PESTICIDE WORKER SAFETY PROGRAM PROPOSED AREAS OF CHANGE Worker Protection Committee Comments 4/ 11/ 06 Applicator Certification ( 40 CFR 171)

1. Expand users required to demonstrate competency Problem Statement: Current regulation applies only to narrow set of applicators who use restricted use products ( RUPs). Workers in industries not currently covered are at risk for pesticide exposure incidents.

Need to evaluate the scope of applicators and potential risks to each group ( e. g., employees handling antimicrobial products in restaurants versus insecticides in schools or agriculture)

Under options add training requirement in lieu of certification. This may be a better option than requiring certification due to the cost and resources needed to implement such a recommendation. Evaluate training before making a change to the next level ( certification) may be appropriate. Another option to consider is to expand certification to growers and commercial applicator employees handling GUP, and establish training requirements for all other GUP users ( employees).

High priority for further discussion 2. Eliminate " under the supervision" Problem Statement: Applicators who have not demonstrated competency may apply pesticides while under the supervision; there is no standard definition of supervision.

Prefer to better define " supervision" and situations under which this would be allowed rather than eliminate this provision. Consider limiting the number of handlers per certified applicator.

Can handle higher risk situations under a tiered scenario/ clearer supervision def.

The option of certifying these applicators may give them more responsibility than warranted. These applicators can follow instructions but may have difficulty passing an exam.

High priority for further discussion 3. Require RUP dealers to prove competency Problem Statement: Dealers are responsible for large quantities of pesticides and often provide advice on product selection, but are not required to demonstrate competency.

Certification for each employee would be excessive. Recommend establishing a requirement for one certified person for each dealership.

Need to define what is required for an off site inventory list. Keep the option broad by establishing minimum security standards

Consider establishing a National standard for ( 1) storage facilities, ( 2) security against theft and fraud, ( 3) requiring dealers to obtain from purchaser proof of ID, proof of certification, and authority to purchase

Medium priority for further discussion 4. Require trainers to prove competency Problem Statement: Trainers influence behavior and are a primary source of information, but are not required to demonstrate competency as educators.

The scope of this change is significant.

Suggest adding an option to establish training/ teaching tools criteria into the training program.

High priority for further discussion 5. Set minimum age for occupational users Problem Statement: There is no established minimum age for occupational pesticide users.

Agree with recommendation, although should consider exceptions on a case bycase basis

Low priority for further discussion.

6. Require testing for all occupational users Problem Statement: Currently there is no standard requiring all occupational users to demonstrate competency through testing. The absence of a minimum testing standard allows users with inadequate knowledge of pesticide safety to apply pesticides, which presents a risk to human health and the environment.

Same as # 1?

Need to evaluate the scope of applicators and potential risks to each group ( e. g., employees handling antimicrobial products in restaurants versus insecticides in schools or agriculture)

Under options add training requirement in lieu of certification. This may be a better option than requiring certification due to the cost and resources needed to implement such a recommendation. Evaluate training before making a change to the next level ( certification) may be appropriate.

High priority for further discussion 7. Set standard requirements for testing Problem Statement: Not all states administer exams which measure a standard level of competency.

Support concept for standardized exam development provided states have an option to expand based on state requirements

Agree with exam security criteria

Further discussion needed on exam administration. SLA should be given options provided minimum criteria are met.

8. Competency requirements consistent with risk Problem Statement: High risk applications currently do not require demonstration of competency commensurate with the level of risk.

Support concept.

EPA should address higher risk designation through labeling. Certification program can be designed to address labeling requirements based on risks.

Low priority for further discussion 9. Evaluate ongoing competency Problem Statement: The current regulations have very vague provisions for ensuring the continued competency of applicators.

Recommend adding an option to include specific criteria for a competency standard ( re certification through continued education training).

Medium priority for further discussion 10. Ensure continued evidence of competency Problem Statement: Existing requirements do not ensure that applicator knowledge keeps pace with the constantly evolving field of pesticide application.

Unclear whether it is necessary to establish federal standards to ensure applicators keep pace with current technology.

Recommend adding an option to require SLA to include this information in the grant work plans.

Medium priority for further discussion 11. Develop standard certification categories Problem Statement: Wide variation among state certification categories adds to burden and inhibits reciprocity.

Support the concept to establish core categories, but allow flexibility to establish State categories.

Medium priority for further discussion.

12. Equalize standards for states/ tribes/ territories Problem Statement: Varying state, tribal and federal plan requirements impose conflicting demands on EPA and are inconsistent

No comment

Low priority for further discussion 13. Assure program accountability Problem Statement: Lack of consistent requirements for program reporting inhibits ability to manage program, establish priorities and meet new program accountability obligations.

