[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 214 (Wednesday, November 4, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 70225-70228]
[FR Doc No: 2020-24472]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

[Docket No. FMCSA-2019-0287]

Driver Qualification Files: Application for Exemption; Knight-
Swift Transportation Holdings, Inc.

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

ACTION: Notice of final disposition; granting of application of
exemption.

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

SUMMARY: FMCSA announces its decision to grant, with conditions,
Knight-Swift Transportation Holdings, Inc.'s (Knight-Swift) application
for an exemption from the requirement that motor carriers rely on the
motor vehicle record (MVR) of their drivers holding a commercial
driver's license (CDL) as proof of the driver's medical qualifications
when the driver undergoes a new medical exam during the initial period
of employment as a condition of employment. Knight-Swift would rely on
the medical long form for newly hired drivers and then rely on the MVR
when the subsequent annual review of the driving record is performed.
FMCSA analyzed the exemption application and public comments and
determined that the applicant would achieve a level of safety that is
equivalent to, or greater than, the level that would be achieved absent
such exemption.

DATES: The exemption is effective December 4, 2020. The exemption
expires November 4, 2025.

ADDRESSES:
    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or
comments, go to www.regulations.gov at any time or visit Room W12-140
on the ground level of the West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE,
Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., ET, Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays. The on-line Federal Docket Management System
(FDMS) is available 24 hours each day, 365 days each year.
    Privacy Act: In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits
comments from the public to better inform its rulemaking process. DOT
posts these comments, without edit, including any personal information
the commenter provides, to www.regulations.gov, as described in the
system of records notice (DOT/ALL-14 FDMS), which can be reviewed at
www.dot.gov/privacy.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Pearlie Robinson, FMCSA Driver and
Carrier Operations Division; Office of

Carrier, Driver and Vehicle Safety Standards; Telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
Email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>If you have questions on viewing or submitting
material to the docket, contact Docket Services, telephone (202) 366-
9826.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Public Participation

Viewing Comments and Documents

    To view comments, as well as documents mentioned in this preamble
as being available in the docket, go to www.regulations.gov and insert
the docket number, ``FMCSA-2018-0347 in the ``Keyword'' box and click
``Search.'' Next, click the ``Open Docket Folder'' button and choose
the document to review. If you do not have access to the internet, you
may view the docket online by visiting the Docket Management Facility
in Room W12-140 on the ground floor of the DOT West Building, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
e.t., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. To be sure
someone is there to help you, please call<PHONE_NUMBER> or (202) 366-
9826 before visiting Docket Operations.

II. Legal Basis

    FMCSA has authority under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315 to grant
exemptions from the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations. FMCSA
shall establish terms and conditions for each exemption to ensure that
it will likely achieve a level of safety that is equivalent to, or
greater than, the level that would be achieved absent such exemption.
FMCSA must publish a notice of each exemption request in the Federal
Register (49 CFR 381.315(a)). The Agency must provide the public an
opportunity to inspect the information relevant to the application,
including any safety analyses that have been conducted. The Agency must
also provide an opportunity for public comment on the request.
    The Agency reviews the safety analyses and the public comments and
determines whether granting the exemption would likely achieve a level
of safety equivalent to or greater than the level that would be
achieved by the current regulation (49 CFR 381.305). The Agency's
decision must be published in the Federal Register (49 CFR 381.315(b))
with the reason for the granting or denial, and, if granted, the
specific person or class of persons receiving the exemption and the
regulatory provision or provisions from which the exemption is granted.
The notice must specify the effective period of the exemption (up to 5
years) and explain the terms and conditions of the exemption. The
exemption may be renewed (49 CFR 381.300(b)).

III. Request for Exemption

    Knight-Swift has adopted a company policy of requiring all newly
hired drivers to undergo a complete medical examination. Knight-Swift
explains that it believes this policy combats medical fraud and ensures
that the driver is medically qualified at the time of hiring. This
medical examination upon hiring is not required by the FMCSRs (unless
the driver's current medical certificate has expired) but it triggers
the requirement of 49 CFR 391.51(b)(7(ii) that Knight-Swift obtain the
results of that examination from the SDLA in the form of an updated
MVR. Knight-Swift objects to the cost and inconvenience of obtaining
the MVR a second time when it recently obtained the MVR pursuant to
hiring as required by 49 CFR 391.23(a)(1). It asserts that it is
pointless to obtain ``information that in most cases we have already
verified within the previous few days.'' Knight-Swift seeks an
exemption from the requirement to obtain a new MVR when the medical
examination triggering the requirement was of a newly hired Knight-
Swift driver.
    Knight-Swift provided data to support their exemption application
and this data is included in the docket for this application. The
provided data included a sample pool of 5,722 newly hired Knight-Swift
drivers with valid 2-year medical cards. After undergoing Knight-
Swift's hiring process, 19% of the sample pool drivers were downgraded
to a 1-year certification and 2.1% were disqualified. Knight-Swift did
not indicate whether it knew if these drivers (those holding a CDL)
provided the new certification to the SDLAs issuing their licenses.

