to an affiliate of the Exchange is final
disciplinary action of the Exchange that may not be reviewed under Rule
9310.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \34\ See Amendment No. 3, supra note 6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For the foregoing reasons, the Commission finds that the proposed
rule change, as modified by Amendment Nos. 1, 3, and 5, is consistent
with Sections 6(b)(5) and 6(b)(7) of the Act \35\ and the rules and
regulations thereunder applicable to a national securities exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \35\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5) and (7).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Accelerated Approval of the Proposed Rule Change as Modified by
Amendment Nos. 1, 3 and 5

    The Commission finds good cause, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of
the Act, to approve the proposal, as modified by Amendment Nos. 1, 3,
and 5, prior to the 30th day after publication of Amendment Nos. 3 and
5 in the Federal Register. Currently, the Exchange's call for review
process under Rule 9310(a) only applies to determinations or penalties
imposed by a Hearing Panel or Extended Hearing Panel under the 9200
series. Amendment No. 3 would allow a call for review in a broader
array of contexts, including when a CRO accepts or rejects an AWC
letter or an offer of settlement determined to be uncontested before a
hearing on the merits has begun, unless the determination applies to an
affiliate. The Commission notes that NYSE's proposed call for review
process is substantially similar to the current call for review process
under Rule 9310(a)(1) and NYSE Rule 476(g) and therefore, does not
raise any novel issues.\36\ Further, in Amendment No. 5, the Exchange
merely clarified the application of the call for review process after
the effective date of the proposed rules, if approved, and prior to the
termination of the delegation agreement and confirmed that the Exchange
would operate consistent with its rules in permitting calls for review
during that time. Accordingly, the Commission finds good cause,
pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act,\37\ to

approve the proposed rule change, as modified by Amendment Nos. 1, 3
and 5, on an accelerated basis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \36\ The Commission notes that the other changes made in
Amendment No. 3 are merely technical changes to the Exchange's rule
text to (i) incorporate changes recently approved in the NYSE ROC
Filing, (ii) reflect that the terms ``Regulatory Staff'' and
``Exchange Staff'' have the same meaning for purposes of the 8000
and 9000 series as defined in proposed Rule 9120(x), Regulatory
Staff, and (iii) clarify that the transmission of the record of a
disciplinary proceeding only applies to reviews of determinations
made or penalties imposed by a Hearing Panel or Extended Hearing
Panel as a hearing record would not exist under the circumstances
provided for under Rule 9310(a)(1)(B).
    \37\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

V. Solicitation of Comments on Amendment Nos. 3 and 5

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and
arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether this filing, as
modified by Amendment Nos. 3 and 5, 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-NYSE-2015-35 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NYSE-2015-35. 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-NYSE-2015-35, and should be
submitted on or before December 10, 2015.

VI. Conclusion

    It is therefore ordered, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the
Act,\38\ that the proposed rule change, as modified by Amendment Nos.
1, 3 and 5 (NYSE-2015-35) be, and it hereby is, approved on an
accelerated basis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \38\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\39\
Brent J. Fields,
Secretary.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \39\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 2015-29488 Filed 11-18-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: June 21, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 118)]
[Notices]
[Page 35017]
[DOCID:fr21jn10-71]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ER10-1427-000]

Brookfield Energy Marketing LP; Supplemental Notice That Initial
Market-Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204
Authorization

June 15, 2010.
    This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding of
Brookfield Energy Marketing LP's application for market-based rate
authority, with an accompanying rate tariff, noting that such
application includes a request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR
part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of
liability.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and
385.214). Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a
copy of that document on the Applicant.
    Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with
regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18
CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of
liability, is July 6, 2010.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://
www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with Internet
access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an
intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the
eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the
intervention or protests.
    Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and
14 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First St., NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    The filings in the above-referenced proceeding are accessible in
the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in
the above list. They are also 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>.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-14954 Filed 6-18-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 99 (Monday, May 23, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 31275-31280]
[FR Doc No: 2022-10965]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. IC-34587; File No. 812-15337]

Allianz Global Investors U.S. LLC, et al.; Notice of Application
and Temporary Order

May 17, 2022.
AGENCY: Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'').

ACTION: Temporary order and notice of application for a permanent order
under section 9(c) of the Investment Company Act of 1940 (``Act'').

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

SUMMARY OF APPLICATION: Applicants have applied for an order exempting
them from section 9(a) of the Act with respect to a guilty plea entered
on May 17, 2022 (``Guilty Plea'') by Allianz Global Investors U.S. LLC
(the ``Pleading Entity'') in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York (the ``District Court'') in connection
with a plea agreement (``Plea Agreement'') between the Pleading Entity
and the United States Department of Justice (``DOJ''). The Pleading
Entity has requested a time-limited exemption for the sole purpose of
providing the Pleading Entity with adequate time to transition certain
U.S. registered fund advisory relationships to other service providers
(the ``Time-Limited Exemption''). Upon the expiration of the Time-
Limited Exemption, the Pleading Entity will be disqualified from
engaging in the fund servicing activities identified in section 9(a) of
the Act in accordance with the terms thereof. The PIMCO Applicants and
the Allianz Life Applicants (each as defined below and, collectively,
the ``Continuing Fund Servicing Applicants'') have requested a
temporary exemption from section 9(a) until the Commission takes final
action on an application for a permanent order (the ``Permanent
Order''). The temporary order (as set forth herein, the ``Temporary
Order'' and, together with the Permanent Order, the ``Orders'')
provides a Time-Limited Exemption to the Pleading Entity and a
temporary exemption to the Continuing Fund Servicing Applicants and
other Covered Persons (defined below) pending Commission action on the
Permanent Order. The Permanent Order, if granted, would: (1) If the
order is issued prior to the date that the Time-Limited Exemption would
expire by its terms, reference the Time-Limited Exemption, subject to
expiration at the end of its term,\1\ and (2) provide a permanent
exemption to the Continuing Fund Servicing Applicants and other Covered
Persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ If the Time-Limited Exemption expires by its terms prior to
the issuance of the permanent order, the Time-Limited Exemption will
be omitted from the permanent order.