Additional reporting requirements may impact state resources. Impacts unknown until discussion takes place

Address in grant work plans.

Medium priority for further discussion. Worker Protection ( 40 CFR 170)

1. Ensure meaningful hazard communications Problem Statement: Current regulation hazard notification efforts do not provide workers with adequate protection.

OSHA's hazard communication requirements are designed for fixed facilities.

Need to consider multiple field locations when designing the program.

What data does EPA have to support that workers are requesting specific risk information? Need to obtain feedback from farm workers on the type of information requested and the type of delivery system that best meets the worker's needs. This type of information should be collected during the pilot projects.

High priority for further discussion 2. Ensure meaningful training Problem Statement: Retraining is only required every 5 years which is too infrequent to ensure workers know how to protect themselves. Some workers may never receive safety training because the rule allows employers to delay full training for 5 days.

Support shortening of the retraining period.

Low priority for further discussion.

3. Require trainers to demonstrate competency Problem Statement: Trainers influence behavior and are a primary source of information, but are not required to demonstrate competency as educators.

The statement " An applicator must pass a competency gauge, but a worker has no such gauge; therefore, the trainer must be competent to train in order to assure the worker receives effective safety training" is not only true for certified applicators.

Suggest adding an option to establish training/ teaching tools criteria into the training program.

Need to evaluate comparable program requirements for other industries and determine if pesticides require a higher standard.

High priority for further discussion. 4. Establish training verification system Problem Statement: Agricultural worker training is not adequately verified and tracked.

In general agreement with concept

Records do not measure the effectiveness of training

Medium priority for further discussion. 5. Protect children from pesticide treated fields Problem Statement: There is no requirement to keep children who are not employed out of pesticide treated areas.

Support concept

Federal legislation has been proposed ( HR 3482) to require cross reference of WPS in labor regulations. Should consider coordinating with OSHA to place the restrictions in labor regulations

Medium priority for further discussion 6. Clarify vague WPS provisions Problem Statement: Regulatory language is complex and coverage requirements need clarification.

Support concept

Medium priority for further discussion.

7. Clarify exceptions Problem Statement: Two exceptions, irrigation and early entry low contact, are not included in the regulation.

Support concept

Low priority for further discussion.

8. Exempt certified crop advisors and aerial applicators Problem Statement: Crop advisors and aerial applicators have training and PPE requirements in the regulation, although their risk profile is more aligned with that of certified applicators.

Support concept

Low priority for further discussion 9. Require handlers to demonstrate competency Problem Statement: handlers, those who can mix, load and apply pesticides under the worker protection regulation, are not required to demonstrate competency.

Need to evaluate the scope of applicator activities ( e. g., employees handling Category III pesticides versus Category I pesticides)

Many handlers could not pass written exam but are capable of following instructions.

High priority for further discussion 10. Express regulation in plain English Problem Statement: Regulatory language is complex and should be expressed in plain English.

Support concept

Low priority for further discussion 11. Assure program accountability Problem Statement: Lack of consistent requirements for program reporting inhibits ability to manage program, establish priorities and meet new program accountability obligations.

Should be addressed in grant process and work plans with States.

Medium priority for further discussion General Comments The biggest area that EPA has missed is allowing adequate time for stakeholder input. SLAs have specific concerns regarding CES input and trying to address both certification and training and the WPS regulations as one package. Also, there has been little opportunity for agricultural employers to provide input on what might and might not work. A one year time is not adequate for input.

EPA should consider adopting closed system criteria/ definition to address closed system label requirements.

EPA should consider evaluating retaliation and providing States with more guidance on how to enforce these provisions.

EPA should consider including large scale research plots under the scope of the WPS.

Prepared by Chuck Andrews, Chair AAPCO Worker Protection Committee Note: The comments do not represent a consensus from the AAPCO Worker Protection Committee, but individual comments from four members.


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 4 (Friday, January 6, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Pages 1083-1084]
[FR Doc No: 2023-00083]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Docket ID FEMA-2022-0002; Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-B-2298]

Proposed Flood Hazard Determinations

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, Department of Homeland
Security.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: Comments are requested on proposed flood hazard
determinations, which may include additions or modifications of any
Base Flood Elevation (BFE), base flood depth, Special Flood Hazard Area
(SFHA) boundary or zone designation, or regulatory floodway on the
Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs), and where applicable, in the
supporting Flood Insurance Study (FIS) reports for the communities
listed in the table below. The purpose of this notice is to seek
general information and comment regarding the preliminary FIRM, and
where applicable, the FIS report that the Federal Emergency Management
Agency (FEMA) has provided to the affected communities. The FIRM and
FIS report are the basis of the floodplain management measures that the
community is required either to adopt or to show evidence of having in
effect in order to qualify or remain qualified for participation in the
National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP).

