[Federal Register: September 1, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 169)]
[Notices]
[Page 53687-53688]
[DOCID:fr01se10-49]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 2106-059]

Pacific Gas and Electric Company, California; Notice Correcting
Times for Public Draft Environmental Impact Statement Meetings

August 25, 2010.
    As stated in the July 30, 2010 Notice of Availability for the
McCloud-Pit Hydroelectric Project draft Environmental Impact Statement
(EIS), Commission staff will be conducting two public meetings to
receive comments on the draft EIS. The July 30, 2010 notice, however,
incorrectly listed the time for the morning meeting as 9 a.m.-11 p.m..
This notice corrects that error to indicate the meeting is from 9 a.m.-
11 a.m.
    The time and location of the meetings are as follows:
    Morning Meeting:
    Date: September 9, 2010.
    Time: 9 a.m.-11 a.m.
    Place: Holiday Inn Hotel,
    Address: 1900 Hilltop Dr., Redding, CA.
    Evening Meeting:
    Date: September 9, 2010.
    Time: 7 p.m.-9 p.m.
    Place: Holiday Inn Hotel,
    Address: 1900 Hilltop Dr., Redding, CA.
    At these meetings, resource agency personnel and other interested
persons will have the opportunity to provide oral and written comments
and recommendations regarding the draft EIS. The meetings will be
recorded by a court reporter, and all statements (verbal and written)
will become part of the Commission's public record for the project.
This meeting is posted on the Commission's calendar located at http://
www.ferc.gov/EventCalendar/

EventsList.aspx along with other related information.
    Whether or not you attend one of these meetings, you are invited to
submit written comments on the draft EIS. Comments should be filed with
Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888
First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426. All comments must be filed by
September 28, 2010, and should reference Project No. 2106-059. Comments
may be filed electronically via the Internet in lieu of paper. The
Commission strongly encourages electronic filings. See 18 CFR
385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and instructions on the Commission's Web site at
http://www.ferc.gov under the ``e-Library'' link.
    The Commission staff will consider comments made on the draft EIS
in preparing a final EIS for the project. Before the Commission makes a
licensing decision, it will take into account all concerns relevant to
the public interest. The final EIS will be part of the record from
which the Commission will make its decision.
    For further information, please contact Emily Carter at (202) 502-
6512.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-21792 Filed 8-31-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 92 (Thursday, May 12, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 27691-27693]
[FR Doc No: 2011-11672]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-64422; File No. SR-NYSEArca-2011-26]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE Arca, Inc.; Notice of Filing
of Proposed Rule Change Amending NYSE Arca Equities Rule 7.11 To
Include Additional Securities in the Pilot by Which Such Rule Operates
and Amending NYSE Arca Equities Rule 7.23 To Simplify Certain Aspects
of the Text While Also Conforming Certain of the Percentages Thereunder
to the Proposed Changes to Rule 7.11