APPLICANTS: The Pleading Entity, Allianz Investment Management LLC
(``AIM''), Allianz Life Financial Services, LLC (``ALFS''), Allianz
Life Insurance Company of North America (``ALICONA''), Allianz Life
Insurance Company of New York (``ALICONY''), Pacific Investment
Management Company LLC (``PIMCO LLC''), PIMCO Investments LLC (``PIMCO
Investments'' and, collectively with the Pleading Entity, AIM, ALFS,
ALICONA, ALICONY and PIMCO, the ``Fund Servicing Providers''), and,
solely for the purposes of making certain representations and
committing to certain undertakings as set forth in the application,
Allianz SE (``Allianz SE'' and together with its wholly owned
subsidiaries and affiliated entities, ``Allianz''). The term
``Continuing Fund Service Applicants'' refers to, collectively, AIM,
ALFS, ALICONA, ALICONY, PIMCO and PIMCO Investments. The term
``Applicants'' refers to, collectively, Allianz SE, the Pleading
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Entity, and the Continuing Fund Servicing Applicants.

FILING DATE: The application was filed on May 17, 2022.

HEARING OR NOTIFICATION OF HEARING: An order granting the requested
relief will be issued unless the Commission orders a hearing.
Interested persons may request a hearing by emailing the Commission's
Secretary at [email protected] and serving applicants with a
copy of the request, by email. Hearing requests should be received by
the Commission by 5:30 p.m. on June

13, 2022 and should be accompanied by proof of service on the
applicants, in the form of an affidavit, or for lawyers, a certificate
of service. Pursuant to rule 0-5 under the Act, hearing requests should
state the nature of the writer's interest, any facts bearing upon the
desirability of a hearing on the matter, the reason for the request,
and the issues contested. Persons who wish to be notified of a hearing
may request notification by emailing the Commission's Secretary at
[email protected].

ADDRESSES: The Commission: [email protected]. Applicants: John
Viggiano, [email protected]; Erik T. Nelson,
[email protected]; Paul G. Cellupica,
[email protected]; Frederick Wertheim, [email protected];
and Wendy M. Goldberg, [email protected].

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Asaf Barouk, Attorney-Adviser, at
(202) 551-4029, Kyle R. Ahlgren, Acting Branch Chief, at<PHONE_NUMBER>
or Marc Mehrespand, Branch Chief, at<PHONE_NUMBER> (Division of
Investment Management, Chief Counsel's Office).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The following is a temporary order and a
summary of the application. For Applicants' representations, legal
analysis, and conditions, please refer to the application, dated May
17, 2022, which may be obtained via the Commission's website by
searching for the file number at the top of this document, or for an
Applicant using the Company name search field, on the SEC's EDGAR
system. The SEC's EDGAR system may be searched at https://www.sec.gov/edgar/searchedgar/legacy/companysearch.html. You may also call the
SEC's Public Reference Room at<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Applicants' Representations

    1. The Pleading Entity is a limited liability company formed under
Delaware law and registered with the Commission as an investment
adviser under the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 (the ``Advisers
Act''). The Pleading Entity advised and sub-advised Fund \2\ assets of
approximately $297.2 million and $29.0 billion, respectively, as of
March 31, 2022. The Pleading Entity is a wholly owned subsidiary of
Allianz Global Investors U.S. Holdings LLC, which in turn is a wholly
owned subsidiary of Allianz SE, the ultimate parent company of Allianz.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ The terms ``Fund'' and ``Funds'' as used herein refer to any
registered investment company (``RIC''), employees' securities
company (``ESC'') or investment company that has elected to be
treated as a business development company under the Act (``BDC'')
for which a Covered Person (as defined below) currently provides
Fund Servicing Activities (also defined below), or, subject to the
terms and conditions of the Temporary and Permanent Orders, may in
the future provide Fund Servicing Activities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    2. ALICONA is a stock life insurance company formed under Minnesota
law offering fixed index annuities, individual life insurance and
registered index-linked annuities. ALICONA serves as depositor for
certain variable insurance separate account Funds and is a wholly owned
subsidiary of Allianz of America, Inc., a holding company that is
ultimately owned by Allianz SE.
    3. AIM, a wholly owned subsidiary of ALICONA, is a limited
liability company formed under Minnesota law and registered with the
Commission as an investment adviser under the Advisers Act. AIM advises
Fund assets of approximately $18.6 billion as of March 31, 2022.
    4. ALFS, a wholly owned subsidiary of ALICONA, is a limited
liability company formed under Minnesota law and registered as a
broker-dealer under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the ``Exchange
Act''). ALFS is a member of the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority
(``FINRA'') and serves as principal underwriter to certain Funds.
    5. ALICONY, a wholly owned subsidiary of ALICONA, is a stock life
insurance company formed under New York law offering registered index-
linked annuities. Collectively, ALICONY, ALICONA, AIM, and ALFS, are
referred to in the application and herein as the ``Allianz Life
Applicants''.
    6. PIMCO LLC is a limited liability company formed under Delaware
law and registered with the Commission as an adviser under the Advisers
Act. PIMCO LLC advised and sub-advised Fund assets of approximately
$509.6 billion and $46.5 billion, respectively, as of March 31, 2022.
Allianz SE controls 100% of the voting equity of PIMCO LLC.
    7. PIMCO Investments, a wholly owned subsidiary of PIMCO LLC (and
together, the ``PIMCO Applicants''), is a limited liability company
formed under Delaware law and a registered broker-dealer under the
Exchange Act. PIMCO Investments is a member of FINRA and serves as
principal underwriter to certain Funds.
    8. Other than the Continuing Fund Servicing Applicants, no existing
company of which the Pleading Entity is an ``affiliated person'' within
the meaning of section 2(a)(3) of the Act (``Affiliated Person'')
currently serves as an investment adviser (as defined in section
2(a)(20) of the Act) or depositor of any RIC, ESC, or BDC, or as
principal underwriter (as defined in section 2(a)(29) of the Act) for
any registered open-end investment company (``Open-End Fund''),
registered unit investment trust (``UIT''), or registered face-amount
certificate company (``FACC'') (such activities performed on behalf of
such persons, collectively ``Fund Servicing Activities''). Applicants
request that any relief granted by the Commission to the Continuing
Fund Servicing Applicants pursuant to the application also apply to any
current or future subsidiary of a Continuing Fund Servicing Applicant
of which the Pleading Entity is or may become an Affiliated Person
(together with the Continuing Fund Servicing Applicants, the ``Covered
Persons'') with respect to any activity contemplated by section 9(a) of
the Act.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Covered Persons may, if the Temporary and Permanent Orders
are granted, in the future act in any of the capacities contemplated
by section 9(a) of the Act. Any existing or future entities that may
rely on the Temporary and Permanent Orders in the future will comply
with the terms and conditions of this Application. For the avoidance
of doubt, a Covered Person shall not include the Pleading Entity
itself and any direct or indirect subsidiaries of the Pleading
Entity.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    9. On May 17, 2022, the DOJ filed a criminal information (the
``Information'') in the District Court charging the Pleading Entity
with one count of securities fraud in violation of sections 10(b) and
32 of the Exchange Act and rule 10b-5 thereunder. According to the
Statement of Facts that served as the basis for the Plea Agreement (as
summarized in the application, the ``Statement of Facts''), beginning
in at least 2014 and continuing up to and including in or about March
2020, the Pleading Entity engaged in a scheme to defraud investors in a
series of private investment funds (the ``Affected Funds'' \4\) that
pursued Allianz's ``Structured Alpha'' options trading strategy by
making false and misleading statements to current and prospective
investors that substantially understated how risky the Affected Funds
were and overstated the level of independent risk oversight over the
Funds (the ``Conduct'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ The Statement of Facts states that, in addition to the
Affected Funds, AGI US also engaged in a scheme to defraud the sole
investor in a UCITS fund.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    10. According to the Statement of Facts, the Pleading Entity
carried out the scheme through, among others, the three portfolio
managers with primary responsibility for managing the Structured Alpha
Funds, specifically, Gregoire Tournant, Trevor Taylor, and Stephen
Bond-Nelson (the ``Individual Defendants''). According to the Statement
of Facts, the compliance and