IV. Method To Ensure an Equivalent Level of Safety

    To ensure an equivalent level of safety, Knight-Swift proposes to
include in the driver qualification file the newly hired driver's
medical examination report in lieu of obtaining a second MVR.

V. Public Comments

    On December 23, 2019, FMCSA published notice of Knight-Swift's
application and requested comments (84 FR 68287). Three comments were
received from individuals and all opposed granting the exemption.
Michael Millard, made the following statement: ``To extend the
exemption to such a large base of drivers would basically nullify the
need for any carrier to pull Commercial Driver's Licensing Information
System (CDLIS) with the medical status on the driver's CDLIS report
potentially resulting in multiple carriers following suit.'' Art Meyer
made the following opposing argument ``I would highly recommend that
this exemption not go through as I am a fleet manager and it never
ceases to amaze me that the driver has not certified his medical card
with the State and is thus driving on a downgraded D.L. We all should
have to follow the rules no matter how big or how small a company we
are and to file to [sic] not have to follow the rules tells me why we
see so many Swift wrecks on the highways and social media that we do.''
Lastly, Jean Publiee argued that Knight-Swift should not be granted an
exemption and emphasized that full documentation of a driver should be
required.

VI. FMCSA Decision

    The FMCSA believes Knight-Swift's exemption application has merit
and with necessary terms and conditions, will allow the applicant to
achieve a level of safety equivalent to what is required under the
current safety regulations, provided Knight-Swift complies with the
imposed terms and conditions. Under current regulations, CMV drivers
required to have a commercial driver's license (CDL) or a commercial
learner's permit (CLP) are required to provide the SDLA with the
original or a copy of the medical examiner's certificate (MEC) (49 CFR
383.71(h)(1) and (3)). This includes an initial MEC and ``each
subsequently issued medical examiner's certificate''. SDLAs are
required to post this information to the driver's CDLIS driver record
within 10 calendar days (49 CFR 383.73(o)(1)). If the driver does not
provide an MEC to the SDLA, either at the time of a licensing
transaction, when the MEC provided expires or is voided, or after
obtaining a subsequently issued MEC, then the SDLA must within 10
calendar days change the driver's status in the CDLIS driver record to
``not certified'' (49 CFR 383.73(o)(2)). If this status change occurs,
the driver is no longer physically qualified to operate a CMV that
requires a CDL or CLP (49 CFR 391.41(a)(2)). The SDLA must notify the
CDL or CLP holder of the status as ``not certified'' and begin the
process of downgrading the license, to be completed within 60 days (49
CFR 383.73(o)(4)).
    In addition, within 30 days after employing a CMV driver, motor
carriers are required to obtain the motor vehicle record from the
current licensing SDLA and place a copy in the driver's driver
qualification file (49 CFR 391.23(a)(1)