May 6, 2011.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that
on May 4, 2011, NYSE Arca, Inc. (``NYSE Arca'' or the ``Exchange'')
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``SEC'' or
``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I and II
below, which Items have been prepared by NYSE Arca. The Commission is
publishing this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change
from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange proposes to amend NYSE Arca Equities Rule 7.11 to
include additional securities in the pilot by which such rule operates
and amend NYSE Arca Equities Rule 7.23 to simplify certain aspects of
the text while also conforming certain of the percentages thereunder to
the proposed changes to Rule 7.11. The text of the proposed rule change
is available at the Exchange, the Commission's Public Reference Room,
and http://www.nyse.com.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to amend Rule 7.11 to include additional
securities in the pilot by which such rule operates and amend Rule 7.23
to simplify certain aspects of the text while also conforming certain
of the percentages thereunder to the proposed changes to Rule 7.11.
    The Commission approved Rule 7.11 on a pilot basis on June 10, 2010
to provide for trading pauses in individual securities due to
extraordinary market volatility (``Trading Pause'') in all securities
included within the S&P 500[supreg] Index (``S&P 500'') (``Trading
Pause Pilot'' or ``Pilot'').\3\ The Exchange noted in its filing to
adopt Rule 7.11 that during the Pilot period it would continue to
assess whether additional securities need to be added and whether the
parameters of Rule 7.11 would need to be modified to accommodate
trading characteristics of different securities. The Exchange
subsequently received approval to add to the Pilot the securities
included in the Russell 1000[reg] Index (``Russell 1000'')
and a specified list of Exchange Traded Products (``ETPs'').\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The Commission approved the Trading Pause Pilot for all
equities exchanges and FINRA. See Securities Exchange Act Release
No. 62252 (June 10, 2010), 75 FR 34186 (June 16, 2010) (File Nos.
SR-BATS-2010-014; SR-EDGA-2010-01; SR-EDGX-2010-01; SR-BX-2010-037;
SR-ISE-2010-48; SR-NYSE-2010-39; SR-NYSEAmex-2010-46; SR-NYSEArca-
2010-41; SR-NASDAQ-2010-061; SR-CHX-2010-10; SR-NSX-2010-05; and SR-
CBOE-2010-047) and Securities Exchange Act Release No. 62251 (June
10, 2010), 75 FR 34183 (June 16, 2010) (SR-FINRA-2010-025). The
Exchange submitted a proposed rule change shortly after the initial
Commission approval order to clarify the procedures applicable to
reopening. See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 62281 (June 11,
2010), 75 FR 34504 (June 17, 2010) (SR-NYSEArca-2010-52).
    \4\ The Commission approved the addition to the Trading Pause
Pilot of the securities included in the Russell 1000 and ETPs, where
applicable, for all equities exchanges and FINRA. See Securities
Exchange Act Release No. 62884 (September 10, 2010), 75 FR 56618
(September 16, 2010) (File Nos. SR-BATS-2010-018; SR-BX-2010-044;
SR-CBOE-2010-065; SR-CHX-2010-14; SR-EDGA-2010-05; SR-EDGX-2010-05;
SR-ISE-2010-66; SR-NASDAQ-2010-079; SR-NYSE-2010-49; SR-NYSEAmex-
2010-63; SR-NYSEArca-2010-61; and SR-NSX-2010-08 and Securities
Exchange Act Release No. 62883 (September 10, 2010), 75 FR 56608
(September 16, 2010) (SR-FINRA-2010-033). The Exchange submitted a
proposed rule change shortly after the addition of the Russell 1000
securities and ETPs to extend the operation of the Pilot, which was
set to expire on December 10, 2010, until April 11, 2011. See
Securities Exchange Act Release No. 63496 (December 9, 2010), 75 FR
78285 (December 15, 2010) (SR-NYSEArca-2010-114). The Pilot is
currently set to expire on the earlier of August 11, 2011 or the
date on which a limit up/limit down mechanism to address
extraordinary market volatility, if adopted, applies. See Securities
Exchange Act Release No. 64209 (April 6, 2011), 76 FR 20422 (April
12, 2011) (SR-NYSEArca-2011-14).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange has continued to assess whether additional securities
need to be added to the Pilot and whether the parameters of Rule 7.11
need to be modified to accommodate trading characteristics of different
securities. In consultation with other markets and the staff of the
Commission, the Exchange proposes to include all NMS stocks within the
Pilot that are not already included therein, but to apply a wider
Threshold Move percentage to the newly added securities. Accordingly,
the Exchange proposes to delete Commentary .01 to Rule 7.11, as the
text therein would no longer be necessary.
    The Exchange proposes that the Threshold Move required to trigger a
Trading Pause for the proposed new securities be 30% or more for such
securities priced at $1 or higher and 50% or more for such securities
priced less than $1.\5\ The Exchange believes that these percentages
are commensurate with the characteristics shared by the proposed new
securities within these price ranges and would promote the objectives
of the Trading Pause Pilot to reduce the negative impacts of
unanticipated price movements in a security. In particular, the
proposed additional stocks are those not currently included in the S&P
500, Russell 1000, or specified ETPs, and therefore are more likely to
be less liquid securities or securities with lower trading volumes.
Accordingly, the Exchange believes that broader Threshold Move
percentages would be appropriate. Similarly, because leveraged ETPs
trade at a ratio against the associated index, a broader Threshold Move
percentage would also