DATES: Comments are to be submitted on or before April 6, 2023.

ADDRESSES: The Preliminary FIRM, and where applicable, the FIS report
for each community are available for inspection at both the online
location https://hazards.fema.gov/femaportal/prelimdownload and the
respective Community Map Repository address listed in the tables below.
Additionally, the current effective FIRM and FIS report for each
community are accessible online through the FEMA Map Service Center at
https://msc.fema.gov for comparison.
    You may submit comments, identified by Docket No. FEMA-B-2298, to
Rick Sacbibit, Chief, Engineering Services Branch, Federal Insurance
and Mitigation Administration, FEMA, 400 C Street SW, Washington, DC
20472,<PHONE_NUMBER>, or (email) [email protected].

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rick Sacbibit, Chief, Engineering
Services Branch, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration, FEMA,
400 C Street SW, Washington, DC 20472,<PHONE_NUMBER>, or (email)
[email protected]; or visit the FEMA Mapping and Insurance
eXchange (FMIX) online at https://www.floodmaps.fema.gov/fhm/fmx_main.html.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: FEMA proposes to make flood hazard
determinations for each community listed below, in accordance with
section 110 of the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C.
4104, and 44 CFR 67.4(a).
    These proposed flood hazard determinations, together with the
floodplain management criteria required by 44 CFR 60.3, are the minimum
that are required. They should not be construed to mean that the
community must change any existing ordinances that are more stringent
in their floodplain management requirements. The community may at any
time enact stricter requirements of its own or pursuant to policies
established by other Federal, State, or regional entities. These flood
hazard determinations are used to meet the floodplain management
requirements of the NFIP.
    The communities affected by the flood hazard determinations are
provided in the tables below. Any request for reconsideration of the
revised flood hazard information shown on the Preliminary FIRM and FIS
report that satisfies the data requirements outlined in 44 CFR 67.6(b)
is considered an appeal. Comments unrelated to the flood hazard
determinations also will be considered before the FIRM and FIS report
become effective.
    Use of a Scientific Resolution Panel (SRP) is available to
communities in support of the appeal resolution process. SRPs are
independent panels of experts in hydrology, hydraulics, and other
pertinent sciences established to review conflicting scientific and
technical data and provide recommendations for resolution. Use of the
SRP only may be exercised after FEMA and local communities have been
engaged in a collaborative consultation process for at least 60 days
without a mutually acceptable resolution of an appeal. Additional
information regarding the SRP process can be found online at https://www.floodsrp.org/pdfs/srp_overview.pdf.
    The watersheds and/or communities affected are listed in the tables
below. The Preliminary FIRM, and where applicable, FIS report for each
community are available for inspection at both the online location
https://hazards.fema.gov/femaportal/prelimdownload and the respective
Community Map Repository address listed in the tables. For communities
with multiple ongoing Preliminary studies, the studies can be
identified by the unique project number and Preliminary FIRM date
listed in the tables. Additionally, the current effective FIRM and FIS
report for each community are accessible online through the FEMA Map
Service Center at https://msc.fema.gov for comparison.

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance No. 97.022, ``Flood
Insurance.'')

Michael M. Grimm,
Assistant Administrator for Risk Management, Federal Emergency
Management Agency, Department of Homeland Security.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Community                Community map repository address
------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Gwinnett County, Georgia and Incorporated Areas
------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Project: 18-04-0003S Preliminary Date: July 29, 2022
------------------------------------------------------------------------
City of Dacula....................  City Hall, 442 Harbins Road, Dacula,
                                     GA 30019.