and (b)). For drivers required to have a CDL or CLP to operate a CMV,
the CDLIS motor vehicle record must be obtained and must show that the
driver was properly certified as physically qualified (49 CFR
391.23(m)(2) and (3)). The driver's updated MVR showing that he or she
was properly certified as physically qualified by submitting the MEC to
the SDLA, must be retained in the driver qualification file. This is
the requirement for which Knight-Swift is requesting an exemption. A
CDL driver who is ``without medical certification status information on
the CDLIS motor vehicle record is designated `not-certified' to operate
a CMV in interstate commerce'' (49 CFR 391.51(b)(7(ii)). From the MVR,
the carrier can verify both that the driver is currently physically
qualified and that the driver has a valid CDL that is in effect.
    The carrier reviews the MVR as required under the current
regulations and the record provides proof that the prospective employee
has both a valid CDL and medical certification. The proof of the
medical certification comes from the medical certificate issued by a
healthcare provider on the National Registry, as long as it has been
provided to the SDLA and is entered on the CDLIS driver record.
    Knight-Swift has implemented a process through which each newly
hired driver must undergo a medical examination by one of its
healthcare professionals listed on the National Registry. For all
drivers receiving a new medical certificate, the information would be
provided to the SDLA for the driver's State of domicile so that the
certificate would then serve as the most up-to-date information
captured on the MVR. And because the initial MVR obtained for the newly
hired driver no longer reflects the most recent medical examination,
the carrier needs an exemption. To provide an equivalent level of
safety under the requested exemption, Knight-Swift will be required to
obtain from the driver proof that the subsequently issued medical
examiner's certificate issued as a result of the new examination
required by Knight-Swift has been provided to the SDLA. Instead of the
MVR, Knight-Swift can obtain other proof for inclusion in the driver
qualification file, such as a receipt from the SDLA, a certification
from the driver that the subsequently issued certificate has been
provided to the SDLA, or any other reliable proof that such action has
occurred.
    The FMCSA believes that under these unique circumstances, allowing
Knight-Swift to rely on its records of medical certificates for the
first year of employment for newly hired drivers would not compromise
safety or enforcement of the medical certification requirements for CDL
holders. First, the carrier has reviewed the MVR to ensure that each
newly hired driver has a valid CDL and the carrier is aware of
convictions for traffic offenses that have been posted to the MVR, if
the prospective employees have exhibited safety performance problems.
Second, Knight-Swift's review of the MVR indicates the newly hired CDL
holders were medically certified prior to seeking employment at the
company, and the company is aware of the expiration date of that
medical certification. The subsequent medical examination provides an
extra level of safety assurance for the company by having its own
medical examiner verify that each newly hired driver meets FMCSA's
physical qualifications standards. Compliance with the condition for
obtaining proof that the subsequently issued medical certificate was
provided to the SDLA will also ensure that the driver's CDL remains
valid. In the event a driver does not pass the company-mandated
physical examination, the driver is not allowed to operate CMVs for
Knight-Swift until the medical issue(s) are resolved.
    In regards to enforcement of the medical certification requirements
by Federal or State personnel, they would continue to review the
driving record electronically to identify the most up-to-date medical
certificate. After the medical certificate prepared by the Knight-Swift
medical examiner has been provided to the SDLA, Federal and State
personnel would then be able to obtain the information as the most
recent assessment of the driver's medical qualification status and the
validity of the CDL or CLP.
    The Agency believes Knight-Swift's policy of requiring newly hired
drivers to undergo a medical exam, although the drivers have a valid
medical exam reflected on their MVR at the time of hire, is likely to
achieve an equivalent or greater than level of safety than would be
achieved absent such exemption.

VII. Terms and Conditions

    FMCSA grants Knight-Swift an exemption from the medical
certification requirements in 49 CFR 391.51(b)(7)(ii) to permit the
company to use newly hired drivers without having to obtain a MVR that
reflects the latest medical certification status during the first year
of employment. Knight-Swift is subject to the following terms and
conditions:
    (1) Knight-Swift must maintain the initial MVR reviewed prior to
hiring the driver showing the driver was medically certified by a
healthcare professional on the Agency's National Registry of Certified
Medical Examiners;
    (2) The medical examiner's report the company will rely upon for
the first year of employment must be prepared by a healthcare
professional on the Agency's National Registry of Certified Medical
Examiners and be available for inspection by Federal or State
enforcement personnel during an investigation or compliance review;
    (3) Knight-Swift must obtain reliable proof that the new medical
examiner's certificate was provided by the driver to the SDLA and
include such proof in the driver qualification file.

VIII. Preemption of State Laws and Regulations

    During the period this exemption is in effect, no State shall
enforce any law or regulation that conflicts with or is inconsistent
with this exemption with respect to a firm or person operating under
the exemption (49 U.S.C. 31315(d)).

IX. Notification to FMCSA

    Knight-Swift must provide a quarterly report to FMCSA concerning
newly hired drivers who are downgraded from a 2-year medical
certificate to a shorter duration certificate, or medically
disqualified upon completion of the company-mandated medical
examination. The report must provide:
     Driver's full name;
     CDL number and State of issuance;
     Medical examiner's name and FMCSA-issued National Registry
identification number for the examination recorded on the MVR prior to
the Knight-Swift medical exam.
     Examination date and expiration date for the medical exam
noted on the MVR;
     Knight-Swift medical examiner's name and FMCSA-issued
National Registry identification number.
     Knight-Swift examination date and expiration date for the
medical exam.
    The report must be transmitted electronically in a manner to
protect drivers' Personally Identifiable Information (PII).