risk management functions at the Pleading Entity failed to maintain
adequate oversight of the team managing the Affected Funds, which
allowed the portfolio managers to continue to manage the Affected Funds
in a manner inconsistent with representations to investors. The control
failures also facilitated the portfolio managers' actions to deceive
investors by hiding, and making affirmative misstatements about, risk
over the course of years. The fraudulent scheme inflated the
performance of the Affected Funds, which in turn increased the profits
flowing to the Pleading Entity and its parent companies, and also
increased the compensation of the Individual Defendants. The Affected
Funds ultimately lost more than $7 billion in value during the market
dislocations caused by COVID-19, with investor victims losing over $3.2
billion in principal.
    11. Pursuant to the Plea Agreement, the Pleading Entity entered the
Guilty Plea on May 17, 2022 in the District Court to the charge set out
in the Information. Applicants expect that the District Court will
enter a judgment against the Pleading Entity (the ``Judgment'') that
will require remedies that are materially the same as set forth in the
Plea Agreement. The individuals referenced in the Information as
responsible for the Conduct are no longer employed by the Pleading
Entity or any of its affiliates.
    12. The Commission instituted a cease-and-desist order against the
Pleading Entity on May 17, 2022 (the ``SEC Order'') in connection with
the Pleading Entity's role in the Conduct. The SEC Order requires the
Pleading Entity to cease and desist from committing or causing any
violations and any future violations of section 10(b) of the Exchange
Act and rule 10b-5 thereunder, sections 206(1), 206(2) and 206(4) of
the Advisers Act and rules 206(4)-7 and 206(4)-8 thereunder. The SEC
Order also imposed a civil money penalty and requires the Pleading
Entity to pay disgorgement of $315.2 million plus prejudgment interest
of $34 million, which shall be deemed satisfied by forfeiture and
restitution ordered by the settlement of parallel criminal charges
entered into by the Pleading Entity in May 2022. In anticipation of the
institution of those proceedings, the Pleading Entity submitted an
Offer of Settlement consenting to the entry of such order, which the
Commission has accepted.

Applicants' Legal Analysis

    1. Section 9(a)(1) of the Act provides, in pertinent part, that a
person may not serve or act as an investment adviser or depositor of
any registered investment company or as principal underwriter for any
Open-End Fund, UIT, or FACC, if such person within ten years has been
convicted of any felony or misdemeanor, including those arising out of
such person's conduct as a broker, dealer or bank. Section 2(a)(10) of
the Act defines the term ``convicted'' to include a plea of guilty.
Section 9(a)(3) of the Act extends the prohibitions of section 9(a)(1)
to a company, any affiliated person of which has been disqualified
under the provisions of section 9(a)(1). Section 2(a)(3) of the Act
defines ``affiliated person'' to include, among others, any person
directly or indirectly controlling, controlled by, or under common
control with, the other person. Each Continuing Fund Servicing
Applicant is an Affiliated Person of the Pleading Entity within the
meaning of section 2(a)(3) of the Act. The Plea Agreement would
therefore result in an immediate and automatic disqualification of the
Pleading Entity and each Continuing Fund Servicing Applicant for ten
years under section 9(a)(3) from acting in any of the capacities listed
in section 9(a), by effect of a conviction described in section
9(a)(1).
    2. Section 9(c) of the Act provides that: ``[t]he Commission shall
by order grant [an] application [for relief from the prohibitions of
subsection 9(a)], either unconditionally or on an appropriate temporary
or other conditional basis, if it is established [i] that the
prohibitions of subsection 9(a), as applied to such person, are unduly
or disproportionately severe or [ii] that the conduct of such person
has been such as not to make it against the public interest or the
protection of investors to grant such application.'' Applicants have
filed an application pursuant to section 9(c) seeking a Temporary Order
on behalf of all Applicants and a Permanent Order on behalf of the
Continuing Fund Servicing Applicants only. The Permanent Order would
exempt the Continuing Fund Servicing Applicants and other Covered
Persons from the disqualification provisions of section 9(a) of the
Act. The Covered Persons may, if the Orders are granted, in the future
act in any of the capacities contemplated by section 9(a) of the Act
subject to the applicable terms and conditions of the Orders.
    3. Applicants believe that the Time-Limited Exemption is consistent
with the principle in section 9(c) that appropriate conditional, short-
term relief is not against the public interest or the protection of
investors. The Time-Limited Exemption is intended to provide the
Pleading Entity with adequate time to transition its advisory
relationships and other Fund Servicing Activities that it performs on
behalf of Funds (the ``the Pleading Entity Advised Funds'') to other
providers of such services. As a result of the section 9(a)
disqualification and absent the Time-Limited Exemption, the Pleading
Entity would be immediately unable as a matter of law to provide Fund
Servicing Activities to the Pleading Entity Advised Funds. Applicants
state that a disqualification of the Pleading Entity before the process
of transitioning the Pleading Entity Advised Funds to replacement
service providers is complete could leave them without critical
advisory services for some period of time, which would be extremely
disruptive to their investment programs and may result in substantial
harm to such Funds and their investors.
    4. Applicants believe that the Continuing Fund Servicing Applicants
meet the standards for exemption specified in section 9(c). Applicants
assert that: (i) The scope of the misconduct was limited and did not
involve any of the Continuing Fund Servicing Applicants acting as an
investment adviser, depositor or principal underwriter for any Fund, or
any Fund with respect to which the Continuing Fund Servicing Applicants
engage in Fund Servicing Activities (``Continuing Service Funds'');
(ii) application of the statutory bar would impose significant
hardships on the Continuing Service Funds and their shareholders; (iii)
the prohibitions of section 9(a), if applied to the Continuing Fund
Servicing Applicants, would be unduly or disproportionately severe; and
(iv) the Conduct did not constitute conduct that would make it against
the public interest or protection of investors to grant the exemption
from section 9(a) to the Continuing Fund Servicing Applicants.
    5. The Continuing Fund Servicing Applicants represent that the
Conduct did not involve any of the Continuing Fund Servicing Applicants
acting in the capacity as an investment adviser, depositor or principal
underwriter for any Fund. Applicants represent that the Conduct
similarly did not involve any Continuing Service Fund. Instead,
Applicants state that the Conduct occurred entirely within the Pleading
Entity and did not involve the Continuing Fund Servicing Applicants or
any personnel of the Continuing Fund Servicing Applicants. As discussed
above, the individuals referenced in the Information as responsible for
the Conduct are no

