[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 227 (Tuesday, November 25, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Page 70267]
[FR Doc No: 2014-27815]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Notice of Final Decision on Proposed Airport Access Restriction

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

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA has completed its review of the application for an
airport noise and access restriction submitted by Los Angeles World
Airports (LAWA) for the Los Angeles International Airport (LAX). The
FAA determined that the application does not provide substantial
evidence that the proposed restriction meets three of the six statutory
conditions for approval under the Airport Noise and Capacity Act of
1990 (ANCA). The FAA's decision was signed on November 7, 2014, and
transmitted to LAWA on November 8, 2014.

DATES: Effective date: November 25, 2014. The effective date of the
FAA's decision on the application for a mandatory noise and access
restriction at LAX is November 7, 2014.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: James Byers, Airport Planning and
Environmental Division, APP-400, 800 Independence Avenue SW.,
Washington, DC 20591. Email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>telephone: 202-
267-3007.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This Notice also announces the availability
of the FAA's final agency order disapproving the proposed access
restriction at http://faa.gov/airports/environmental/airport_noise/part_161/.
    The Airport Noise and Capacity Act of 1990 (hereinafter referred to
as ``the Act'' or ``ANCA'') provides notice, review, and approval
requirements for airports seeking to impose noise or access
restrictions on Stage 3 aircraft operations that become effective after
October 1, 1990. 49 U.S.C. 47521 et seq.
    ANCA established a 180-day review period for the application. Under
14 CFR 161.313(c)(4)(ii), the review period starts on the date of
receipt of the complete application, which was May 22, 2014.
    On January 30, 2013, the FAA received an application from LAWA
under Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations, 14 CFR part 161, seeking
the FAA's review of a proposed Stage 3 aircraft noise and access
restriction at LAX. The FAA reviewed the application in accordance with
14 CFR 161.313(a), and determined it to be incomplete in the areas of
Noise Exposure Maps (NEMs); Noise Study Area; Technical Data Supporting
Noise Impact Analysis; and Cost Benefit Analysis. The FAA sent notice
of this decision to LAWA on March 1, 2013. On March 15, 2013, the FAA
provided LAWA with additional information regarding the types of
information and analysis required to complete the application.
    On March 28, 2013, LAWA stated its intent to revise the Part 161
application and resubmit it for further review. On July 5, 2013, FAA
received a ``Supplemental Analysis'' from LAWA. The FAA reviewed the
Supplemental Analysis and determined that the application continued to
be incomplete in the areas of Airport Noise Study Area and Noise
Contours; Technical Data Supporting Noise Impact Analysis; and Cost
Benefit Analysis. The FAA sent notice of this decision to LAWA on
August 2, 2013. On August 20, 2013, LAWA stated its intent to
supplement the Part 161 application and resubmit it to the FAA. On May
12, 2014, FAA received LAWA's supplemented application, followed by an
errata sheet on May 22, 2014. On June 10, 2014, FAA determined LAWA's
application to be complete. On June 27, 2014, the FAA published a
notice in the Federal Register announcing its determination that LAWA's
application was complete and inviting public comments. 79 FR 36577. The
FAA received 21 separate comments, which the FAA considered during its
evaluation of the LAWA application.
    By law, the FAA may only approve a noise or access restriction
affecting the operations of Stage 3 aircraft if the applicant
demonstrates, by substantial evidence, that each of six statutory
conditions have been met. These six statutory conditions of approval
are:
     Condition 1: The restriction is reasonable, nonarbitrary,
and nondiscriminatory;
     Condition 2: The restriction does not create an undue
burden on interstate or foreign commerce;
     Condition 3: The proposed restriction maintains safe and
efficient use of the navigable airspace;
     Condition 4: The proposed restriction does not conflict
with any existing Federal statute or regulation;
     Condition 5: The applicant has provided adequate
opportunity for public comment on the proposed restriction; and
     Condition 6: The proposed restriction does not create an
undue burden on the national aviation system.
    The FAA evaluated LAWA's application under the provisions of ANCA
and 14 CFR 161.317 and determined that the application satisfies the
requirements under Condition 3, Condition 5, and Condition 6. However,
the application does not satisfy the requirements under Condition 1,
Condition 2, or Condition 4. Therefore, in accordance with the
requirements set forth in ANCA, the FAA disapproved the application on
November 7, 2014.
    Questions may be directed to the individual named above under the
heading FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on November 17, 2014.
Elliott Black,
 Director, Office of Airport Planning and Programming.
[FR Doc. 2014-27815 Filed 11-24-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 75 (Thursday, April 20, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Page 18629]
[FR Doc No: 2017-07977]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. EL17-60-000]

Alliant Energy Corporate Services, Inc.; Notice of Institution of
Section 206 Proceeding and Refund Effective Date

    On April 13, 2017, a letter order was issued in Docket No. EL17-60-
000 by the Director, Division of Electric Power--Central, Office of
Energy Market Regulation, pursuant to section 206 of the Federal Power
Act (FPA), 16 U.S.C. 824e (2012), instituting an investigation into
whether the proposed tariff revisions to update the cost-based revenue
requirement for the provision of Reactive Supply and Voltage Control
from Generation or Other Sources Service from generating facilities
owned and operated by Interstate Power and Light Company and Wisconsin
Power and Light Company may be unjust, unreasonable, unduly
discriminatory or preferential. Alliant Energy Corporate Services,
Inc., 159 FERC 62,054 (2017).
    The refund effective date in Docket No. EL17-60-000, established
pursuant to section 206(b) of the FPA, will be the date of publication
of this notice in the Federal Register.
    Any interested person desiring to be heard in Docket No. EL17-60-
000 must file a notice of intervention or motion to intervene, as
appropriate, with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First
Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Rule 214 of the
Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.214, within 21
days of the date of issuance of the order.