Termination

    FMCSA does not believe this exemption would result in Knight-Swift
or any of its newly hired drivers experiencing a decrease in safety
performance. Interested parties possessing information that would
otherwise show that the exemption has resulted in a lower level of
safety than what would be observed absent the exemptions should
immediately notify FMCSA.

    The Agency will evaluate any information submitted and, if safety
is being compromised or if the continuation of this exemption is
inconsistent with 49 U.S.C. 31315(b)(4), FMCSA will immediately take
steps to revoke the exemption.

James W. Deck,
Deputy Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2020-24472 Filed 11-3-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 182 (Wednesday, September 21, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 57744-57745]
[FR Doc No: 2022-20369]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Investment Company Act Release No. 34702; File No. 812-15322]

Nuveen Churchill Direct Lending Corp., et al.

September 15, 2022.
AGENCY: Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'' or ``SEC'').

ACTION: Notice.

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

    Notice of application for an order (``Order'') under sections 17(d)
and 57(i) of the Investment Company Act of 1940 (the ``Act'') and rule
17d-1 under the Act to permit certain joint transactions otherwise
prohibited by sections 17(d) and 57(a)(4) of the Act and rule 17d-1
under the Act.

SUMMARY OF APPLICATION: Applicants request an order to amend a previous
order granted by the Commission that permits certain business
development companies (``BDCs'') and closed-end management investment
companies to co-invest in portfolio companies with each other and with
certain affiliated investment entities.

APPLICANTS: Nuveen Churchill Direct Lending Corp., Nuveen Fund
Advisors, LLC, Nuveen Alternatives Advisors LLC, Churchill Asset
Management LLC, Nuveen Churchill Advisors LLC, Nuveen Asset Management,
LLC, Teachers Advisors, LLC, Teachers Insurance and Annuity Association
of America, MM Funding, LLC, Churchill Middle Market Senior Loan Fund,
LP, Churchill Middle Market Senior Loan Fund, Offshore LP, TGAM
Churchill Middle Market Senior Loan Fund K, LP, TIAA Churchill Middle
Market CLO I Ltd., Churchill Middle Market CLO IV Ltd., TPS Investors
Master Fund, LP, TPS Investors Operating Fund, LLC, TPS Investors Fund
II, LP, NAP Investors Fund, L.P., Nuveen Junior Capital Opportunities
Fund, SCSp, Churchill Middle Market Senior Loan Fund II-K (Unlevered),
LP, Churchill Middle Market Senior Loan Fund II-European Fund, SCSp,
Churchill Middle Market Senior Loan Fund II-European Co-Invest Fund,
SCSp, Churchill Middle Market Senior Loan Fund II-Master Fund, LP,
Churchill Middle Market Senior Loan Fund II-PS Co-Invest Fund, LP, PS
FinCo, Inc., Churchill Middle Market CLO III LLC, Churchill Middle
Market CLO V-A, Ltd., CNV Investor Fund ScSp, Churchill Junior Capital
Opportunities Fund II, L.P., Churchill Junior Capital Opportunities
Fund II SCSp, Churchill Co-Investment Partners, L.P., Churchill
Secondary Partners, L.P., CMIC Funding LP, Churchill MMSL III
Investment Subsidiary, LP, Churchill MMSLF CLO-I, LP, Churchill Middle
Market Senior Loan Fund-Master Fund SCSp, SICAV-RAIF-Fund IV, NC SLF
Inc., NC SLF SPV I, LLC, Churchill NCDLC CLO-I, LLC, Nuveen Churchill
BDC SPV II, LLC, Nuveen Churchill BDC SPV III, LLC, NCDL Equity
Holdings LLC, Churchill Junior Capital Opportunities Fund II Master
SCSp, CM Senior Master, LP, CM Multi Master, LP, Nuveen Churchill
Private Capital Income Fund, NCPIF SPV I LLC, NCPIF Equity Holdings
LLC, Nuveen Multi-Asset

Credit Fund, LP, Churchill Middle Market CLO VI Ltd., Churchill Middle
Market CLO VII Ltd., and Churchill Middle Market Senior Loan Fund (JPY)
Series 2022, L.P.

Filing Dates: The application was filed on April 15, 2022, and amended
on July 11, 2022 and August 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 on any application by emailing
the SEC's Secretary at [email protected] and serving the
Applicants with a copy of the request by email, if an email address is
listed for the relevant Applicant below, or personally or by mail, if a
physical address is listed for the relevant Applicant below. Hearing
requests should be received by the Commission by 5:30 p.m. on, October
11, 2022, and should be accompanied by proof of service on 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
McCally, General Counsel, Churchill Asset Management LLC, at
[email protected], and Steven B. Boehm, Esq., Payam
Siadatpour, Esq., and Anne G. Oberndorf, Esq., Eversheds Sutherland
(US) LLP, at [email protected].