be appropriate for leveraged ETPs. In addition, the Exchange believes
that a 50% threshold move is appropriate for securities trading under a
dollar to reflect that price movements of such lower-priced stocks
equate to a higher percentage move than a similar price change would be
for a higher-priced stock.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Under the proposed rule change, the price of a security
would be based on the closing price on the previous trading day, or,
if no closing price exists, the last sale reported to the
Consolidated Tape on the previous trading day.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange proposes to include new subsections 7.11(a)(i), (ii)
and (iii) to reflect the distinction between the applicable Threshold
Move percentages for current Pilot securities and the proposed new
securities to be included within the Pilot.\6\ The Exchange is not
proposing any other changes to the text of Rule 7.11 or the operation
of the Pilot, and will continue to assess whether the parameters for
invoking a Trading Pause continue to be appropriate and whether the
parameters should be modified.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ The Exchange is not proposing a change to the Threshold Move
percentage applicable to securities currently included within the
current Pilot. However, the changes proposed herein would require
that certain rule text pertaining to the Threshold Move for the
existing Pilot securities be reorganized within Rule 7.11.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed changes to the Pilot, if approved, would require that
the text of Rule 7.23(a)(1)(B)(iii) and (iv), which pertains to the
pricing obligations that Market Makers are required to adhere to, be
amended to correct the cross-references therein to Rule 7.11 and the
Threshold Move thereunder. Specifically, the Exchange proposes to
remove any text from Rule 7.23(a)(1)(B)(iii) and (iv) addressing NMS
stocks that are not subject to the Pilot because no such securities
would exist and such text would therefore be unnecessary. The Exchange
also proposes to simplify Rule 7.23(a)(1)(B)(iii) and (iv) by
explicitly stating the percentages that are applicable thereunder and
the times during the trading day when Rule 7.11 is not in effect. The
Exchange notes that part of this proposed change would be substantive,
in that the percentages under Rule 7.23(a)(1)(B)(iii) and (iv) would
decrease slightly for the proposed new securities priced at $1 or
greater. The Exchange believes that this proposed substantive change
would not have a significant impact on Market Maker pricing obligations
and is reasonable because it would ensure that the designated quoting
percentages in Rule 7.23(a)(1)(B) are within a narrower range than the
percentages necessary to trigger a Trading Pause.
2. Statutory Basis
    The proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the ``Act''),\7\ in general, and
furthers the objectives of Section 6(b)(5),\8\ in particular, in that
it is designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and
practices, to promote just and equitable principles of trade, to foster
cooperation and coordination with persons engaged in facilitating
transactions in securities, and to remove impediments to and perfect
the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system.
The proposed rule change also is designed to support the principles of
Section 11A(a)(1) \9\ of the Act in that it seeks to ensure fair
competition among brokers and dealers and among exchange markets. The
Exchange believes that the proposed rule meets these requirements
because it expands the scope of the Pilot to cover all NMS stocks while
adjusting the parameters of the rule for different securities in a
manner that will promote uniformity across markets concerning decisions
to pause trading in a security when there are significant price
movements. Additionally, the proposed changes would ensure that the
designated quoting percentages in Rule 7.23(a)(1)(B) are within a
narrower range than the percentages necessary to trigger a Trading
Pause.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78k-1(a)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate
in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.

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

    No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the
proposed rule change.

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

    Within 45 days of the date of publication of this notice in the
Federal Register or within such longer period (i) as the Commission may
designate up to 90 days of such date if it finds such longer period to
be appropriate and publishes its reasons for so finding or (ii) as to
which the self-regulatory organization consents, the Commission will:
    (A) By order approve or disapprove such proposed rule change, or
    (B) Institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule
change should be disapproved.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-NYSEArca-2011-26 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

    All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NYSEArca-2011-26.
This file number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is
used. To help the Commission process and review your comments more
efficiently, please use only one method. The Commission will post all
comments on the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments,
all written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that
are filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating
to the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person,
other than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance
with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site
viewing and printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F
Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between
the hours of 10 a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of such filing also will be
available for inspection and copying at the principal office of NYSE
Arca. 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
publicly available. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-
NYSEArca-2011-26 and should be submitted on or before June 2, 2011