    Dated: April 13, 2017.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2017-07977 Filed 4-19-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 218 (Friday, November 12, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Pages 69502-69503]
[FR Doc No: 2010-28466]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-63258; File No. SR-NASDAQ-2010-145]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC;
Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To
Amend the Fees Assessed for Use of the Testing Facility

November 5, 2010.
    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 October 29, 2010, The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC (``NASDAQ''), filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'') the
proposed rule change as described in Items I, II, and III below, which
Items have been prepared by NASDAQ. 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 the
Substance of the Proposed Rule Change

    NASDAQ proposes to amend the fees assessed for use of the Testing
Facility. NASDAQ will implement the proposed rule change on November 1,
2010.
    The text of the proposed rule change is below. Proposed new
language is italicized; proposed deletions are in brackets.

7030. Other Services

    (a)-(c) No change.
    (d) Nasdaq Testing Facility
    (1) The following fees are assessed for access to the Nasdaq
Testing Facility:
    (A) Subscribers that conduct tests of the[ir] [Nasdaq access
protocols connection (which includes] computer-to-computer interface
(CTCI)[,] and the Financial Information Exchange (FIX) interface to ACT
and ACES access protocols[, and Nasdaq Information Exchange (QIX)
interface) or market data vendor feeds] through the Nasdaq Testing
Facility (NTF) shall pay the following charges:

$285/hour--For Active Connection testing [using current Nasdaq access
protocols] during the normal operating hours of the NTF;
No Charge--For Idle Connection testing [using current Nasdaq access
protocols];
$333/hour--For Active Connection testing [using current Nasdaq access
protocols] at all times other than the normal operating hours of the
NTF.
     (B) Subscribers that conduct tests of all Nasdaq access protocol
connections not included in paragraph (A) above or of market data
vendor feeds through the Nasdaq Testing Facility shall pay $300 per
port, per month.
    (2) No change.
    (3) The foregoing [hourly] fees shall not apply to [market data
vendor feed testing, or] testing occasioned by:
    (A) New or enhanced services and/or software provided by Nasdaq;
    (B) Modifications to software and/or services initiated by Nasdaq
in response to a contingency; or
    (C) Testing by a subscriber of a Nasdaq service that the subscriber
has not used previously, except if more than 30 days have elapsed since
the subscriber commenced the testing of such Nasdaq service.
    (4)-(6) No change.
* * * * *

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    NASDAQ proposes to amend the fees assessed for use of the Testing
Facility.\3\ The Testing Facility provides subscribers with a virtual
NASDAQ System test environment that closely approximates the production
environment, on which they may test their automated systems that
integrate with NASDAQ. Subscribers may test upcoming NASDAQ releases
and product enhancements, as well as test software prior to
implementation. Currently, NASDAQ assesses a fee of $285 per hour for
active connection testing using current NASDAQ access protocols during
the normal operating hours, and $333 per hour for such testing after
hours.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See http://www.nasdaqtrader.com/Trader.aspx?id=TestingFacility for a description of the Testing
Facility.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NASDAQ does not currently assess a fee for idle test ports.
Subscribers often have test ports assigned to them through which no
testing is conducted for extended periods, yet NASDAQ must maintain and
constantly monitor these idle testing ports for purposes of billing
under the current rule. For all but CTCI and FIX connections to ACT and
ACES, which are structurally different than other connections, such
monitoring represents a cost to NASDAQ with no off-setting fee.
Further, subscribers have no incentive to notify NASDAQ when they have
completed testing and no longer require a test port. Accordingly,
NASDAQ is proposing to eliminate the current hourly fee structure and
assess a flat fee of $300 per test port, per month for all but CTCI and
FIX connections to ACT and ACES. This fee will cover the cost of
maintaining these test ports and provide an incentive to firms to
cancel test ports when they have completed testing.
    NASDAQ notes that it will continue to allow new subscribers and
existing subscribers to test new services and modifications initiated
by NASDAQ, and to test new services not previously accessed for the
first 30 days at no cost pursuant to Rule 7030(d)(3). This 30-day fee
waiver includes testing for subscribers that are accessing NASDAQ
through a service bureau for the first time. Subscribers must cancel
the test port prior to the expiration of the 30-day free period in
order to avoid future charges for test ports under the new rule. In
addition, current subscribers will be able to cancel their idle ports
at no cost at any point during the first month that the fee is
effective. Further, NASDAQ is eliminating the word ``hourly'' from Rule
7030(d)(3), since the fees for the Testing Facility include both hourly
and monthly fees. Last, NASDAQ is eliminating from Rule 7030(d)(3)
language concerning market data feed testing, since it is superfluous
given that the rule already references fees that include such testing.
2. Statutory Basis
    NASDAQ believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with
Section 6(b)(4) of the Act \4\ in that it provides for the equitable
allocation of reasonable dues, fees and other charges among members and
issuers and other persons using any facility or system which the NASDAQ
operates or controls, and it does not unfairly discriminate between
customers, issuers, brokers or dealers. The amended fee schedule
applies to all

subscribers equally based on the number of test ports subscribed. This
proposed charge would apply to both members that obtain test ports for
direct access and non-member service bureaus that act as a conduit for
orders entered by NASDAQ members that are their customers. The proposed
fees will cover the costs associated with separately offering the
service, responding to customer requests, configuring NASDAQ's systems,
programming to user specifications, and administering the service,
among other things, and may provide NASDAQ with a profit to the extent
costs are covered. NASDAQ believes that the proposed fee structure
strikes a balance between covering these costs, and providing
incentives to subscribers to make efficient use of Test Facility ports.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    Nasdaq does not believe that the proposed rule change will result
in any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act, as amended.