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kieran G. Brown, Senior Counsel, or
Terri Jordan, Branch Chief, at<PHONE_NUMBER> (Division of Investment
Management, Chief Counsel's Office).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: For Applicants' representations, legal
analysis, and conditions, please refer to Applicants' second amended
and restated application, dated August 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, http://www.sec.gov/edgar/searchedgar/legacy/companysearch.html. You may also call the SEC's Public Reference Room
at<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Investment Management,
under delegated authority.
J. Matthew DeLesDernier,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2022-20369 Filed 9-20-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 138 (Thursday, July 22, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 38711-38712]
[FR Doc No: 2021-15592]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. CP20-50-000; Docket No. CP20-51-000]

Tennessee Gas Pipeline Company, LLC; Southern Natural Gas
Company, LLC; Notice of Availability of the Draft Environmental Impact
Statement for the Proposed Evangeline Pass Expansion Project

    The staff of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or
Commission) has prepared a draft environmental impact statement (EIS)
for the Evangeline Pass Expansion Project (Project), proposed by
Tennessee Gas Pipeline Company, LLC (Tennessee) and Southern Natural
Gas Company, LLC (SNG) in the above-referenced dockets.
    Tennessee requests authorization to construct and operate about 13
miles of 36-inch-diameter pipeline and a new compressor station in St.
Bernard and Plaquemines Parishes, Louisiana. SNG requests authorization
to construct and operate a new compressor station and three new meter
stations in Clarke and Smith, Counties, Mississippi; and St. Bernard
Parish, Louisiana. The Project would enable the transportation of up to
1,100,000 dekatherms per day of natural gas to an interconnect with
Venture Global Gator Express, LLC's Gator Express Pipeline to provide
feed gas for Venture Global Plaquemines LNG, LLC's facility in
Plaquemines Parish, Louisiana.
    The draft EIS responds to comments that were received on the
Commission's August 24, 2020 Environmental Assessment (EA), provides
additional discussion of climate change impacts in the region, and
discloses downstream greenhouse gas emissions for the Project. With the
exception of climate change impacts, the FERC staff concludes that
approval of the proposed Project, with the mitigation measures
recommended in this EIS, would not result in significant environmental
impacts. FERC staff continues to be unable to determine significance
with regards to climate change impacts.
    The draft EIS incorporates the above referenced EA, which addressed
the potential environmental effects of the construction and operation
of the following Project facilities:

Tennessee

     about 9 miles of 36-inch-diameter looping pipeline in St.
Bernard Parish, Louisiana (Yscloskey Toca Lateral Loop);
     about 4 miles of 36-inch-diameter looping pipeline in
Plaquemines Parish, Louisiana (Grand Bayou Loop); and
     a new 23,470 horsepower compressor station consisting of
one natural gas-fired Solar Turbines Titan 130 turbine driven
compressor unit along Tennessee's existing 500 line in St. Bernard
Parish, Louisiana (Compressor Station 529);

SNG

     a new 22,220 hp compressor station consisting of two
natural gas-fired Solar Taurus 70 turbines (11,110 hp each) in Clarke
County, Mississippi (Rose Hill Compressor Station); and
     three new meter stations: Rose Hill Receipt Meter Station
in Clarke County, Mississippi; Midcontinent Express Pipeline Receipt
Meter Station in Smith County, Mississippi; and Toca Delivery Meter
Station in St. Bernard Parish, Louisiana.
    The Commission mailed a copy of the Notice of Availability of the
Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Evangeline Pass Expansion
Project to federal, state, and local government representatives and
agencies; elected officials; environmental and public interest groups;
Native American tribes; potentially affected landowners and other
interested individuals and groups; and newspapers and libraries in the
Project area. The draft EIS is only available in electronic format. It
may be viewed and downloaded from the FERC's website (www.ferc.gov), on
the natural gas environmental documents page (https://www.ferc.gov/
industries-data/natural-gas/environment/