Unincorporated Areas of Gwinnett    Gwinnett County Justice and
 County.                             Administration Center, 75 Langley
                                     Drive, Lawrenceville, GA 30046.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Fayette County, Iowa and Incorporated Areas
------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Project: 19-07-0018S Preliminary Date: July 20, 2022
------------------------------------------------------------------------
City of Elgin.....................  City Hall, 212 Main Street, Elgin,
                                     IA 52141.
City of Oelwein...................  City Hall, 20 2nd Avenue Southwest,
                                     Oelwein, IA 50662.
Unincorporated Areas of Fayette     Fayette County Courthouse, 114 North
 County.                             Vine Street, West Union, IA 52175.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Dickinson County, Kansas and Incorporated Areas
------------------------------------------------------------------------
         Project: 17-07-0009S Preliminary Date: October 28, 2022
------------------------------------------------------------------------
City of Abilene...................  Office of the City Inspector, 419
                                     North Broadway Street, Abilene, KS
                                     67410.
City of Chapman...................  City Hall, 446 North Marshall
                                     Street, Chapman, KS 67431.
City of Enterprise................  City Hall, 206 South Factory Street,
                                     Enterprise, KS 67441.
City of Herington.................  City Office, 17 North Broadway,
                                     Herington, KS 67449.
City of Solomon...................  City Office, 116 West Main Street,
                                     Solomon, KS 67480.
Unincorporated Areas of Dickinson   Dickinson County Courthouse, 109
 County.                             East 1st Street, Suite 202,
                                     Abilene, KS 67410.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
         Carteret County, North Carolina and Incorporated Areas
------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Project: 11-04-0730S Preliminary Date: July 30, 2021
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Town of Emerald Isle..............  Town Hall, 7500 Emerald Drive,
                                     Emerald Isle, NC 28594.
Town of Indian Beach..............  Town Hall, 1400 Salter Path Road,
                                     Indian Beach, NC 28512.
Town of Pine Knoll Shores.........  Town Hall, 100 Municipal Circle,
                                     Pine Knoll Shores, NC 28512.
Unincorporated Areas of Carteret    Carteret County Planning and
 County.                             Inspections Department, 402 Broad
                                     Street, Beaufort, NC 28516.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 2023-00083 Filed 1-5-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-12-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 121 (Thursday, June 23, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 40932-40935]
[FR Doc No: 2016-14837]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-78094; File No. SR-FINRA-2016-014]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Financial Industry Regulatory
Authority, Inc.; Order Approving Proposed Rule Change Relating to
Composition, Terms of Members and Election Procedures for the National
Adjudicatory Council

June 17, 2016.

I. Introduction

    On April 28, 2016, the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority,
Inc. (``FINRA'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``SEC'' or ``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 the By-Laws of FINRA's
regulatory subsidiary, FINRA Regulation, Inc. (``FINRA Regulation''),
to expand the size of the National Adjudicatory Council (``NAC'') to 15
members, with the number of non-industry members exceeding the number
of industry members; lengthen the terms of office of future NAC members
to four years; and update the process used for sending and counting
ballots in the event of a contested nomination and election to fill
certain NAC industry member seats. The proposed rule change was
published for comment in the Federal Register on May 13, 2016.\3\ The
Commission received four comment letters on the proposal.\4\
Thereafter, FINRA submitted a letter in response to the comment
letters.\5\ This order grants approval of the proposed rule change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 77786 (May 9, 2016),
81 FR 29929 (May 13, 2016) (``Notice'').
    \4\ See Letters from Steven B. Caruso, Esq., Maddox Hargett
Caruso, P.C., dated May 9, 2016 (``Caruso Letter''); David T.
Bellaire, Esq., Executive Vice President & General Counsel,
Financial Services Institute, dated May 19, 2016 (``FSI Letter'');
Hugh Berkson, Public Investors Arbitration Bar Association, dated
June 2, 2016 (``PIABA Letter''); and Christopher E. Berman, Barry
University, dated June 2, 2016 (``Berman Letter'').
    \5\ See Letter from Gary Dernelle, Associate General Counsel,
FINRA, dated June 13, 2016 (``FINRA Letter'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Description of the Proposal \6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ A full description of the proposal can be found in the
Notice. See Notice, supra note 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The FINRA Regulation By-Laws establish the composition of the
NAC,\7\ the terms of its members, and the process by which members are
selected. The NAC is currently composed of fourteen members.\8\ The
number of Non-Industry Members, which must include at least three
Public Members, equals the number of Industry Members.\9\ The