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

    Written comments were neither solicited nor received.

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

    The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act \5\ and subparagraph (f)(2) of Rule 19b-4
thereunder.\6\ At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed
rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule
change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or
appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or
otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(a)(ii).
    \6\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-NASDAQ-2010-145 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-NASDAQ-2010-145. 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 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 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 publicly available. All
submissions should refer to File Number SR-NASDAQ-2010-145 and should
be submitted on or before December 3, 2010.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-28466 Filed 11-10-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 125 (Wednesday, June 29, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 38231-38232]
[FR Doc No: 2011-16243]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-64727; File No. SR-C2-2011-012]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; C2 Options Exchange, Incorporated;
Order Approving Proposed Rule Change, as Modified by Amendment No. 1,
To Reduce the Minimum Size of the Nominating and Governance Committee

 June 22, 2011.

I. Introduction

    On April 27, 2011, C2 Options Exchange, Incorporated (``C2'' 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 reduce the minimum size of the Nominating and
Governance Committee (``NGC'') from seven to five. On May 18, 2011, the
Exchange filed Amendment No. 1 to the proposed rule change.\3\ The
proposed rule change was published for comment in the Federal Register
on May 10, 2011.\4\ The Commission received no comment letters
regarding the proposal. This order approves the proposed rule change,
as modified by Amendment No. 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ At the time C2 submitted the original proposed rule change,
it had not yet obtained formal approval from its Board of Directors
for the specific Bylaw changes set forth in this proposed rule
change. C2 stated that once that approval was obtained, it would
file a technical amendment to its proposed rule change to reflect
that approval. In Amendment No. 1, the Exchange notes that the C2
Board of Directors approved the specific Bylaw changes set forth in
SR-C2-2011-012 on May 17, 2011 and stated that no further action was
necessary in connection with its proposal. Because Amendment No. 1
is technical in nature, the Commission is not required to publish it
for public comment.
    \4\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 64394 (May 4, 2011),
76 FR 27112 (``Notice'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Description of the Proposal

    C2 is proposing to reduce the minimum size of its NGC from seven to
five directors. Section 4.4 of the Second Amended and Restated Bylaws
of C2 (``Bylaws'') currently provides, in pertinent part, that the NGC
shall consist of at least seven directors, including both Industry and
Non-Industry Directors; that a majority of the directors on the
Committee shall be Non-Industry Directors; and that the exact number of
members on the Committee shall be determined from time to time by C2's
Board of Directors (the ``Board'' or ``C2 Board''). Pursuant to the
proposed rule change, Section 4.4 of the Bylaws would be amended to
provide that the NGC shall consist of at least five directors. The
other provisions of Section 4.4 of the Bylaws would remain
unchanged.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Additionally, the title of the Bylaws would be changed to
the Third Amended and Restated Bylaws of C2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In outlining the purpose behind its proposal, the Exchange noted
that the size of its Board declined from its initial size of twenty-
three to nineteen directors in 2009 and again to sixteen directors in
2011.\6\ As the size of its Board has declined, the Exchange noted that
it has become more challenging to populate larger-size Board committees
since there are fewer directors to serve on a multitude of
committees.\7\ The Exchange's proposal to reduce the minimum size of
the NGC is intended to help address this issue.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Section 3.1 of the Bylaws provides that the C2 Board shall
consist of not less than eleven and not more than twenty-three
directors, with the exact size determined by the Board.
    \7\ See Notice, supra note 4, at 27112.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Discussion

    After careful review of the proposal, the Commission finds that the
proposed rule change, as modified by Amendment No. 1, is consistent
with the requirements of the Act and the rules and regulations
thereunder applicable to a national securities exchange.\8\ In
particular, the Commission finds that the proposal is consistent with
Section 6(b)(1) of the Act,\9\ which requires a national securities
exchange to be so organized and have the capacity to carry out the
purposes of the Act and to comply, and to enforce compliance by its
members and persons associated with its members, with the provisions of
the Act, as well as Section 6(b)(5) of the

Act,\10\ in that it is designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative
acts and practices, to promote just and equitable principles of trade,
to remove impediments to, and perfect the mechanism of a free and open
market, and, in general, to protect investors and the public interest.
While the Exchange has proposed to reduce the minimum size of the NGC,
it has not proposed any other changes to the composition of the
committee or the scope or exercise of its responsibilities. In its
filing, the Exchange affirmatively represented that the NGC ``will
continue to be able to appropriately perform its functions'' despite
the reduction in minimum required size.\11\ The Commission further
finds that the proposal, as modified by Amendment No. 1, is consistent
with the requirements of Section 6(b)(3) of the Act,\12\ which requires
that one or more directors of an exchange shall be representative of
issuers and investors and not be associated with a member of the
exchange, broker or dealer.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \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)(1).
    \10\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
    \11\ See Notice, supra note 4, at 27112.
    \12\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In particular, the Commission notes that the Exchange will continue
to provide for the fair representation of C2 Trading Permit Holders in
the selection of directors and the administration of the Exchange
consistent with Section 6(b)(3) of the Act \13\ following this rule
change. Specifically, the C2 Bylaws will continue to require that at
least thirty percent of the directors on the C2 Board be Industry
Directors and that at least twenty percent of C2's directors be
Representative Directors elected by permit holders.\14\ Further, the
NGC will continue to include both Industry and Non-Industry Directors
(including a majority of Non-Industry Directors) and have an Industry-
Director Subcommittee that is composed of all of the Industry Directors
serving on the Committee. Representative Directors will continue to be
nominated (or otherwise selected through a petition process) by the
Industry-Director Subcommittee. Additionally, C2 Trading Permit Holders
will continue to be able to nominate alternative Representative
Director candidates to those nominated by the Industry Director
Subcommittee, in which case a Run-off Election will be held in which
C2's Trading Permit Holders vote to determine which candidates will be
elected to the C2 Board to serve as Representative Directors.
Furthermore, the Commission notes that the Exchange's proposal to
reduce the minimum size of its NGC is consistent with a proposal that
the Commission previously approved for another self-regulatory
organization in which that self-regulatory organization reduced the
minimum size of its nominating and governance committee from six to
four members.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(3).
    \14\ See Section 3.2 of the C2 Bylaws (defining ``Representative
Director'').
    \15\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 54494 (September
25, 2006), 71 FR 58023 (October 2, 2006) (SR-CHX-2006-23) (approving
reduction of the Chicago Stock Exchange's Nominating and Governance
Committee from six directors to four directors). See also Article
II, Section 3 of the Bylaws of the Chicago Stock Exchange, Inc.
(providing for a Nominating and Governance Committee with four
directors).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, the Exchange has represented that, although the proposed
rule change would permit the Exchange to appoint a five-person NGC and
the Exchange may elect to do so in the future, it is the current
intention of the Exchange to appoint a six-person NGC.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ See Notice, supra note 4, at 27112.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Conclusion