longer employed by the Pleading Entity or any of its affiliates.
    6. Applicants acknowledge that the Pleading Entity had significant
gaps and weaknesses in its controls as they related to the Affected
Funds. Applicants acknowledge that the control functions were not
designed to and did not function to ensure that risk was being
monitored in line with what investors had been told. Applicants further
acknowledge that the Pleading Entity's internal audit department
conducted an audit of the Pleading Entity and, although that audit
identified red flags that, if pursued, might have led to identification
of the fraud, no meaningful follow up was conducted. Applicants
represent that Allianz and its affiliates have undertaken certain
remedial measures, as described in more detail in the application.
These remedial measures include compensating Structured Alpha
investors, terminating employee wrongdoers, agreeing that the Pleading
Entity will exit the business of providing Fund Servicing Activities,
improving client communications, enhancing oversight of portfolio
management teams, empowering the Allianz risk management functions, and
implementing a new framework for data quality and processing.
Applicants further represent that each of the Continuing Fund Servicing
Applicants will review its control and risk management framework as it
relates to Fund Servicing Activities, in light of applicable local
legal requirements and the risks related to such Continuing Fund
Servicing Applicant's business, and consider what steps may be
appropriate to enhance that framework to ensure that it is reasonably
designed to prevent behavior similar to the Conduct from occurring at
such Continuing Fund Servicing Applicant. The results of such review
will be included in the report required by Condition 5 of the
application (detailed below).
    7. Applicants assert that, in view of the fact that the Conduct was
limited to the Pleading Entity and its personnel, it would be unduly
and disproportionately severe to impose a section 9(a) disqualification
on the Continuing Fund Servicing Applicants. Applicants assert that the
conduct of the Continuing Fund Servicing Applicants has not been such
as to make it against the public interest or the protection of
investors to grant the exemption from section 9(a). Applicants further
assert that neither the protection of investors nor the public interest
would be served by permitting the section 9(a) disqualifications to
apply to the Continuing Fund Servicing Applicants because those
disqualifications would deprive the Continuing Service Funds of the
advisory or sub-advisory and underwriting services that shareholders
expected the Continuing Service Funds to receive when they decided to
invest. Applicants also assert that the prohibitions of section 9(a)
could operate to the financial detriment of the Continuing Service
Funds and their shareholders, including by causing the Continuing
Service Funds to spend time and resources to engage substitute
advisers, subadvisers, and principal underwriters, which would be an
unduly and disproportionately severe consequence given that the Conduct
did not involve any of the Continuing Fund Servicing Applicants or
their personnel.
    8. Applicants assert that if the Continuing Fund Servicing
Applicants were barred under section 9(a) from providing investment
advisory services to the Continuing Service Funds and were unable to
obtain the requested exemption, the effect on their businesses and
employees would be severe. Applicants state that the Continuing Fund
Servicing Applicants have committed substantial capital and other
resources to establishing expertise in advising and sub-advising Funds
with a view to continuing and expanding this business, which Applicants
consider strategically important. Similarly, Applicants represent that
if ALFS and PIMCO Investments were barred under section 9(a) from
continuing to provide underwriting services to the Funds and were
unable to obtain the requested exemption, the effect on its current
business and employees would be significant. Applicants state that ALFS
and PIMCO Investments have committed capital and other resources to
establish expertise in underwriting the securities of the Continuing
Service Funds and to establish distribution arrangements for Fund
shares. Applicants further state that prohibiting the Continuing Fund
Servicing Applicants from engaging in Fund Servicing Activities would
not only adversely affect their business, but would also adversely
affect their employees who are involved in these activities.
    9. Applicants represent that: (1) None of the current or former
directors, officers or employees of Continuing Fund Servicing
Applicants engaged in the Conduct; (2) no current or former employee of
the Pleading Entity or any Covered Person who previously has been or
who subsequently may be identified by the Pleading Entity or any U.S.
or non-U.S. regulatory or enforcement agencies as having been
responsible for the Conduct will be an officer, director, or employee
of any Covered Person; (3) the identified employees have had no, and
will not have any, future involvement in the Covered Persons'
activities in any capacity described in section 9(a) of the Act; and
(4) because the personnel of the Continuing Fund Servicing Applicants
did not engage in the Conduct, shareholders of the Funds served by the
Continuing Fund Servicing Applicants were not affected any differently
than if those Funds had received services from any other non-affiliated
investment adviser.
    10. Applicants have also agreed that each of the Applicants and
Covered Persons will adopt and implement policies and procedures
reasonably designed to ensure that it will comply with the terms and
conditions of the Orders granted under section 9(c).
    11. In addition, Applicants have agreed that each of the Applicants
and Covered Persons will comply in all material respects with the
material terms and conditions of the Plea Agreement and the SEC Order,
and any other orders issued by, or settlements with, regulatory or
enforcement agencies addressing the Conduct.
    12. As a result of the foregoing, the Continuing Fund Servicing
Applicants submit that absent relief, the prohibitions of section 9(a)
as applied to the Continuing Fund Servicing Applicants would be unduly
or disproportionately severe, and that the Conduct did not constitute
conduct that would make it against the public interest or protection of
investors to grant the exemption to the Continuing Fund Servicing
Applicants.
    13. To provide further assurance that the exemptive relief being
requested in the application would be consistent with the public
interest and the protection of the investors, the Applicants agree that
they will, within two weeks from the date of the Time-Limited
Exemption, as applicable, with respect to each of the Funds for which a
Continuing Fund Servicing Applicant is the primary investment adviser,
distribute to the boards of directors or trustees of the Funds (each, a
``Fund Board'') written materials describing the circumstances that led
to the Plea Agreement, as well as any effects on the Funds and the
application. The written materials will include an offer to discuss the
materials at an in-person meeting with each Fund Board for which Fund
Servicing Providers provide Fund Servicing Activities, including the
directors who are not ``interested persons'' of the Funds as