environmental-documents). In addition, the draft EIS may be accessed by
using the eLibrary link on the FERC's website. Click on the eLibrary
link (https://elibrary.ferc.gov/eLibrary/search) select ``General
Search'' and enter the docket number in the ``Docket Number'' field
(i.e., CP20-50-000 or CP20-51-000). Be sure you have selected an
appropriate date range. For assistance, please contact FERC Online
Support at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or toll free at<PHONE_NUMBER>,
or for TTY, contact<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    The draft EIS is not a decision document. It presents Commission
staff's independent analysis of the environmental issues for the
Commission to consider when addressing the merits of all issues in this
proceeding. Any person wishing to comment on the draft EIS may do so.
Your comments should focus on draft EIS's disclosure and discussion of
potential environmental effects, including climate impacts due to
downstream greenhouse gas emissions, and measures to avoid or lessen
environmental impacts. To ensure consideration of your comments on the
proposal in the final EIS, it is important that the Commission receive
your comments on or before 5:00pm Eastern Time on September 7, 2021.
    For your convenience, there are three methods you can use to submit
your comments to the Commission. The Commission encourages electronic
filing of comments and has staff available to assist you at (866) 208-
3676 or<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please carefully follow these
instructions so that your comments are properly recorded.
    (1) You can file your comments electronically using the eComment
feature on the Commission's website (www.ferc.gov) under the link to
FERC Online. This is an easy method for submitting brief, text-only
comments on a project;
    (2) You can file your comments electronically by using the eFiling
feature on the Commission's website (www.ferc.gov) under the link to
FERC Online. With eFiling, you can provide comments in a variety of
formats by attaching them as a file with your submission. New eFiling
users must first create an account by clicking on ``eRegister.'' If you
are filing a comment on a particular project, please select ``Comment
on a Filing'' as the filing type; or
    (3) You can file a paper copy of your comments by mailing them to
the Commission. Be sure to reference the Project docket number (CP20-
50-000 or CP20-51-000) on your letter. Submissions sent via the U.S.
Postal Service must be addressed to: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary,
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Room 1A,
Washington, DC 20426. Submissions sent via any other carrier must be
addressed to: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission, 12225 Wilkins Avenue, Rockville, Maryland 20852.
    Any person seeking to become a party to the proceeding must file a
motion to intervene pursuant to Rule 214 of the Commission's Rules of
Practice and Procedures (18 CFR part 385.214). Motions to intervene are
more fully described at https://www.ferc.gov/ferc-online/ferc-online/how-guides. Only intervenors have the right to seek rehearing or
judicial review of the Commission's decision. The Commission grants
affected landowners and others with environmental concerns intervenor
status upon showing good cause by stating that they have a clear and
direct interest in this proceeding which no other party can adequately
represent. Simply filing environmental comments will not give you
intervenor status, but you do not need intervenor status to have your
comments considered.

Questions?

    Additional information about the Project is available from the
Commission's Office of External Affairs, at (866) 208-FERC, or on the
FERC website (www.ferc.gov) using the eLibrary link. The eLibrary link
also provides access to the texts of all formal documents issued by the
Commission, such as orders, notices, and rulemakings.
    In addition, the Commission offers a free service called
eSubscription that allows you to keep track of all formal issuances and
submittals in specific dockets. This can reduce the amount of time you
spend researching proceedings by automatically providing you with
notification of these filings, document summaries, and direct links to
the documents. Go to https://www.ferc.gov/ferc-online/overview to
register for eSubscription.

    Dated: July 16, 2021.
Debbie-Anne A. Reese,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2021-15592 Filed 7-21-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 114 (Wednesday, June 13, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 35444-35446]
[FR Doc No: 2012-14338]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-67155; File No. SR-NYSEAmex-2012-22]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE Amex LLC; Order Granting
Approval of Proposed Rule Change Amending NYSE Amex Equities Rule 107B
To Add a Class of Supplemental Liquidity Providers That are Registered
as Market Makers at the Exchange

June 7, 2012.

I. Introduction

    On April 17, 2012, NYSE Amex LLC (``NYSE Amex'' 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 to
amend NYSE Amex Equities Rule 107B to add a class of Supplemental
Liquidity Providers (``SLP'') that are registered as market makers at
the Exchange. The proposed rule change was published for comment in the
Federal Register on April 23, 2012.\3\ The Commission received no
comment letters on the proposal. This order approves the proposed rule
change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ Securities Exchange Act Release No. 66820 (April 17, 2012),
77 FR 24236 (``Notice'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Description of the Proposal