    It is therefore ordered, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the
Act,\17\ that the proposed rule change (SR-C2-2011-012), as modified by
Amendment No. 1, be, and hereby is, approved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).
    \18\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\18\
Cathy H. Ahn,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2011-16243 Filed 6-28-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 162 (Thursday, August 21, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 49549-49552]
[FR Doc No: 2014-19807]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-72854; File No. SR-FINRA-2014-036]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Financial Industry Regulatory
Authority, Inc.; Notice of Filing of a Proposed Rule Change Relating to
the Composition of Hearing Panels and Extended Hearing Panels in
Disciplinary Proceedings

August 15, 2014.
    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 August 7, 2014, Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc.
(``FINRA'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``SEC''
or ``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I,
II, and III below, which Items have been prepared by FINRA. 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

    FINRA is proposing to amend FINRA Rule 9231 to add a category of
persons eligible to be a Panelist on a Hearing Panel or an Extended
Hearing Panel constituted to conduct disciplinary proceedings. FINRA is
also proposing to make a conforming amendment to FINRA Rule 9232, which
comprises criteria for the appointment of a Panelist to a Hearing Panel
or an Extended Hearing Panel.
    Below is the text of the proposed rule change. Proposed new
language is italicized; proposed deletions are in brackets.

* * * * *
9200. DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS
* * * * *
9230. Appointment of Hearing Panel, Extended Hearing Panel
9231. Appointment by the Chief Hearing Officer of Hearing Panel or
Extended Hearing Panel or Replacement Hearing Officer

    (a) No Change.
    (b) Hearing Panel
    The Hearing Panel shall be composed of a Hearing Officer and two
Panelists, except as provided in paragraph (e) and in Rule 9234 (a),
(c), (d), or (e). The Hearing Officer shall serve as the chair of
the Hearing Panel. Each Panelist shall be associated with a member
of FINRA or retired therefrom.
    (1) Except as provided in subparagraph (2) below, the Chief
Hearing Officer shall select as a Panelist a person who:

    (A) through (B) No Change.
    (C) previously served on a disciplinary subcommittee of the
National Adjudicatory Council or the National Business Conduct
Committee, including a Subcommittee, an Extended Proceeding
Committee, or their predecessor subcommittees; [or,]
    (D) previously served as a Director or a Governor, but does not
serve currently in any of these positions[.]; or,
    (E) currently serves or previously served on a committee
appointed or approved by the FINRA Board, but does not serve
currently on the National Adjudicatory Council or as a Director or a
Governor.
    (2) No Change.
    (c) through (e) No Change.

9232. Criteria for Selection of Panelists and Replacement Panelists

    (a) through (c) No Change.
    (d) Criteria for Appointment of a Panelist
    After the Chief Hearing Officer designates the Primary District
Committee, the Chief Hearing Officer shall select Panelists from the
current members of the Primary District Committee, the other
categories of persons eligible to serve as Panelists as set forth in
Rule 9231(b)(1)(A) through [(D)](E) or, if applicable, in Rule
9231(c), who are located in the same geographic area as the Primary
District Committee, and, if applicable, from the current or former
members of the Market Regulation Committee, based upon the following
criteria:
    (1) through (4) No Change.
    (e) No Change.
* * * * *