defined in section 2(a)(19) of the Act and their ``independent legal
counsel'' as defined in rule 0-1(a)(6) under the Act. With respect to
each of the Funds for which a Fund Servicing Provider is not the
primary investment adviser, the relevant Fund Servicing Provider will
provide such materials to the Fund's primary investment adviser and
offer to discuss the materials with such primary investment adviser.
The Applicants undertake to provide the Fund Boards and the primary
investment advisers, as relevant, with all information concerning the
Plea Agreement and the application as necessary for those Funds to
fulfill their disclosure and other obligations under the U.S. federal
securities laws and will provide them a copy of the Judgment as entered
by the District Court.

Applicants' Conditions

    Applicants agree that any order granted by the Commission pursuant
to the application will be subject to the following conditions:
    1. Any temporary exemption granted pursuant to the application will
be without prejudice to, and will not limit the Commission's rights in
any manner with respect to, any Commission investigation of, or
administrative proceedings involving or against, Covered Persons,
including, without limitation, the consideration by the Commission of a
permanent exemption from section 9(a) of the Act requested pursuant to
the application or the revocation or removal of any temporary
exemptions granted under the Act in connection with the application.
    2. None of Allianz SE, the Applicants, the Covered Persons or any
affiliate of any of the foregoing, will employ the former employees of
the Pleading Entity or any other person who subsequently may be
identified by the Pleading Entity or any U.S. or non-U.S. regulatory or
enforcement agencies as having been responsible for the Conduct in any
capacity without first making a further application to the Commission
pursuant to section 9(c).
    3. Each of the Applicants and the Covered Persons will adopt and
implement policies and procedures reasonably designed to ensure that it
will comply with the terms and conditions of the Orders applicable to
it within 60 days of the date of the Permanent Order, or with respect
to condition four immediately below, such later date or dates as may be
contemplated by the Plea Agreement, the SEC Order, or any other orders
issued by regulatory or enforcement agencies addressing the Conduct, as
and to the extent that the terms and conditions of such orders are
applicable to it.
    4. Each of the Applicants and the Covered Persons will comply in
all material respects with the material terms and conditions of the
Plea Agreement, with the material terms of the SEC Order, and any other
orders issued by, or settlements with, regulatory or enforcement
agencies addressing the Conduct, in each case as and to the extent that
such terms and conditions are applicable to it. In addition, within 30
days of each anniversary of the Permanent Order (until and including
the third such anniversary), Allianz SE will submit a certification
signed by its chief executive officer and its chief compliance officer,
confirming that (i) the Pleading Entity has complied with the terms and
conditions of the Plea Agreement in all material respects; and (ii)
Allianz SE, the Pleading Entity and the Covered Persons have complied
with the terms and conditions of the Orders applicable to them in all
material respects. Each such certification will be submitted to the
Chief Counsel of the Commission's Division of Investment Management
with a copy to the Chief Counsel of the Commission's Division of
Enforcement.
    5. Each Applicant will provide written notification to the Chief
Counsel of the Commission's Division of Investment Management with a
copy to the Chief Counsel of the Commission's Division of Enforcement
of a material violation by such Applicant of the terms and conditions
of the Orders applicable to it within 30 days of discovery of the
material violation. In addition, within 30 days of the first
anniversary of the Permanent Order, the Continuing Fund Servicing
Applicants will submit reports, signed by the chief executive officer
of ALICONA (in the case of the Allianz Life Applicants) and the chief
executive officer of PIMCO LLC (in the case of the PIMCO Applicants),
to the Chief Counsel of the Commission's Division of Investment
Management, summarizing the results of the reviews described in Section
V.F of the application, including a description of each specific step
taken by each Continuing Fund Servicing Applicant to enhance its
control and risk management framework since the date of the Permanent
Order.
    6. The Pleading Entity commits to provide the staff of the
Commission's Division of Investment Management, no later than one week
from the date of the Time-Limited Exemption, a written plan for the
transitioning of the Pleading Entity Advised Funds to new sub-advisers,
and with respect to the Taiwan Fund, to a new adviser, which plan will
include specific action items with associated timetables, and will
contemplate the completion of the transition within a ten-week period
with respect to the open-end Pleading Entity Advised Funds and within a
four-month period with respect to the closed-end Pleading Entity
Advised Funds. The Pleading Entity further commits that, during the
pendency of the Time-Limited Exemption, the Pleading Entity will use
its reasonable best efforts to assist each primary adviser, board of
directors or trustees of each Pleading Entity Advised Fund (each such
board, a ``Pleading Entity Advised Fund Board'') and/or fund
administrator, as applicable, in (A) identifying a potential
replacement sub-adviser or adviser, as applicable, (B) soliciting
information from those firms, (C) conducting due diligence on such
firms, (D) gathering information responsive to requirements of Section
15(c) of the Act, (E) negotiating an advisory contract, (F) drafting
prospectus disclosure about the transition, (G) otherwise updating the
Fund's registration statement, (H) obtaining Pleading Entity Advised
Fund Board approval consistent with the Act, and (I) with respect to
the closed-end Funds, seeking shareholder approval of the new sub-
adviser or adviser, as applicable. The Pleading Entity will report to
the staff of the Commission's Division of Investment Management on the
progress of the transition and the actions being taken by the Pleading
Entity to further such transition no less frequently than every two
weeks. The Pleading Entity or one or more of its affiliates will bear
all expenses associated with the transitions, and no Pleading Entity
Advised Funds will directly or indirectly bear any expenses associated
with such transitions, including any expenses associated with obtaining
shareholder approval, if applicable.
    7. The Time-Limited Exemption will remain in place: (i) With
respect to the open-end Pleading Entity Advised Funds for which the
Pleading Entity serves as a sub-adviser, for a ten-week period from the
date of the Time-Limited Exemption; and (ii) with respect to the
closed-end Pleading Entity Advised Funds, for a four-month period from
the date of the Time-Limited Exemption.