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Elizabeth M. Murphy,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2011-11672 Filed 5-11-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 151 (Monday, August 6, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 46757-46759]
[FR Doc No: 2012-19128]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[FRL-9711-5]

Proposed Consent Decree, Clean Air Act Citizen Suit

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of proposed consent decree; request for public comment.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with section 113(g) of the Clean Air Act, as
amended (``CAA''), notice is hereby given of a proposed consent decree,
to address a lawsuit filed by Sierra Club in the United States District
Court for the District of Columbia: Sierra Club v. Jackson, No. 11-
2180-RBW (D. DC). Plaintiff filed a complaint alleging that EPA failed
to take action on certain state implementation plan (``SIP'')
submissions for the States of Massachusetts, Connecticut, New Jersey,
New York, Pennsylvania, Maryland and Delaware by the statutory deadline
established by CAA section 110(k)(2), 7410(k)(2). The proposed consent
decree establishes deadlines for EPA to take action on the SIP
submittals.

DATES: Written comments on the proposed consent decree must be received
by September 5, 2012.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID number EPA-HQ-
OGC-2012-0595, online at www.regulations.gov (EPA's preferred method);
by email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>mailed to EPA Docket Center,
Environmental Protection Agency, Mailcode: 2822T, 1200 Pennsylvania
Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; or by hand delivery or courier to
EPA Docket Center, EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW.,
Washington, DC, between 8:30 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. Monday through Friday,
excluding legal holidays. Comments on a disk or CD-ROM should be
formatted in Word or ASCII file, avoiding the use of special characters
and any form of encryption, and may be mailed to the mailing address
above.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: David Orlin, Air and Radiation Law
Office (2344A), Office of General Counsel, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460;
telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax number<PHONE_NUMBER>; email address:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Additional Information About the Proposed Consent Decree

    The proposed consent decree would resolve a lawsuit filed by the
Sierra Club seeking to compel the Administrator to take final action
under sections 110(k)(3) and (4) of the CAA, 42 U.S.C. 7410(k)(3) and
(4), to approve or disapprove, in whole or in part, numerous SIP
submittals in the States of Massachusetts, Connecticut, New Jersey, New
York, Pennsylvania, Maryland and Delaware which are identified in
Attachment A to the proposed consent decree.
    The proposed consent decree provides various dates by which EPA
shall sign one or more final rules to approve or disapprove, in whole
or in part, pursuant to CAA section 110(k)(3) and (4), each SIP
submission (or portion thereof on which EPA has not yet taken final
action) identified in Attachment A; except that the consent decree does
not require EPA to act on a submission or portion thereof that is
withdrawn prior to the applicable deadline.
    Within 15 business days following signature of each final rule
described in the proposed consent decree, EPA is required to send the
notice to the Office of the Federal Register for review and publication
in the Federal Register. After EPA fulfills its obligations under the
consent decree, the consent decree provides that this case shall be
dismissed with prejudice.
    The proposed consent decree also states that that the consent
decree can be modified by the parties, or by the court following a
motion by a party and a response thereto. In addition, the parties
agree to seek to resolve informally Sierra Club's claim for litigation
costs pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 7604(d), but the court would retain
jurisdiction to resolve that claim.
    For a period of thirty (30) days following the date of publication
of this notice, the Agency will accept written comments relating to the
proposed consent decree from persons who were not named as parties or
intervenors to the litigation in question. EPA or the Department of
Justice may withdraw or withhold consent to the proposed consent decree
if the comments disclose facts or considerations that indicate that
such consent is inappropriate, improper, inadequate, or inconsistent
with the requirements of the Act. Unless EPA or the Department of
Justice determines, based on any comment submitted, that consent to
this consent decree should be withdrawn, the terms of the decree will
be affirmed.