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    FINRA Rules 9231 and 9232 govern the appointment of a Hearing Panel
or an Extended Hearing Panel and establish criteria for the selection
of Panelists. The proposed rule change would amend FINRA Rule 9231 to
add a category of persons eligible to serve as a Panelist on a Hearing
Panel or an Extended Hearing Panel to include a person who currently
serves or served previously on a committee appointed or approved by the
FINRA Board. The proposed rule change would also make a conforming
amendment to FINRA Rule 9232, which establishes criteria for the
appointment of eligible Panelists to Hearing Panels and Extended
Hearing Panels. The proposed rule change will provide FINRA with a
larger pool of individuals that have adequate experience and expertise
to serve as Panelists.
Background
    FINRA's disciplinary process begins with the Department of
Enforcement or Department of Market Regulation filing a complaint with
the Office of Hearing Officers that alleges a member or person
associated with a member is violating or has violated any rule,
regulation, or statutory provision, including the federal securities
laws and related regulations.\3\ Thereafter, the Chief Hearing Officer
assigns a Hearing Officer to preside over the disciplinary
proceeding,\4\ and appoints Panelists to a Hearing Panel or, if
applicable, an Extended Hearing Panel to conduct the disciplinary
proceeding.\5\ Trial-level hearings take place before a Hearing Panel
or an Extended Hearing Panel, which listens to the presentation of
evidence and issues a written decision setting forth findings as to
whether a respondent engaged in the alleged misconduct and describing
the sanctions, if any, imposed.\6\ A Hearing Panel or an Extended
Hearing Panel decision is generally appealable to, and subject to
discretionary review by, the National Adjudicatory Council
(``NAC'').\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See FINRA Rule 9211.
    \4\ See FINRA Rule 9213(a). A ``Hearing Officer'' is appointed
by the Chief Hearing Officer to act in an adjudicative role and
fulfill various adjudicative responsibilities in disciplinary and
other proceedings. FINRA Rule 9120(r). The Hearing Officer exercises
a key role in the disciplinary proceeding and, among other things,
administers pre-hearing matters, including most motions, resolves
procedural and evidentiary matters, oversees the settlement and
discovery process, regulates the course of the proceeding, and
drafts a decision that represents the view of the majority of the
Hearing Panel or Extended Hearing Panel. See generally FINRA Rule
9235. The proposed rule change would not alter the important role of
professional Hearing Officers in disciplinary proceedings.
    \5\ FINRA Rules 9213(b), 9231(a). The Chief Hearing Officer
appoints an Extended Hearing Panel if, upon consideration of the
complexity of the issues involved, the probable length of the
hearing, or other factors, the Chief Hearing Officer determines that
a matter shall be an ``Extended Hearing.'' See FINRA Rules 9120(i),
9231(c). Because of the demands on his or her time, the Chief
Hearing officer is authorized to compensate a Panelist serving on an
Extended Hearing Panel in accordance with the rates set for
individuals who serve as arbitrators in the FINRA forum. See FINRA
Rule 9231(c).
    \6\ See generally FINRA Rule 9260 Series.
    \7\ See FINRA Rule 9311.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Under FINRA Rule 9231, a Hearing Officer and two industry
Panelists, who are either currently associated with FINRA member firms
or retired therefrom, compose a Hearing Panel or an Extended Hearing
Panel.\8\ The Chief Hearing Officer appoints Panelists from a pool of
eligible persons that currently includes persons who: (1) Currently
serve or previously served on a District Committee; \9\ (2) previously
served on the NAC; (3) previously served on a disciplinary subcommittee
of the NAC or its predecessor; (4) previously served as a Director or
Governor, but do not currently serve in any of these positions; or (5)
in limited cases, currently serve or previously served on the Market
Regulation Committee.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See FINRA Rule 9231(b) and (c).
    \9\ FINRA District Committees are called upon to apply their
knowledge and expertise of issues facing the securities industry to
support FINRA's investor protection mission, and they serve an
important role in the regulatory process. District Committee members
are elected by direct nomination based on firm size. See generally
FINRA Regulation By-Laws, Article VIII.
    \10\ See FINRA Rule 9231(b) and (c).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Panelists are also the subject of certain selection criteria under
FINRA Rule 9232. Among other things, the Chief Hearing Officer must
designate a District Committee as the ``Primary District Committee''
based on the facts and circumstances of the case.\11\ After designating
the Primary District Committee, the Chief Hearing Officer must select
Panelists from the current members of the Primary District Committee,
the other categories of persons eligible to serve as Panelists who are
located in the same geographic area as the Primary District Committee,
or current or former members of the Market Regulation Committee, based
upon criteria that include their expertise, the absence of any conflict
of interest or bias, availability, and the frequency with which a
person has served as a Panelist during the previous two years.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See FINRA Rules 9120(y), 9232(a) and (c).
    \12\ See FINRA Rule 9232(d). FINRA Rule 9232(e) provides the
Chief Hearing Officer with the flexibility to select one or both
Panelists from outside the area of the designated Primary District
Committee where such Panelists more clearly meet the criteria set
forth in the rules and the public interest or the administration of
FINRA's regulatory and enforcement program would be enhanced by the
selection of such Panelists.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Proposal To Expand the Pool of Eligible Panelists
    FINRA places a high value on a fair, efficient, and expeditious
disciplinary process. Although FINRA Rules 9231 and 9232 establish
Panelist eligibility and selection criteria, service on a Hearing Panel
or an Extended Hearing