seven Industry Members include two Small Firm NAC Members, one Mid-Size
Firm NAC Member, two Large Firm NAC Members and two at-large Industry
Members.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ The NAC acts on behalf of FINRA in several capacities and
its powers are authorized by the By-Laws of FINRA Regulation and
FINRA's Code of Procedure. The NAC presides over disciplinary
matters appealed to or called for review by the NAC. The NAC also
acts, when requested, in statutory disqualification and membership
proceedings; considers the appeals of members seeking exemptive
relief; and retains the authority to review decisions proposed in
other proceedings as set forth in the Code of Procedure. For most
matters that the NAC considers, it prepares a proposed written
decision, which becomes final FINRA action if the Board does not
call the matter for review. See Notice, supra note 3.
    \8\ See FINRA Regulation By-Laws, Article V (National
Adjudicatory Council), Section 5.2(a) (Number of Members and
Qualifications).
    \9\ Id. A ``Non-Industry Member'' of the NAC includes any Public
Member, an officer or employee of an issuer of securities listed on
a market for which FINRA provides regulation, an officer or employee
of an issuer of unlisted securities that are traded in the over-the-
counter market, or any individual who would not otherwise fall
within the definition of an Industry Member. See FINRA Regulation
By-Laws, Article I (Definitions), paragraph (ee). A ``Public
Member'' generally is a Non-Industry Member who has no material
business relationship with a broker or dealer or a self-regulatory
organization registered under the Act. See FINRA Regulation By-Laws,
Article I (Definitions), paragraph (hh). An ``Industry Member''
generally includes a person who is or served in the prior year as an
officer, director, employee or controlling person of a broker-
dealer; is an officer, director or employee of an entity that owns a
material equity interest in a broker-dealer; owns personally a
material equity interest in a broker-dealer; provides professional
services to broker-dealers, or to a director, officer, or employee
of a broker-dealer in their professional capacity, where the
revenues from such services meet material thresholds; or is or
served in the prior year as a consultant, employee or provider of
professional services to a self-regulatory organization registered
under the Act. See FINRA Regulation By-Laws, Article I
(Definitions), paragraph (x).
    \10\ See FINRA Regulation By-Laws, Article V (National
Adjudicatory Council), Section 5.2(a) (Number of Members and
Qualifications).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The FINRA Board appoints the NAC and its members.\11\ The FINRA
Board appoints Non-Industry Members and at-large Industry Members from
candidates recommended by the Nominating Committee. The FINRA Board
also appoints Small Firm, Mid-Size Firm and Large Firm NAC Members,
either from candidates recommended by the Nominating Committee, or in
the event of a contested election for a Small Firm, Mid-Size Firm or
Large Firm NAC Member vacancy, the candidate who is elected by FINRA
members based on their vote for a candidate.\12\ The Small Firm, Mid-
Size Firm or Large Firm NAC Member candidate receiving the largest
number of votes from firms of corresponding size is declared the
nominee, and the Nominating Committee sends a written certification of
the results to the FINRA Board and nominates such candidate for
appointment to the NAC.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See FINRA Regulation By-Laws, Article V (National
Adjudicatory Council), Section 5.3 (Appointments).
    \12\ Id.
    \13\ See FINRA Regulation By-Laws, Article VI (Selection of
Small Firm, Mid-Size Firm and Large Firm Industry Members of the
National Adjudicatory Council), Section 6.13 (Certification of
Nomination). The FINRA Board is required to appoint to the NAC the
candidate who receives the most votes in any contested election for
a Small Firm, Mid-Size Firm or Large Firm NAC Member seat. See FINRA
Regulation By-Laws Article V (National Adjudicatory Council),
Section 5.5 (Rejection of Nominating Committee Nominee).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed rule change amends the FINRA Regulation By-Laws in
three ways. First, it amends Section 5.2 of the FINRA Regulation By-
Laws to expand the size of the NAC from fourteen members to fifteen
members and require that the NAC have more Non-Industry Members,
including at least three Public Members, than Industry Members.
Accordingly, FINRA would add one Non-Industry Member seat to the
current 14-member committee.
    Second, the proposed rule change lengthens the term of office of
future NAC members by one year, from three to four years.\14\ In
addition, the NAC would be divided into four classes, rather than the
current three, that are as equal in number as feasible.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ See Proposed FINRA Regulation By-Laws, Article V (National
Adjudicatory Council), Section 5.6(a) and (c) (Term of Office).
FINRA stated that the proposed rule change would not alter or extend
the term of any NAC member serving currently; the rule change would
apply prospectively.
    \15\ See Proposed FINRA Regulation By-Laws, Article V (National
Adjudicatory Council), Section 5.6(b) (Term of Office). The proposed
rule change also amends Section 5.6(a) of the FINRA Regulation By-
Laws to provide a three-year transitional period during which the
FINRA Board may appoint new NAC members to terms of office less than
four years to achieve the staggering necessary to divide the NAC
into four classes. FINRA anticipates that, beginning in January
2017, and ending in December 2019, new NAC members would be
appointed to terms of either three years or four years to achieve
the result of a NAC that is divided into four classes, with each NAC
member serving a term of four years. The proposed rule change also
makes a conforming amendment to Section 5.6(b) of the FINRA
Regulation By-Laws to delete obsolete text related to a prior rule
change that replaced region-based Industry NAC members with Industry
members that represent FINRA member firms of various sizes. See
Securities Exchange Act Release No. 58909 (November 6, 2008), 73 FR
68467 (November 18, 2008) (Order Approving File No. SR-FINRA-2008-
046).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, the proposed rule change streamlines the NAC election
process and aligns it with the process currently used for elections
involving the FINRA District Committees. The proposed rule change
amends Section 6.7 of the FINRA Regulation By-Laws by deleting the term
``envelope'' and adding language to permit ballots to be delivered by
additional means.\16\ The proposed rule change aligns the ballot
preparation process in NAC elections with that used in FINRA District
Committee elections and allows FINRA members to vote using online and
telephonic methods in addition to paper ballots.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ The proposed rule change would also make a conforming
amendment to Section 6.9 of the FINRA Regulation By-Laws concerning
ballots that are returned as undelivered.
    \17\ See FINRA Regulation By-Laws, Article VIII (District
Committees), Section 8.11 (Ballots).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed rule change also amends Section 6.10 of the FINRA
Regulation By-Laws to simplify the tabulation of ballots by the
Independent Agent, by eliminating the provision in Section 6.10 of the
FINRA Regulation By-Laws that permits NAC candidates and their
representatives to observe the Independent Agent's accounting of
ballots in contested NAC elections. The proposed rule change would
align the ballot counting process used in NAC elections with the
process used in FINRA District Committee elections, which does not
provide candidates the ability to be present while the Independent
Agent opens and counts the ballots.\18\ The proposed rule change will
thus expedite the accounting process and permit the Secretary of FINRA
to notify the candidates more quickly of NAC election results.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ See FINRA Regulation By-Laws, Article VIII (District
Committees), Section 8.14 (General Procedures for Qualification and
Accounting of Ballots). According to FINRA, the opportunity to
observe the Independent Agent's qualification and accounting of
ballots was rarely used by NAC candidates and provided candidates no
additional grounds for recourse. Candidates and their
representatives are not allowed to see the vote of any FINRA member
and the final determination of the qualification of a ballot rests
with the Secretary of the Corporation. See FINRA Regulation By-Laws,
Article VI (Selection of Small Firm, Mid-Size Firm and Large Firm
Industry Members of the National Adjudicatory Council), Section 6.10
(General Procedures for Qualification and Accounting of Ballots).
FINRA noted that the Secretary of the Corporation must still certify
election results. See FINRA Regulation By-Laws, Article VI
(Selection of Small Firm, Mid-Size Firm and Large Firm Industry
Members of the National Adjudicatory Council), Section 6.13
(Certification of Nomination).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Summary of Comment Letters and FINRA's Response