II. Additional Information About Commenting on the Proposed Consent
Decree

A. How can I get a copy of the consent decree?

    The official public docket for this action (identified by Docket ID
No. EPA-HQ-OGC-2012-0595) contains a copy of the proposed consent
decree (including Attachment A). The official public docket is
available for public viewing at the Office of Environmental Information
(OEI) Docket in the EPA Docket Center, EPA West, Room 3334, 1301
Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC. The EPA Docket Center Public
Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through
Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public
Reading Room is<PHONE_NUMBER>, and the telephone number for the OEI
Docket is<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    An electronic version of the public docket is available through
www.regulations.gov. You may use the www.regulations.gov to submit or
view public comments, access the index listing of the contents of the
official public docket, and to access those documents in the public
docket that are available electronically. Once in the system, key in
the appropriate docket identification number then select ``search''.
    It is important to note that EPA's policy is that public comments,
whether submitted electronically or in paper, will be made available
for public viewing online at www.regulations.gov without change, unless
the comment contains copyrighted material, CBI, or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Information claimed as CBI
and other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute is not
included in the official public docket or in the electronic public
docket. EPA's policy is that copyrighted material, including
copyrighted material contained in a public comment, will not be placed
in EPA's electronic public docket but will be available only in
printed, paper form in the official public docket. Although not all
docket materials may be available electronically, you may still access
any of the publicly available docket materials through the EPA Docket
Center.

B. How and to whom do I submit comments?

    You may submit comments as provided in the ADDRESSES section.
Please ensure that your comments are submitted within the specified
comment period. Comments received after the close of the comment period
will be marked ``late.'' EPA is not required to consider these late
comments.
    If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you
include your name, mailing address, and an email address or other
contact information in the body of your comment and with any disk or CD
ROM you submit. This ensures that you can be identified as the
submitter of the comment and allows EPA to contact you in case EPA
cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties or needs further
information on the substance of your comment. Any identifying or
contact information provided in the body of a comment will be included
as part of the comment that is placed in the official public docket,
and made available in EPA's electronic public docket. If EPA cannot
read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you
for clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment.
    Use of the www.regulations.gov Web site to submit comments to EPA
electronically is EPA's preferred method for receiving comments. The
electronic public docket system is an ``anonymous access'' system,
which means EPA will not know your identity, email address, or other
contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment.
In contrast to EPA's electronic public docket, EPA's electronic mail
(email) system is not an ``anonymous access'' system. If you send an
email comment directly to the Docket without going through
www.regulations.gov, your email address is automatically captured and
included as part of the comment

that is placed in the official public docket, and made available in
EPA's electronic public docket.

    Dated: July 27, 2012.
Lorie J. Schmidt,
Associate General Counsel.
[FR Doc. 2012-19128 Filed 8-3-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 121 (Tuesday, June 23, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 37701-37703]
[FR Doc No: 2020-13433]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-89084; File No. 4-762]

Program for Allocation of Regulatory Responsibilities Pursuant to
Rule 17d-2; Order Approving and Declaring Effective a Proposed Plan for
the Allocation of Regulatory Responsibilities Between the Financial
Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc. and MEMX LLC

June 17, 2020.
    On April 16, 2020, the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority,
Inc. (``FINRA'') and MEMX LLC (``MEMX'') (together with FINRA, the
``Parties'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'' or ``SEC'') a plan for the allocation of regulatory
responsibilities, dated July 11, 2019 (``17d-2 Plan'' or the ``Plan'').
The Plan was published for comment on May 27, 2020.\1\ The Commission
received no comments on the Plan. This order approves and declares
effective the Plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 88918 (May 20,
2020), 85 FR 31838.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

I. Introduction

    Section 19(g)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act''),\2\ among other things, requires every self-regulatory
organization (``SRO'') registered as either a national securities
exchange or national securities association to examine for, and enforce
compliance by, its members and persons associated with its members with
the Act, the rules and regulations thereunder, and the SRO's own rules,
unless the SRO is relieved of this responsibility pursuant to Section
17(d) or Section 19(g)(2) of the Act.\3\ Without this relief, the
statutory obligation of each individual SRO could result in a pattern
of multiple examinations of broker-dealers that maintain memberships in
more than one SRO (``common members''). Such regulatory duplication
would add unnecessary expenses for common members and their SROs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(g)(1).
    \3\ 15 U.S.C. 78q(d) and 15 U.S.C. 78s(g)(2), respectively.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Section 17(d)(1) of the Act \4\ was intended, in part, to eliminate
unnecessary multiple examinations and regulatory duplication.\5\ With
respect to a common member, Section 17(d)(1) authorizes the Commission,
by rule or