Panel is voluntary. The pool of Panelists eligible under FINRA Rule
9231 to serve on Hearing Panels and Extended Hearing Panels may appear
large, but the Chief Hearing Officer, in practice, relies primarily
upon the willingness of current and former District Committee members
to serve as Panelists in disciplinary proceedings.\13\ These
individuals, who are typically experienced, senior executives or
managers of their respective firms, frequently do not possess the
flexibility to devote significant time and attention away from their
businesses to serve as Panelists, particularly as Panelists for those
complex and lengthy matters that require the Chief Hearing Officer to
appoint an Extended Hearing Panel to conduct the disciplinary
proceeding.\14\ Even in those instances where a current or former
member of a District Committee expresses a willingness to serve as a
Panelist, geographic and other selection criteria under FINRA Rule 9232
may impose additional limitations on serving.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ For example, although former members of the NAC and former
Directors and Governors are eligible to serve as Panelists under
FINRA Rule 9231, they are subject to competing burdens on their time
as they are also eligible to serve on the subcommittees of the NAC
that hear appeals from Hearing Panel and Extended Hearing Panel
decisions. See FINRA Rule 9331(a)(1). The number of disciplinary
matters that require Panelists from the pool of current or past
members of the Market Regulation Committee is small.
    \14\ Finding Panelists willing to serve on Extended Hearing
Panels, which are commonly appointed in cases where the hearing is
expected to last longer than four days and may last weeks, presents
particular challenges for the Chief Hearing Officer. FINRA has
experienced an increase in the complexity and length of some
disciplinary matters, resulting in a rise in the number of
proceedings requiring the service of Extended Hearing Panels.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To ensure that the Chief Hearing Officer is able to quickly and
efficiently assign disciplinary matters so that they may be scheduled
for a hearing and resolution, FINRA proposes to amend FINRA Rule 9231
to expand the pool of persons eligible to serve as Panelists. The
proposed rule change would add one category of persons eligible to
serve on a Hearing Panel or an Extended Hearing Panel for a
disciplinary proceeding.\15\ This additional category includes a person
who currently serves or previously served on a committee appointed or
approved by the FINRA Board that is not currently a member of the NAC
or a Director or Governor.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ By extension, the proposed rule change would also expand
the pool of persons eligible to serve as Panelists on Hearing Panels
for some expedited proceedings under the FINRA Rule 9550 Series. See
FINRA Rule 9559(d)(2) (referencing FINRA Rules 9231 and 9232 for
panelists qualifications for serving on certain expedited
proceedings).
    \16\ The proposed rule change does not change the stipulation
under FINRA Rule 9231(b) that Panelists be associated with a member
of FINRA or retired therefrom.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In effect, the proposed rule change enlarges the number of FINRA
committees from which experienced and expert Panelists could be drawn
to encompass industry members that serve, or have served, on the FINRA
Advisory Committees, including, for example, the Compliance Advisory
Committee, Corporate Financing Committee, Financial Responsibility
Committee, Fixed Income Committee, Investment Dealer/Insurance
Affiliate Committee, and Membership Committee.\17\ Members of the FINRA
Advisory Committees, like members of the District Committees, are
typically experienced, senior executives and managers of their
respective firms. They provide input, advice, and recommendations to
FINRA about best practices, regulatory initiatives, rules and policies
concerning broker-dealer activities, compliance programs, and
regulatory issues.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ A complete list of the FINRA Advisory Committees, and a
description of their roles and the advice they provide to FINRA, are
detailed at: http://www.finra.org/AboutFINRA/Leadership/Committees/p197363.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Although the proposed rule change would make a conforming amendment
to FINRA Rule 9232 to reflect the additional category of eligible
Panelists under proposed FINRA Rule 9231, it would not alter the
criteria currently contained within FINRA Rule 9232 for the selection
of Panelists. The proposed rule change would not alter the Office of
Hearing Officers' careful approach to identifying and preventing
conflicts of interest or bias in each hearing. Panelists would remain
subject to FINRA Rule 9234, which requires that a Panelist notify the
Hearing Officer and withdraw from any matter where the Panelist
possesses a conflict of interest or bias, or where circumstances
otherwise exist where his fairness might reasonably be questioned.\18\
To achieve the goals of this rule, the Office of Hearing Officers
requires Panelists to acknowledge they are free of conflicts of
interest and bias in each disciplinary proceeding for which they are
selected, after considering, among other things, the parties, issues,
and lawyers involved in the matter under consideration.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ See FINRA Rule 9234(a).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The effective date of the proposed rule change will be the date of
Commission approval.
2. Statutory Basis
    FINRA believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the
provisions of Section 15A(b)(8) of the Act,\19\ which requires, among
other things, that FINRA rules provide a fair procedure for the
disciplining of members and persons associated with members. FINRA
believes that the proposed rule change, consistent with this purpose of
the Act, assures that complaints filed with the Officer of Hearing
Officers will continue to be heard and resolved in a timely manner by
Panelists with the expertise, experience, and perspective necessary to
render a fair and informed judgment and, where necessary, to impose
appropriately remedial sanctions. The proposed rule change will afford
the Chief Hearing Officer additional flexibility to appoint Extended
Hearing Panels that are composed of Panelists capable of responding to
the complex issues and time demands that are associated with Extended
Hearings. Furthermore, the proposed rule change will reduce the burden
on the current and former members of the District Committees that
currently hear cases. By expanding the pool of eligible Panelists, the
frequency with which past and present District Committee members are
called upon to serve on disciplinary panels should decrease. It will
also help ensure that the Chief Hearing Officer has at her disposal
Panelists that are more readily available to serve and are capable of
doing so without real or perceived conflicts of interest or biases that
could delay the appointment of a Hearing Panel or an Extended Hearing
Panel and the resolution of individual matters.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ 15 U.S.C. 78o-3(b)(8).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FINRA also believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with the provisions of Section 15A(b)(6) of the Act,\20\ which
requires, among other things, that FINRA rules must be designed to
prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to promote just
and equitable principles of trade, and, in general, to protect
investors and the public interest. FINRA believes that adding qualified
persons to the pool of eligible Panelists will enhance the
dispassionate application of the federal securities laws and FINRA
rules in disciplinary proceedings, promote high business standards for
FINRA members, and allow for the prompt adjudication of allegations of
misconduct by FINRA members and their associated persons. It is in the
public interest, and consistent with the Act's purpose, that FINRA
disciplinary proceedings be timely resolved and that well-timed
sanctions be imposed where necessary to redress customer harm and deter
future misconduct.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ 15 U.S.C. 78o-3(b)(6).

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

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

    FINRA does not believe that the proposed rule change will result in
any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The proposed rule change is
intended solely to enhance the administration of FINRA's process for
the disciplining of members and persons associated with members. FINRA
believes the proposed rule change will allow the Chief Hearing Officer
flexibility to appoint Panelists and thereby maintain the timely
progress of cases to a hearing. FINRA does not believe that the
proposed rule change will have any negative effect on members or impose
any new costs.

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

    Written comments were neither solicited nor received.