Temporary Order

    The Commission has considered the matter and finds that Applicants
have made the necessary showing to justify granting a temporary
exemption.
    Accordingly,

    It is hereby ordered, pursuant to section 9(c) of the Act, that:
(1) The Pleading Entity is granted a temporary exemption, limited in
all respects to the Time-Limited Exemption, including as to its time-
limited nature, from the provisions of section 9(a); and (2) the
Continuing Fund Servicing Applicants and any other Covered Persons are
granted a temporary exemption from the provisions of section 9(a), in
each case effective as the date of the Guilty Plea, and in each case
solely with respect to the Guilty Plea entered into pursuant to the
Plea Agreement, subject to the representations and conditions in the
application, until the Commission takes final action on their
application (or, in the case of the Time-Limited Exemption, until it
expires by its terms, if sooner).

    By the Commission.
J. Matthew DeLesDernier,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2022-10965 Filed 5-20-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: January 29, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 18)]
[Notices]
[Page 5178]
[DOCID:fr29ja09-81]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-1813-DR; Docket ID FEMA-2008-0018]

Massachusetts; Amendment No. 1 to Notice of a Major Disaster
Declaration

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice amends the notice of a major disaster declaration
for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts (FEMA-1813-DR), dated January 5,
2009, and related determinations.

DATES: Effective Date: January 16, 2009.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Peggy Miller, Disaster Assistance
Directorate, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street, SW.,
Washington, DC 20472,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The notice of a major disaster declaration
for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts is hereby amended to include the
following areas among those areas determined to have been adversely
affected by the event declared a major disaster by the President in his
declaration of January 5, 2009.

    Essex and Middlesex Counties for Public Assistance, including
direct Federal assistance.

(The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers (CFDA)
are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030, Community
Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis Counseling;
97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster Unemployment
Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance Grant; 97.048,
Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and Households In
Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049, Presidentially
Declared Disaster Assistance--Disaster Housing Operations for
Individuals and Households; 97.050, Presidentially Declared Disaster
Assistance to Individuals and Households--Other Needs; 97.036,
Disaster Grants--Public Assistance (Presidentially Declared
Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant.)

R. David Paulison,
Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. E9-1876 Filed 1-28-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 9111-23-P


[Federal Register: September 9, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 175)]
[Notices]
[Page 52340-52341]
[DOCID:fr09se08-61]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[P-13235-000]

Middlebury Electric, LLC; Notice of Application for Preliminary
Permit Accepted for Filing and Soliciting Comments, Motions to
Intervene, and Protests

September 2, 2008.
    On June 5, 2008, Middlebury Electric, LLC filed an application,
pursuant to section 4(f) of the Federal Power Act (FPA), to study the
feasibility of Middlebury Upper Hydroelectric Project. The proposed
project would be located on the Otter Creek in Addison County, Vermont.
The properties that would be associated with the proposed Middlebury
Upper Hydroelectric Project are owned by the applicant.
    The proposed project using the existing properties, including the
sluiceway, intake infrastructure, and flume, would consist of: (1) A
proposed powerhouse, containing a single 400 kW generating unit; (2) a
proposed penstock approximately 120 feet long, 7.5 feet wide; (3) a
proposed new transmission line around 500 feet long; and (4)
appurtenant facilities. The proposed

project would have an average annual generation of approximately 2.8
gigawatt-hours, to be utilized by Middlebury College.
    Applicant Contact: Dr. Anders Holm, 1330 Exchange Street,
Middlebury, VT 05445,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    FERC Contact: Jake Tung,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Deadline for filing comments, motions to intervene, competing
applications (without notices of intent), or notices of intent to file
competing applications: 60 days from the issuance of this notice.
Comments, motions to intervene, notices of intent, and competing
applications may be filed electronically via the Internet. See 18 CFR
385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's Web site
under the ``e-Filing'' link. If unable to be filed electronically,
documents may be paper-filed. To paper-file, an original and eight
copies should be mailed to: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426. For
more information on how to submit these types of filings please go to
the Commission's Web site located at http://www.ferc.gov/filing-
comments.asp. More information about this project can be viewed or
printed on the ``eLibrary'' link of the Commission's Web site at http:/
/www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/elibrary.asp. Enter the docket number (P-
13235) in the docket number field to access the document. For
assistance, call toll-free 1-866-208-3372.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E8-20804 Filed 9-8-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: September 14, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 178)]
[Notices]
[Page 52588-52589]
[DOCID:fr14se07-72]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[File No. 500-1]

In the Matter of Terax Energy, Inc.; Order of Suspension of
Trading

September 12, 2007.
    It appears to the Securities and Exchange Commission that there is
a lack of current and accurate information concerning the securities of
Terax Energy, Inc. (``Terax,'' trading symbol TEXG.OB), because of
questions regarding the accuracy of assertions by Terax and by others,
in reports filed with the Commission and in press releases to investors
concerning, among other things: (1) The status of Terax's oil and gas
operations, (2) Terax's purported financing agreements, (3) Terax's
supposed acquisition of a controlling interest in a foreign oil and gas
firm, (4) the existence, terms and status of a purported share exchange
agreement between Terax and Westar Oil, Inc., and (5) the identity of
the persons in control of the operations and management of Terax.
    The Commission is of the opinion that the public interest and the
protection of investors require a suspension of trading in the
securities of the above-listed company.
    Therefore, it is ordered, pursuant to section 12(k) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, that trading in the above-listed
company is suspended for the period from 9:30 a.m. EDT, September 12,
2007 through 11:59 p.m. EDT, on September 26, 2007.