    One commenter supported the proposed rule change and believed that
expanding the size of the NAC and requiring that the number of Non-
Industry Members exceed the number of Industry Members would ``clearly
advance the public interest and protect investors. . . .'' \19\ Two
commenters generally supported the proposed rule change, but believed
that FINRA should increase the number of Public Members on the NAC
instead of adding an additional Non-Industry Member to the NAC.\20\
Finally, one commenter expressed concerns about modifying the
composition of the NAC and lengthening the term of office of future NAC
members.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ See Caruso Letter (recommending that the proposed rule
change be approved on an expedited basis).
    \20\ See Berman Letter and PIABA Letter.
    \21\ See FSI Letter.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

A. Composition of the NAC

    Two commenters suggested that FINRA increase the number of Public
Members on the NAC.\22\ Specifically, one commenter expressed concern
that while altering the NAC's composition to include a majority of Non-
Industry Members would ``enhance its reputation for impartiality and
reduce the possibility of deadlock[,]''persons with significant
industry connections may qualify as Non-Industry Members.\23\
Similarly, another commenter believed that issuers and employees of
issuers who would be categorized as Non-Industry Members ``may be more
closely aligned with Industry Members under certain circumstances.''
\24\ One commenter, however, raised concerns about modifying the
composition of the

NAC.\25\ This commenter believed that the current composition of the
NAC achieves a more balanced perspective and that increasing the number
of Non-Industry Members on the NAC could diminish expertise on the NAC.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ See Berman Letter and PIABA Letter.
    \23\ See Berman Letter.
    \24\ See PIABA Letter.
    \25\ See FSI Letter.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In its response, FINRA noted that the current and proposed FINRA
Regulation By-Laws do not limit the ability of the Board to appoint
more than three Public Members to the NAC.\26\ However, FINRA believed
that explicitly increasing the number of Non-Industry Members that must
also be Public Members would unnecessarily restrict FINRA's flexibility
to appoint to the NAC a diversity of Non-Industry Members and Public
Members that serve best, based on the pool of potential candidates, to
strengthen the quality of the NAC and its deliberations and decisions.
Further, with respect to concerns regarding Non-Industry Members
aligning with Industry Members because of their connections to the
securities industry, FINRA made clear that the term Non-Industry Member
explicitly excludes any individual that would otherwise fall within the
definition of an Industry Member \27\ and that the proposed rule change
is similar to the current FINRA By-Laws that require the number of
public governors that serve on the Board to exceed the number of
industry governors.\28\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ See FINRA Letter.
    \27\ See FINRA Letter (citing to FINRA Regulation By-Laws,
Article I (Definitions), paragraph (ee) (defining Non-Industry
Member)).
    \28\ According to FINRA, while the terms Non-Industry Member and
Public Governor are not identical, they are comparable. See FINRA
Letter.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In response to the commenter's concern that increasing the number
of Non-Industry Members may diminish the NAC's balanced perspective and
expertise, FINRA noted that the proposed rule change still maintains
FINRA's custom of ``substantial industry participation in the NAC's
adjudication of disciplinary and other matters.'' Further, FINRA
represented that it is committed to appointing Non-Industry Members
that are both highly qualified and provide unique perspectives in NAC
deliberations, including expertise in a variety of subjects and issues
important to the matters the NAC considers, such as the federal
securities laws, just and equitable principals of trade, best
professional practices, and corporate governance and compliance.