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 email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-FINRA-2014-036 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-FINRA-2014-036. 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
a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of such filing also will be available for
inspection and copying at the principal office of FINRA. 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-FINRA-2014-036 and should be
submitted on or before September 11, 2014.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2014-19807 Filed 8-20-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 127 (Thursday, July 2, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 38196-38197]
[FR Doc No: 2015-16253]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

 [FRL-9926-02-OEI]

Cross-Media Electronic Reporting: Authorized Program Revision
Approval, State of South Dakota

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice announces EPA's approval of the State of South
Dakota's request to revise/modify certain of its EPA-authorized
programs to allow electronic reporting.

DATES: EPA's approval is effective July 2, 2015.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Karen Seeh, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Office of Environmental Information, Mail Stop
2823T, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20460, (202) 566-
1175<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On October 13, 2005, the final Cross-Media
Electronic Reporting Rule (CROMERR) was published in the Federal
Register (70 FR 59848) and codified as part 3 of title 40 of the CFR.
CROMERR establishes electronic reporting as an acceptable regulatory
alternative to paper reporting and establishes requirements to assure
that electronic documents are as legally dependable as their paper
counterparts. Subpart D of CROMERR requires that state, tribal or local
government agencies that receive, or wish to begin receiving,
electronic reports under their EPA-authorized programs must apply to
EPA for a revision or modification of those programs and obtain EPA
approval. Subpart D provides standards for such approvals based on
consideration of the electronic document receiving systems that the
state, tribe, or local government will use to implement the electronic
reporting. Additionally, Sec.  3.1000(b) through (e) of 40 CFR part 3,
subpart D provides special procedures for program revisions and
modifications to allow electronic reporting, to be used at the option
of the state, tribe or local

government in place of procedures available under existing program-
specific authorization regulations. An application submitted under the
subpart D procedures must show that the state, tribe or local
government has sufficient legal authority to implement the electronic
reporting components of the programs covered by the application and
will use electronic document receiving systems that meet the applicable
subpart D requirements.
    On February 25, 2015, the South Dakota Department of Environment
and Natural Resources (SD DENR) submitted an application titled
``National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System e-Reporting Tool''
for revisions/modifications of its EPA-authorized programs under title
40 CFR. EPA reviewed SD DENR's request to revise/modify its EPA-
authorized programs and, based on this review, EPA determined that the
application met the standards for approval of authorized program
revisions/modifications set out in 40 CFR part 3, subpart D. In
accordance with 40 CFR 3.1000(d), this notice of EPA's decision to
approve South Dakota's request to revise/modify its following EPA-
authorized programs to allow electronic reporting under 40 CFR parts
122, 403, and 503 is being published in the Federal Register:
    Part 123--EPA Administered Permit Programs: The National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System; Part 403--General Pretreatment
Regulations For Existing And New Source Of Pollution; and Part 501--
State Sludge Management Program Regulations.
    SD DENR was notified of EPA's determination to approve its
application with respect to the authorized programs listed above.

Matthew Leopard,
Director, Office of Information Collection.
[FR Doc. 2015-16253 Filed 7-1-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register: August 7, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 153)]
[Notices]
[Page 46114-46116]
[DOCID:fr07au08-117]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-58269; File No. SR-NYSE-2008-65]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; New York Stock Exchange LLC;
Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change
Relating to Amendments to the Portfolio Margin Program

July 30, 2008.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) \1\ of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 (the ``Act'') \2\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\3\ notice is hereby
given that, on July 29, 2008, New York Stock Exchange LLC (``NYSE'' or
the ``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(the ``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I,
II, and III below, which Items have been substantially prepared by the
self-regulatory organization. The Commission is publishing this notice
to