    By the Commission.
Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 07-4584 Filed 9-12-07; 12:00 pm]

BILLING CODE 8010-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 18 (Friday, January 26, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 3757-3759]
[FR Doc No: 2018-01448]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

[Docket No. USCG-2015-0694]

Collection of Information Under Review by Office of Management
and Budget; OMB Control Number: 1625-0040

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Thirty-day notice requesting comments.

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

SUMMARY: In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 the
U.S. Coast Guard is forwarding an Information Collection Request (ICR),
abstracted below, to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), Office
of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA), requesting approval for
reinstatement, without change, of the following collection of
information: 1625-0040, Application for Merchant Mariner Credential
(MMC), Application for Merchant Mariner Medical Certificate,
Applications for Merchant Mariner Medical Certificate for Entry Level
Ratings, Small Vessel Sea Service Form, DOT/USCG Periodic Drug Testing
Form, Disclosure Statement for Narcotics, DWI/DUI, and/or Other
Convictions, Merchant Mariner Medical Certificates, Recognition of
Foreign Certificate. Our ICR describes the information we seek to
collect from the public. Review and comments by OIRA ensure we only
impose paperwork burdens commensurate with our performance of duties.

DATES: Comments must reach the Coast Guard and OIRA on or before
February 26, 2018.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by Coast Guard docket
number [USCG-2015-0694] to the Coast Guard using the Federal
eRulemaking Portal at http://www.regulations.gov. Alternatively, you
may submit comments to OIRA using one of the following means:
    (1) Email: [email protected].
    (2) Mail: OIRA, 725 17th Street NW, Washington, DC 20503, attention
Desk Officer for the Coast Guard.
    A copy of the ICR is available through the docket on the internet
at http://www.regulations.gov. Additionally, copies are available from:
Commandant (CG-612), Attn: Paperwork Reduction Act Manager, U.S. Coast
Guard, 2703 Martin Luther King Jr. Ave. SE, Stop 7710, Washington, DC
20593-7710.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Anthony Smith, Office of
Information

Management, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, or fax<PHONE_NUMBER>, for questions
on these documents.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Public Participation and Request for Comments

    This Notice relies on the authority of the Paperwork Reduction Act
of 1995; 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35, as amended. An ICR is an application to
OIRA seeking the approval, extension, or renewal of a Coast Guard
collection of information (Collection). The ICR contains information
describing the Collection's purpose, the Collection's likely burden on
the affected public, an explanation of the necessity of the Collection,
and other important information describing the Collection. There is one
ICR for each Collection.
    The Coast Guard invites comments on whether this ICR should be
granted based on the Collection being necessary for the proper
performance of Departmental functions. In particular, the Coast Guard
would appreciate comments addressing: (1) The practical utility of the
Collection; (2) the accuracy of the estimated burden of the Collection;
(3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of information
subject to the Collection; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the
Collection on respondents, including the use of automated collection
techniques or other forms of information technology. These comments
will help OIRA determine whether to approve the ICR referred to in this
Notice.
    We encourage you to respond to this request by submitting comments
and related materials. Comments to Coast Guard or OIRA must contain the
OMB Control Number of the ICR. They must also contain the docket number
of this request [USCG-2015-0694], and must be received by February 26,
2018.

Submitting Comments

    We encourage you to submit comments through the Federal eRulemaking
Portal at http://www.regulations.gov. If your material cannot be
submitted using http://www.regulations.gov, contact the person in the
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this document for alternate
instructions. Documents mentioned in this notice, and all public
comments, are in our online docket at http://www.regulations.gov and
can be viewed by following that website's instructions. Additionally,
if you go to the online docket and sign up for email alerts, you will
be notified when comments are posted.
    We accept anonymous comments. All comments received will be posted
without change to http://www.regulations.gov and will include any
personal information you have provided. For more about privacy and the
docket, you may review a Privacy Act notice regarding the Federal
Docket Management System in the March 24, 2005, issue of the Federal
Register (70 FR 15086).
    OIRA posts its decisions on ICRs online at http://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain after the comment period for each ICR. An OMB Notice
of Action on each ICR will become available via a hyperlink in the OMB
Control Number: 1625-0040.

Previous Request for Comments

    This request provides a 30-day comment period required by OIRA. The
Coast Guard published the 60-day notice (80 FR 62079, December 14,
2015) required by 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2). That Notice elicited one
comment.
    We did receive one comment on the earlier submission of this ICR.
The commenter requested that we provide more detail on the progress of
an application while it is being processed. Although this is not a
comment directed at the collection, we do provide the following
response.
    Accordingly, no changes have been made to the Collections. The
Coast Guard provides process guides and general requirements to assist
with the applications required for a Merchant Mariner. These are
available upon the National Maritime Center (NMC) website at
www.uscg.mil/nmc.
    These guides detail the processes that are followed for the
evaluation of merchant mariners. Furthermore, during the mariner
evaluation process, the applicants are provided email updates (if email
address is provided) detailing the status of their application(s).
    The Coast Guard published a second 60-day Notice (82 FR 49639,
October 26, 2017) required by 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2). This was done due
to the length of time that elapsed since posting of the initial 60-day
Notice. That Notice elicited no comment. Accordingly, no changes have
been made to the Collection.