    NYSE Amex Equities Rule 107B (``Rule 107B'') was adopted as a pilot
program in January 2010 and established a new class of off-floor market
participants referred to as Supplemental Liquidity Providers or
``SLPs.'' \4\ Approved Exchange member organizations are eligible to be
an SLP. SLPs supplement the liquidity provided by Designated Market
Makers (``DMM''). SLPs have monthly quoting requirements that may
qualify them to receive SLP rebates, which are larger than the general
rebate available to non-SLP market participants.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 61308 (January 7,
2010), 75 FR 2573 (January 15, 2010) (SR-NYSEAmex-2009-98). The
pilot is currently scheduled to end on July 31, 2012.
    \5\ Rule 107B(a) requires that an SLP maintain a bid and/or an
offer at the national best bid (``NBB'') or national best offer
(``NBO'') averaging at least 5% of the trading day for each assigned
security. Meeting this volume requirement will enable an SLP to
receive the basic SLP rebate (currently $0.0032 per executed share)
on a security-by-security basis and to maintain their SLP status.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To qualify as an SLP under Rule 107B(c), a member organization is
subject to a number of conditions, including adequate trading

infrastructure to support SLP trading activity, quoting and volume
performance that demonstrates an ability to meet the 5% average quoting
requirement, and use of specified SLP mnemonics. In addition, the
business unit of the member organization acting as an SLP must enter
proprietary orders only and have adequate information barriers between
the SLP unit and any of the member organization's customer, research,
and investment-banking business. Pursuant to Rule 107B(g)(2)(A), a DMM
may also be an SLP, but not in the same securities in which it is
registered as a DMM.
Proposed SLP Market Makers
    The Exchange proposes to amend Rule 107B to add a category of SLPs
that would be registered as market makers at the Exchange. As proposed,
the term ``SLP'' would refer to member organizations that provide
supplemental liquidity and there would be two classes of SLP. The
existing SLP member organizations and associated requirements would
continue unchanged and would be referred to as ``SLP-Prop.''
    The proposed new class of SLP would be referred to as ``SLMM''.
SLMMs would have differing qualification requirements and increased
regulatory obligations as compared to SLP-Props, but would otherwise be
subject to the existing SLP program.
    Under the proposal, an SLP can choose to be either an SLP-Prop or
an SLMM. The proposed SLMMs would have different qualification
requirements, specified regulatory obligations, expanded entry of order
requirements, and a security-by-security withdrawal ability. SLP-Props
and SLMMs would be subject to the same application and overall program
withdrawal process, quoting requirements, manner by which SLP
securities are assigned, and non-regulatory penalties.
    To be approved as an SLMM, an SLMM must meet specified regulatory
obligations, which are set forth in proposed Rule 107B(d). Failure to
comply with these regulatory obligations could result in disciplinary
action. First, pursuant to proposed Rule 107B(d)(1), the SLMM must
maintain a continuous two-sided quotation in those securities in which
the SLMM is registered to trade as an SLP (``Two-Sided Obligation'').
As proposed, the Two-Sided Obligation applicable to SLMMs would be
virtually identical to the market-maker two-sided obligations adopted
by the equities markets in 2010.\6\ Second, pursuant to proposed Rule
107B(d)(2), the SLMM would be required to maintain net capital in
accordance with the provisions of Rule 15c3-1 under the Act, which
specifies the capital requirements for market makers.\7\ Finally,
pursuant to proposed Rule 107B(d)(3), the SLMM would be required to
maintain unique mnemonics specifically dedicated to SLMM activity. Use
of these unique mnemonics will enable SLMMs to meet their requirement
under proposed Rule 107B(d)(1)(A) to identify their market-making
activity to the Exchange. As proposed, such mnemonics may not be used
for trading in securities other than SLP Securities assigned to the
SLMM.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 63255 (Nov. 5,
2010), 75 FR 69484 (Nov. 12, 2010) (SR-BATS-2010-025; SR-BX-2010-66;
SR-CBOE-2010-087; SR-CHX-2010-22; SR-FINRA-2010-049; SR-NASDAQ-2010-
115; SR-NSX-2010-12; SR-NYSE-2010-69; SR-NYSEAmex-2010-96; and SR-
NYSEArca-2010-83) (order approving enhanced quoting requirements for
market makers).
    \7\ 17 CFR 240.15c3-1. For purposes of that rule, the term
``market maker'' is defined as ``a dealer who, with respect to a
particular security, (i) Regularly publishes bona fide, competitive
bid and offer quotations in a recognized interdealer quotation
system; or (ii) furnishes bona fide competitive bid and offer
quotations on request; and (iii) is ready, willing and able to
effect transactions in reasonable quantities at his quoted prices
with other brokers or dealers.'' 17 CFR 240.15c3-1(c)(8).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Pursuant to Rule 107B(c)(6), SLPs must currently maintain adequate
information barriers between the SLP unit and the member organization's
customer, research and investment-banking business. This requirement
ensures that the orders submitted by SLPs are proprietary only, and are
not related to any customer-facing business, including potentially
market-making businesses. The Exchange proposes to maintain this
requirement for SLP-Props.
    Proposed Rule 107B(i) would modify the entry of order requirements.
SLP-Prop would continue to be required to enter proprietary orders
only. As proposed, SLMMs would similarly be required to enter orders
for their own account, however, they could be entered in either a
proprietary capacity or a principal capacity on behalf of an affiliated
or unaffiliated person. SLMM could submit SLMM quotes to the Exchange
on behalf of customers, or other unaffiliated or affiliated persons.
    The Exchange proposes to add an additional ability for SLMMs to
voluntarily withdraw from registration as a market maker in a
particular security. Under proposed Rule 107B(f)(2), an SLMM may
withdraw its registration in a security by giving written notice to the
SLP Liaison Committee and FINRA. As proposed, the Exchange may require
a certain minimum notice period for withdrawal, and may place such
other conditions on withdrawal and re-registration following
withdrawal, as it deems appropriate in the interests of maintaining
fair and orderly markets. An SLMM that fails to give advanced written
notice of termination to the Exchange may be subject to formal
disciplinary action.
    Under proposed Rule 107B(h), an SLP-Prop may not also act as an
SLMM in the same securities in which it is registered as an SLP-Prop
and vice versa. If a member organization has more than one business
unit, and the SLP-Prop business unit is walled off from the SLMM
business unit, the member organization may engage in both an SLP-Prop
and SLMM business from those different business units. Provided there
is no coordinated trading between the SLP-Prop and SLMM business units,
they may be assigned the same securities.