order, to relieve an SRO of the responsibility to receive regulatory
reports, to examine for and enforce compliance with applicable
statutes, rules, and regulations, or to perform other specified
regulatory functions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ 15 U.S.C. 78q(d)(1).
    \5\ See Securities Act Amendments of 1975, Report of the Senate
Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs to Accompany S.
249, S. Rep. No. 94-75, 94th Cong., 1st Session 32 (1975).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To implement Section 17(d)(1), the Commission adopted two rules:
Rule 17d-1 and Rule 17d-2 under the Act.\6\ Rule 17d-1 authorizes the
Commission to name a single SRO as the designated examining authority
(``DEA'') to examine common members for compliance with the financial
responsibility requirements imposed by the Act, or by Commission or SRO
rules.\7\ When an SRO has been named as a common member's DEA, all
other SROs to which the common member belongs are relieved of the
responsibility to examine the firm for compliance with the applicable
financial responsibility rules. On its face, Rule 17d-1 deals only with
an SRO's obligations to enforce member compliance with financial
responsibility requirements. Rule 17d-1 does not relieve an SRO from
its obligation to examine a common member for compliance with its own
rules and provisions of the federal securities laws governing matters
other than financial responsibility, including sales practices and
trading activities and practices.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 17 CFR 240.17d-1 and 17 CFR 240.17d-2, respectively.
    \7\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 12352 (April 20,
1976), 41 FR 18808 (May 7, 1976).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To address regulatory duplication in these and other areas, the
Commission adopted Rule 17d-2 under the Act.\8\ Rule 17d-2 permits SROs
to propose joint plans for the allocation of regulatory
responsibilities with respect to their common members. Under paragraph
(c) of Rule 17d-2, the Commission may declare such a plan effective if,
after providing for appropriate notice and comment, it determines that
the plan is necessary or appropriate in the public interest and for the
protection of investors; to foster cooperation and coordination among
the SROs; to remove impediments to, and foster the development of, a
national market system and a national clearance and settlement system;
and is in conformity with the factors set forth in Section 17(d) of the
Act. Commission approval of a plan filed pursuant to Rule 17d-2
relieves an SRO of those regulatory responsibilities allocated by the
plan to another SRO.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 12935 (October 28,
1976), 41 FR 49091 (November 8, 1976).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Proposed Plan

    The proposed 17d-2 Plan is intended to reduce regulatory
duplication for firms that are common members of both MEMX and
FINRA.\9\ Pursuant to the proposed 17d-2 Plan, FINRA would assume
certain examination and enforcement responsibilities for common members
with respect to certain applicable laws, rules, and regulations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ The proposed 17d-2 Plan refers to these common members as
``Dual Members.'' See Paragraph 1(c) of the proposed 17d-2 Plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The text of the Plan delineates the proposed regulatory
responsibilities with respect to the Parties. Included in the proposed
Plan is an exhibit (the ``MEMX Certification of Common Rules,''
referred to herein as the ``Certification'') that lists every MEMX
rule, and select federal securities laws, rules, and regulations, for
which FINRA would bear responsibility under the Plan for overseeing and
enforcing with respect to MEMX members that are also members of FINRA
and the associated persons therewith (``Dual Members'').
    Specifically, under the 17d-2 Plan, FINRA would assume examination
and enforcement responsibility relating to compliance by Dual Members
with the rules of MEMX that are substantially similar to the applicable
rules of FINRA,\10\ as well as any provisions of the federal securities
laws and the rules and regulations thereunder delineated in the
Certification (``Common Rules''). In the event that a Dual Member is
the subject of an investigation relating to a transaction on MEMX, the
plan acknowledges that MEMX may, in its discretion, exercise concurrent
jurisdiction and responsibility for such matter.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See paragraph 1(b) of the proposed 17d-2 Plan (defining
Common Rules). See also paragraph 1(f) of the proposed 17d-2 Plan
(defining Regulatory Responsibilities). Paragraph 2 of the Plan
provides that annually, or more frequently as required by changes in
either MEMX rules or FINRA rules, the parties shall review and
update, if necessary, the list of Common Rules. Further, paragraph 3
of the Plan provides that MEMX shall furnish FINRA with a list of
Dual Members, and shall update the list no less frequently than once
each calendar quarter.
    \11\ See paragraph 6 of the proposed 17d-2 Plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Under the Plan, MEMX would retain full responsibility for
surveillance, examination, investigation and enforcement with respect
to trading activities or practices involving MEMX's own marketplace,
including, without limitation, registration pursuant to its applicable
rules of associated persons (i.e., registration rules that are not
Common Rules); its duties as a DEA pursuant to Rule 17d-1 under the
Act; and any MEMX rules that are not Common Rules.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ See paragraph 2 of the proposed 17d-2 Plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Discussion