Information Collection Request

    Title: Application for Merchant Mariner Credential (MMC),
Application for Merchant Mariner Medical Certificate, Application for
Merchant Mariner Medical Certificate for Entry Level Ratings, Small
Vessel Sea Service Form, DOT/USCG Periodic Drug Testing Form,
Disclosure Statement for Narcotics, DWI/DUI, and/or Other Convictions,
Merchant Mariner Medical Certificate, Recognition of Foreign
Certificate.
    OMB Control Number: 1625-0040.
    Summary: The Application for Merchant Mariner Credential (MMC),
Application for Merchant Mariner Medical Certificate, Application for
Merchant Mariner Medical Certificate for Entry Level Ratings, Small
Vessel Sea Service Form, DOT/USCG Periodic Drug Testing Form,
Disclosure Statement for Narcotics, DWI/DUI, and/or Other Convictions,
contains the following information: Signature of applicant and
supplementary material required to show that the mariner meets the
mandatory requirements for the credential or medical certificate
sought; proof of applicant passing all applicable vision, hearing,
medical, and/or physical exams; negative chemical test for dangerous
drugs; discharges or other documentary evidence of sea service
indicating the name, tonnage, propulsion mode and power of the vessels,
dates of service, capacity in which the applicant served, and on what
waters; and disclosure documentation for narcotics, DWI/DUI, and/or
other convictions.
    Need: Title 46 United States Code (U.S.C.) Subtitle II, part E,
Title 46 Code of Federal Regulation (CFR) part 10, Subpart B, and
International Convention on Standards of Training, Certification and
Watchkeeping for Seafarers, 1978, as amended (STCW Convention) and the
STCW Code, including the STCW Final Rule (Docket No. USCG-2004-17914)
published on December 24, 2013, requires MMC and Medical Certificate
applicants to apply at one of the Coast Guard's seventeen Regional
Examination Centers located nationwide. MMCs are established for
individuals who are required to hold a credential under Subtitle II.
The Coast Guard has the responsibility of issuing MMCs and Medical
Certificates to applicants found qualified as to age, character, habits
of life, experience, professional qualifications, and physical fitness.
The instruments contained within OMB Control No. 1625-0040 serve as a
means for the applicant to apply for a MMC and Medical Certificate.
    Forms: CG-719B, Application for Merchant Mariner Credential (MMC);
CG-719C, Disclosure Statement for Narcotics, DWI/DUI, and/or Other
Convictions; CG-719K, Application for Merchant Mariner Medical
Certificate; CG-719K/E, Application for Merchant Mariner Medical
Certificate for Entry Level Ratings; CG-719S, Small Vessel Sea Service
Form; CG-719P, DOT/USCG Periodic Drug Testing Form.

    Respondents: Applicants for MMC, whether original, renewal,
duplicate, raise of grade, or a new endorsement on a previously issued
MMC. Applicants for Medical Certificates to include National and STCW
credentialed mariners, and first-class pilots.
    Frequency: On occasion.
    Hour Burden Estimate: The estimated burden remains 47,444 hours a
year (CG-719B = 8,475, CG-719K = 16,440 hours, CG-719K/E = 2,283 hours,
CG-719-S = 14, 125 hours, CG-719P = 4,708 hours, and CG-719C = 1,413).

    Authority: The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995; 44 U.S.C.
Chapter 35, as amended.

    Dated: January 11, 2018.
James D. Roppel,
Acting Chief, U.S. Coast Guard, Office of Information Management.
[FR Doc. 2018-01448 Filed 1-25-18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 136 (Tuesday, July 18, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 32851-32852]
[FR Doc No: 2017-15020]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-4320-DR; Docket ID FEMA-2017-0001]

Tennessee; Major Disaster and Related Determinations

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This is a notice of the Presidential declaration of a major
disaster for the State of Tennessee (FEMA-4320-DR), dated June 23,
2017, and related determinations.

DATES: Effective Date: June 23, 2017.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dean Webster, Office of Response and
Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW.,
Washington, DC 20472,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is hereby given that, in a letter
dated June 23, 2017, the President issued a major disaster declaration
under the authority of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and
Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121 et seq. (the ``Stafford
Act''), as follows:

    I have determined that the damage in certain areas of the State
of Tennessee resulting from severe storms, straight-line winds, and
flooding during the period of May 27-28, 2017, is of sufficient
severity and magnitude to warrant a major disaster declaration under
the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act,
42 U.S.C. 5121 et seq. (the ``Stafford Act''). Therefore, I declare
that such a major disaster exists in the State of Tennessee.
    In order to provide Federal assistance, you are hereby
authorized to allocate from funds available for these purposes such
amounts as you find necessary for Federal disaster assistance and
administrative expenses.
    You are authorized to provide Public Assistance in the
designated areas and Hazard Mitigation throughout the State.
Consistent with the requirement that Federal assistance be
supplemental, any Federal funds provided under the Stafford Act for
Hazard Mitigation will be limited to 75 percent of the total
eligible costs. Federal funds provided under the Stafford Act for
Public Assistance also will be limited to 75 percent of the total
eligible costs, with the exception of projects that meet the
eligibility criteria for a higher Federal cost-sharing percentage
under the Public Assistance Alternative Procedures Pilot Program for
Debris Removal implemented pursuant to section 428 of the Stafford
Act.
    Further, you are authorized to make changes to this declaration
for the approved assistance to the extent allowable under the
Stafford Act.

    The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) hereby gives notice
that pursuant to the authority vested in the Administrator, under
Executive Order 12148, as amended, Warren J. Riley, of FEMA is
appointed to act as the Federal Coordinating Officer for this major
disaster.
    The following areas of the State of Tennessee have been designated
as adversely affected by this major disaster:

    Blount, Cumberland, Fayette, Knox, Loudon, Morgan, Putnam, Rhea,
Roane, Sevier, Shelby, and Smith Counties for Public Assistance.
    All areas within the State of Tennessee are eligible for
assistance under the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program.
    The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers
(CFDA) are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030,
Community Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis
Counseling; 97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster
Unemployment Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance
Grant; 97.048, Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and
Households In Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049,
Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance--Disaster Housing
Operations for Individuals and Households; 97.050, Presidentially
Declared Disaster Assistance to Individuals and Households--Other
Needs; 97.036, Disaster Grants--Public Assistance (Presidentially
Declared Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant.

Brock Long,
Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2017-15020 Filed 7-17-17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111-23-P