B. Terms of Office for NAC Members

    One commenter explicitly supported extending the terms of NAC
members from three to four years.\29\ This commenter believed that the
annual turnover of NAC members compromised the NAC's effectiveness and
that unseasoned members lacked the same institutional knowledge as
members that have spent a more significant amount of time on the
NAC.\30\ However, another commenter raised concerns about extending
terms on the NAC.\31\ This commenter, while recognizing the benefit of
extending member terms to four years, believed that the current three-
year term allows for a rolling board with a variety of views.
Accordingly, this commenter suggested that FINRA amend its proposal to
re-evaluate the proposed four-year term at a future date.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ See Berman Letter.
    \30\ See Berman Letter.
    \31\ See FSI Letter.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In its response, FINRA noted that the proposed rule change would
maintain the current NAC member term limit, which generally prohibits
NAC members from serving consecutive terms, and staggered terms.
According to FINRA, this should allow a ``regular infusion of fresh
ideas and knowledge and generally serve the goal of invigorating NAC
deliberations'' with the composition of the NAC changing each year,
while allowing NAC members to be fully productive for a longer term.
Further, with respect to the commenter's suggestion to re-evaluate the
four-year term at a future date, FINRA noted that the NAC's decisions
are generally subject to discretionary review by the FINRA Board of
Governors. As a result, the FINRA Board of Governors is ``well placed
to conduct an ongoing evaluation of the NAC's effectiveness and the
quality of its decision making'' and therefore, amending the proposed
rule change to establish a date for reevaluating the effectiveness of
the longer member terms is unnecessary.

C. NAC Selection Process

    One commenter believed that the revised selection process for
contested elections would make the process more efficient and allow for
electronic balloting.\32\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \32\ See Berman Letter.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Discussion and Commission Findings

    After carefully considering the proposal, the comments submitted,
and FINRA's response, the Commission finds that the proposed rule
change is consistent with the requirements of the Act and the rules and
regulations thereunder that are applicable to a national securities
association.\33\ Specifically, the Commission finds that the proposed
rule change is consistent with Sections 15A(b)(4), 15A(b)(6) and
15A(b)(8) of the Act, \34\ which require, among other things, that
FINRA rules assure a fair representation of its members in the
administration of its affairs; are 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; and provide a fair procedure for disciplining of
members and persons associated with members.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \33\ 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).
    \34\ 15 U.S.C. 78o-3(b)(4), (b)(6) and (b)(8).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission believes that FINRA's proposal to add one Non-
Industry Member to the NAC should enhance the independence of the NAC
and continue to ensure that a diversity of expertise, experiences and
views are represented on the NAC. With respect to commenters'
suggestion that FINRA should increase the number of Public Members on
the NAC,\35\ the Commission notes that under the proposed rule change
FINRA still may appoint more than three Public Members to the NAC,\36\
but retains flexibility to appoint an additional Non-Industry Member or
Public Member. According to FINRA, requiring that the Non-Industry
Member be a Public Member would restrict its ability to appoint members
that serve best, ``based on the pool of potential candidates, to
strengthen the quality of the NAC as an adjudicatory body and its
deliberations and decisions.'' \37\ Further, with respect to concerns
that the current composition of the NAC provides a more balanced
perspective and expertise,\38\ FINRA has represented that it will
continue to appoint Non-Industry Members that are both highly qualified
and provide unique perspectives and expertise in NAC deliberations.\39\
Moreover, while Non-Industry Members would exceed the number of
Industry Members, seven