solicit comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C.78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 15 U.S.C. 78a.
    \3\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange proposes to amend NYSE Rule 431 (``Margin
Requirements'') to codify interpretations of the portfolio margin
program set forth in NYSE Rule 431(g) regarding (1) monitoring
concentrated equity positions and (2) timing of day trading margin
calls.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    On July 30, 2007, NASD and NYSE Regulation, Inc. (``NYSE
Regulation'') consolidated their member firm regulation operations into
a combined organization, FINRA.\4\ Pursuant to FINRA's new regulatory
responsibilities, FINRA amended its version of NYSE Rule 431 to codify
the portfolio margin program \5\ set forth in NYSE Rule 431(g)
regarding (1) monitoring concentrated equity positions and (2) timing
of day trading margin calls. The NYSE is proposing to amend NYSE Rule
431 to conform to the recently filed change to FINRA's incorporated
version of NYSE Rule 431.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Pursuant to Rule 17d-2 under the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 (the ``Act''), NYSE, NYSE Regulation, and NASD entered into an
agreement (the ``Agreement'') to reduce regulatory duplication for
firms that are members of FINRA and also members of NYSE on or after
July 30, 2007 (``Dual Members''), by allocating to FINRA certain
regulatory responsibilities for selected NYSE rules. The Agreement
includes a list of all of those rules (``Common Rules'') for which
FINRA has assumed regulatory responsibilities. See Exchange Act
Release No. 56148 (July 26, 2007), 72 FR 42146 (August 1, 2007)
(Notice of Filing and Order Approving and Declaring Effective a Plan
for the Allocation of Regulatory Responsibilities). The Common Rules
are the same NYSE rules that FINRA has incorporated into its
rulebook. See Exchange Act Release No. 56417 (July 26, 2007), 72 FR
42166 (August 1, 2007) (SR-NASD-2007-054) (Notice of Filing and
Order Granting Accelerated Approval of Proposed Rule Change to
Incorporate Certain NYSE Rules Relating to Member Firm Conduct).
Paragraph 2(b) of the 17d-2 Agreement sets forth procedures
regarding proposed changes by either NYSE or FINRA to the substance
of any of the Common Rules.
    \5\ See SR-FINRA-2008-042, filed July 25, 2008.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The implementation date of the proposed rule change is August 1,
2008, which is the implementation date of FINRA's identical amendments
to its version of NYSE Rule 431.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with
and furthers the objectives of Section 6(b)(5) of the Act,\6\ in that
it is designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative practices, to
promote just and equitable principles of trade, to remove impediments
to, and perfect the mechanisms of, a free and open market and a
national market system, and, in general, to protect investors and the
public interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange has filed the proposed rule change pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act \7\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder.\8\
Because the proposed rule change does not: (i) Significantly affect the
protection of investors or the public interest; (ii) impose any
significant burden on competition; and (iii) become operative prior to
30 days from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as
the Commission may designate, if consistent with the protection of
investors and the public interest, the proposed rule change has become
effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act and Rule 19b-
4(f)(6)(iii) thereunder.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(iii).
    \8\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
    \9\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii). In addition, Rule 19b-
4(f)(6)(iii) requires the Exchange to give the Commission written
notice of the Exchange's intent to file the proposed rule change
along with a brief description and text of the proposed rule change,
at least five business days prior to the date of filing of the
proposed rule change, or such shorter time as designated by the
Commission. The Exchange has requested, and the Commission has
agreed, to waive this pre-filing requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A proposed rule change filed under Rule 19b-4(f)(6) \10\ normally
does not become operative prior to 30 days after the date of the
filing. However, pursuant to Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii),\11\ the Commission
may designate a shorter time if such action is consistent with the
protection of investors and the public interest. The Exchange has asked
the Commission to waive the 30-day operative delay so that the proposal
may become operative immediately upon filing. The Exchange believes the
waiver of this period will allow it to immediately conform NYSE Rule
431 to FINRA's proposed amendments to its version of NYSE Rule 431, in
furtherance of the consolidation of the member firm regulation
functions of NYSE Regulation and NASD. As provided in paragraph 2(b) of
the Agreement, FINRA and NYSE will, absent a disagreement about the
substance of a proposed rule change to one of the Common Rules,
promptly propose conforming changes to ensure that such rules continue
to be Common Rules under the Agreement. The Commission believes that
waiving the 30-day operative delay is consistent with the protection of
investors and the public interest because such waiver will allow the
amendments to the portfolio margining rules to coincide with FINRA's
amendments to the rules.\12\ Accordingly, the Commission designates the
proposed rule change effective upon filing with the Commission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
    \11\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii).
    \12\ For purposes only of waiving the operative delay for this
proposal, the Commission has considered the proposed rule's impact
on efficiency, competition and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C.
78c(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule
change, the Commission may summarily abrogate such rule change if it
appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate
in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise
in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.

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-NYSE-2008-65 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NYSE-2008-65. This file
number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/
sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for inspection and
copying in the Commission's Public Reference Section, 100 F Street,
NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090 on official business days between the
hours of 10 a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of the filing will also be available
for inspection and copying at the NYSE's principal office and on its
Internet Web site at http://www.nyse.com. 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-2008-65 and should be submitted on
or before August 28, 2008.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Florence E. Harmon,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. E8-18071 Filed 8-6-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 226 (Friday, November 22, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Pages 64520-64521]
[FR Doc No: 2019-25377]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[ER-FRL-9048-1]

Environmental Impact Statements; Notice of Availability

    Responsible Agency: Office of Federal Activities, General
Information<PHONE_NUMBER> or https://www.epa.gov/nepa/.

Weekly receipt of Environmental Impact Statements
Filed 11/11/2019 10 a.m. ET Through 11/18/2019 10 a.m. ET
Pursuant to 40 CFR 1506.9.

Notice

    Section 309(a) of the Clean Air Act requires that EPA make public
its comments on EISs issued by other Federal agencies. EPA's comment
letters on EISs are available at: https://cdxnodengn.epa.gov/cdx-enepa-public/action/eis/search.

EIS No. 20190274, Draft, BIA, OK, Osage County Oil and Gas Draft
Environmental Impact Statement, Comment Period Ends: 01/06/2020,
Contact: Mosby Halterman<PHONE_NUMBER>
EIS No. 20190275, Final, USFS, CA, Squaw Valley-Alpine Meadows Base-to-
Base Gondola Project, Review Period Ends: 12/23/2019, Contact: Joe
Flannery<PHONE_NUMBER>
EIS No. 20190276, Final, FERC, OR, Jordan Cove Energy Project, Review
Period Ends: 12/23/2019, Contact: Office of External Affairs 866-208-
3372

EIS No. 20190277, Final, BLM, WA, San Juan Islands National Monument
Proposed Resource Management Plan and Final Environmental Impact
Statement, Review Period Ends: 12/23/2019, Contact: Lauren Pidot 503-
808-6297
EIS No. 20190278, Draft, BLM, AK, National Petroleum Reserve in Alaska
Integrated Activity Plan and Environmental Impact Statement, Comment
Period Ends: 01/21/2020, Contact: Stephanie Rice<PHONE_NUMBER>
EIS No. 20190279, Draft, USACE, CO, Halligan Water Supply Project,
Comment Period Ends: 01/27/2020, Contact: Cody Wheeler<PHONE_NUMBER>
EIS No. 20190280, Draft, USACE, LA, South Central Coast Louisiana Draft
Feasibility Study with Integrated Environmental Impact Statement,
Comment Period Ends: 01/06/2020, Contact: Joe Jordan<PHONE_NUMBER>

    Dated: November 18, 2019.
Robert Tomiak,
Director, Office of Federal Activities.
[FR Doc. 2019-25377 Filed 11-21-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P