    The Commission finds that the proposed Plan is consistent with the
factors set forth in Section 17(d) of the Act \13\ and Rule 17d-2(c)
thereunder \14\ in that the proposed Plan is necessary or appropriate
in the public interest and for the protection of investors, fosters
cooperation and coordination among SROs, and removes impediments to and
fosters the development of the national market system. In particular,
the Commission believes that the proposed Plan should reduce
unnecessary regulatory duplication by allocating to FINRA certain
examination and enforcement responsibilities for common members that
would otherwise be performed by MEMX and FINRA. Accordingly, the
proposed Plan promotes efficiency by reducing costs to common members.
Furthermore, because MEMX and FINRA will coordinate their regulatory
functions in accordance with the Plan, the Plan should promote investor
protection.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ 15 U.S.C. 78q(d).
    \14\ 17 CFR 240.17d-2(c).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission notes that, under the Plan, MEMX and FINRA have
allocated regulatory responsibility for those MEMX rules, set forth in
the Certification, that are substantially similar to the applicable
FINRA rules in that examination for compliance with such provisions and
rules would not require FINRA to develop one or more new examination
standards, modules, procedures, or criteria in order to analyze the
application of the rule, or a common member's activity, conduct, or
output in relation to such rule. In addition, under the Plan, FINRA
would assume regulatory responsibility for certain provisions of the
federal securities laws and the rules and regulations thereunder that
are set forth in the Certification. The Common Rules covered by the
Plan are specifically listed in the Certification, as may be amended by
the Parties from time to time.
    According to the Plan, MEMX will review the Certification, at least
annually, or more frequently if required by changes in either the rules
of MEMX or FINRA, and, if necessary, submit to FINRA an updated list of
Common Rules to add MEMX rules not included on the then-current list of
Common Rules that are substantially similar to FINRA rules; delete MEMX
rules included in the then-current list of Common Rules that are no
longer

substantially similar to FINRA rules; and confirm that the remaining
rules on the list of Common Rules continue to be MEMX rules that are
substantially similar to FINRA rules.\15\ FINRA will then confirm in
writing whether the rules listed in any updated list are Common Rules
as defined in the Plan. Under the Plan, MEMX will also provide FINRA
with a current list of common members and shall update the list no less
frequently than once each quarter.\16\ The Commission believes that
these provisions are designed to provide for continuing communication
between the Parties to ensure the continued accuracy of the scope of
the proposed allocation of regulatory responsibility.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ See paragraph 2 of the Plan.
    \16\ See paragraph 3 of the Plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission is hereby declaring effective a Plan that, among
other things, allocates regulatory responsibility to FINRA for the
oversight and enforcement of all MEMX rules that are substantially
similar to the rules of FINRA for common members of MEMX and FINRA.
Therefore, modifications to the Certification need not be filed with
the Commission as an amendment to the Plan, provided that the Parties
are only adding to, deleting from, or confirming changes to MEMX rules
in the Certification in conformance with the definition of Common Rules
provided in the Plan. However, should the Parties decide to add an MEMX
rule to the Certification that is not substantially similar to a FINRA
rule; delete an MEMX rule from the Certification that is substantially
similar to a FINRA rule; or leave on the Certification an MEMX rule
that is no longer substantially similar to a FINRA rule, then such a
change would constitute an amendment to the Plan, which must be filed
with the Commission pursuant to Rule 17d-2 under the Act.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ The Commission also notes that the addition to or deletion
from the Certification of any federal securities laws, rules, and
regulations for which FINRA would bear responsibility under the Plan
for examining, and enforcing compliance by, common members, also
would constitute an amendment to the Plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Conclusion