III. Discussion

    The Commission finds that the proposed rule change is consistent
with the requirements of the Act and the rules and regulations
thereunder applicable to a national securities exchange.\8\
Specifically, the Commission finds that the proposal is consistent with
Section 6(b)(5) of the Act,\9\ which requires, among other things, that
the rules of a national securities exchange 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 facilitating transactions in securities, to
remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open
market and a national market system, and, in general, to protect
investors and the public interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ In approving this proposed rule change, the Commission has
considered the proposed rule's impact on efficiency, competition,
and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).
    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission believes that adding an additional registered market
maker program to the Exchange will promote just and equitable
principles of trade as it could potentially expand the number of market
participants providing liquidity at the Exchange, to the benefit of
investors. In particular, the proposal would allow additional market
participants, including member organizations that are registered as
market makers on other exchanges that engage in a customer-facing
business, to participate in the SLP program.

    The proposed SLMMs would provide supplemental liquidity in addition
to the liquidity provided by DMMs and SLP-Props, and the Exchange would
continue to require that a DMM be registered in every security listed
on the Exchange. Because the proposed SLMMs would be required to meet
the Two-Sided Obligation applicable to all equities market makers, the
Commission believes that the proposed rule change would also remove
impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and
a national market system by increasing the number of market
participants that are required to maintain a continuous two-sided
quotation a specified percentage away from the NBBO in the securities
in which they are registered. Moreover, the proposed SLMM would be
subject to other currently existing requirements.
    The Commission finds that the proposal is not unfairly
discriminatory. Registration as an SLP-Prop or SLMM is available to all
Exchange member organizations that satisfy the requirements of proposed
Rule 107B(c) or (d). The Commission finds further that the proposal to
establish procedures for the registration, withdrawal, and
disqualification of SLMM, and the SLMM quoting requirements, are
consistent with the requirements of Section 6(b)(5) of the Act. The
Exchange's proposed rules provide an objective process by which a
member organization could become a SLMM and for appropriate oversight
by the Exchange to monitor for continued compliance with the terms of
these provisions. The Commission also notes that these provisions are
similar to the existing provisions that apply to the current SLP
program.
    In addition, the Commission believes that the proposed rule change
is consistent with the requirements of the Act because the proposed
requirements for the SLMMs are based on existing, approved requirements
for registered market makers on other exchanges. In addition to the
Two-Sided Obligation, the proposed SLMMs would also be required to
assist in the maintenance of a fair and orderly market, as reasonably
practicable, and maintain net capital consistent with federal
requirements for market makers.

IV. Conclusion

    It is therefore ordered, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the
Act,\10\ that the proposed rule change (SR-NYSEAmex-2012-22) be, and it
hereby is, approved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).

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

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

Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-14338 Filed 6-12-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P