    This Order gives effect to the Plan filed with the Commission in
File No. 4-762. The Parties shall notify all members affected by the
Plan of their rights and obligations under the Plan.
    It is therefore ordered, pursuant to Section 17(d) of the Act, that
the Plan in File No. 4-762, between FINRA and MEMX, filed pursuant to
Rule 17d-2 under the Act, is approved and declared effective.
    It is further ordered that MEMX is relieved of those
responsibilities allocated to FINRA under the Plan in File No. 4-762.

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

    \18\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(34).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

J. Matthew DeLesDernier,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2020-13433 Filed 6-22-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 112 (Tuesday, June 11, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Page 27104]
[FR Doc No: 2019-12199]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 14616-001]

Oregon State University; Notice of Application Tendered for
Filing With the Commission

    Take notice that the following hydroelectric application has been
filed with the Commission and is available for public inspection.
    a. Type of Application: Original License for Major Unconstructed
Project.
    b. Project No.: 14616-001.
    c. Date filed: May 31, 2019.
    d. Applicant: Oregon State University.
    e. Name of Project: PacWave South Project.
    f. Location: On the Pacific Ocean 6 nautical miles off the central
Oregon coast near the city of Newport, in Lincoln County, Oregon. The
project occupies 1,695 acres of United States submerged lands on the
Outer Continental Shelf administered by the Bureau of Ocean Energy
Management.
    g. Filed Pursuant to: Federal Power Act 16 U.S.C. 791 (a)-825(r).
    h. Applicant Contact: Cherise Gaffney, Stoel Rives LLP, 600
University St, Suite 3600, Seattle, WA 98101;<PHONE_NUMBER>; or email
at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    i. FERC Contact: Jim Hastreiter at<PHONE_NUMBER>; or email at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    j. The application is not ready for environmental analysis at this
time.
    k. The proposed PacWave South Project would consist of: (1) Four
offshore test berths; (2) a maximum of 20 wave energy conversion (WEC)
devices with a maximum total installed capacity of 20 megawatts; (3)
various WEC devices including point absorbers, oscillating water
column, overtopping, attenuator, and ``other'' types that utilize a
combination of technology designs; (4) various anchoring systems
including gravity based anchors, drag anchors, and embedment anchors,
consisting of steel, concrete, or a mixture of steel and concrete; (5)
single- or 3-point mooring systems consisting of chain, steel cables,
or synthetic materials; (6) mooring infrastructure including surface
buoys, subsurface floats, and chain, wire or rope, as catenary, tendon
or bridle lines; (7) subsea connectors; (8) five buried 8.3-mile-long
subsea transmission cables converging in a nearshore conduit; (9) up to
five onshore 10-foot by 10-foot by 10-foot cable splice vaults (beach
manholes), where the subsea cables would transition to terrestrial
cables; (10) five buried 0.5-mile-long subterranean transmission cables
connecting to a power monitoring and conditioning facility; (11) grid-
interconnection at Central Lincoln Public Utility District substation;
and (12) appurtenant facilities.
    l. A copy of the application is available for review at the
Commission in the Public Reference Room or may be viewed on the
Commission's website at http://www.ferc.gov using the ``eLibrary''
link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three digits in the
docket number field to access the document. For assistance, contact
FERC Online Support. A copy is also available for inspection and
reproduction at the address in item h above.
    You may also register online at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp to be notified via email of new filings and issuances
related to this or other pending projects. For assistance, contact FERC
Online Support.
    m. Procedural schedule: The application will be processed according
to the following preliminary Hydro Licensing Schedule. Revisions to the
schedule will be made as appropriate.
    Issue Notice of Application Tendered: June 2019.
    Issue Notice of Application Acceptance and Soliciting Final Terms
and Conditions: August 2019.
    Commission issues EA: December 2019.

    Dated: June 4, 2019.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2019-12199 Filed 6-10-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P