of the fifteen NAC members would continue to be Industry Members,
including two Small Firm NAC Members, one Mid-Size Firm NAC Member, two
Large Firm NAC Members, and two at-large Industry Members.\40\
Accordingly, the Commission believes that the proposed rule change
continues to allow for substantial industry participation, while
enhancing the overall independence of the NAC.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \35\ See Berman Letter and PIABA Letter.
    \36\ See current and proposed FINRA Regulation By-Laws, Article
V (National Adjudicatory Council), Section 5.2(a) (Number of Members
and Qualifications) (stating that the National Adjudicatory Council
shall consist of at least three Public Members).
    \37\ See FINRA Letter.
    \38\ See FSI Letter.
    \39\ See FINRA Letter. In the past, Non-Industry Members have
included professors of law, finance, and business; current and
former public pension and retirement system advisers; and leaders of
independent, non-profit organizations that provide educational and
outreach programs to issuers and investors. Id.
    \40\ See current and proposed FINRA Regulation By-Laws, Article
V (National Adjudicatory Council), Section 5.2(a) (Number of Members
and Qualifications).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission also believes it is appropriate for FINRA to
increase the term of NAC members from three to four years. While one
commenter raised concerns about extending member terms,\41\ the
Commission believes that the proposed rule change will allow NAC
members to spend more time serving and being fully productive after
gaining experience on the NAC. At the same time, the Commission
believes the current term limits, staggered terms, and composition of
the NAC should continue to provide the NAC with varied perspectives and
views.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \41\ See FSI Letter.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission also believes that the proposed changes to the NAC
selection process to modernize and streamline the process and to align
it with the process used in FINRA District Committee elections are
appropriate.\42\ The proposed rule change would allow ballots to be
delivered and voted by means other than the mail and further simplify
the tabulation process by eliminating the provision that allowed NAC
candidates and their representatives to observe the Independent Agent's
accounting of ballots in a contested election. FINRA stated that
candidates rarely opted to observe the Independent Agent and observing
the Independent Agent did not provide candidates additional grounds for
recourse. NAC candidates and their representatives were not allowed to
see the vote of any FINRA member and the final determination of the
qualification of a ballot rested with the Secretary of FINRA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \42\ See FINRA Regulation By-Laws, Article VIII (District
Committees), Sections 8.11 (Ballots), 8.13 (Ballots Returned as
Undelivered), and 8.14 (General Procedures for Qualification and
Accounting of Ballots).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

V. Conclusion

    It is therefore ordered, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the
Act,\43\ that the proposed rule change (FINRA-2016-014) be, and it
hereby is approved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \43\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\44\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \44\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Robert W. Errett,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2016-14837 Filed 6-22-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 153 (Thursday, August 8, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Page 38961]
[FR Doc No: 2019-16950]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ER19-2495-000]

Wessington Springs Wind, LLC; Supplemental Notice That Initial
Market-Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204
Authorization

    This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced Wessington
Springs Wind, LLC's application for market-based rate authority, with
an accompanying rate tariff, noting that such application includes a
request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future
issuances of securities and assumptions of liability.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington,
DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's
Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Anyone
filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that
document on the Applicant.
    Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with
regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18
CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of
liability, is August 22, 2019.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with internet
access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an
intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the
eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the
intervention or protests.
    Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and
5 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426.
    The filings in the above-referenced proceeding are accessible in
the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in
the above list. They are also available for electronic review in the
Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an
eSubscription link on the website that enables subscribers to receive
email notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s).
For assistance with any FERC Online service, please email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For
TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: August 2, 2019.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2019-16950 Filed 8-7-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 189 (Monday, September 30, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Pages 51692-51693]
[FR Doc No: 2019-21081]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[SEC File No. 270-198, OMB Control No. 3235-0279]

Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request

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

Extension:
    Rule 17a-4

    Notice is hereby given that pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act
of 1995 (``PRA'') (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), the Securities and Exchange
Commission (``Commission'') has submitted to the Office of Management
and Budget (``OMB'') a request for extension of the previously approved
collection of information provided for in Rule 17a-4 (17 CFR 240.17a-
4), under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78a et seq.).
    Rule 17a-4 requires approximately 3,764 active, registered exchange
members, brokers, and dealers (``broker-dealers'') to preserve for
prescribed periods of time certain records required to be made by Rule
17a-3 and other Commission rules, and other kinds of records which
firms make or receive in the ordinary course of business. Rule 17a-4
also permits broker-dealers to employ, under certain conditions,
electronic storage media to maintain these required records. The
records required to be maintained under Rule 17a-4 are used by
examiners and other representatives of the Commission to determine
whether broker-dealers are in compliance with, and to enforce their
compliance with, the Commission's rules.
    There are approximately 3,764 active, registered broker-dealers.
The staff estimates that the average amount of time necessary to
preserve the books and records as required by Rule 17a-4 is 254 hours
per broker-dealer per year. In addition, paragraph (b)(11) of Rule 17a-
4 requires any broker-dealer that sponsors an internal broker-dealer
system to maintain certain records relating to such system for at least
three years. The Commission estimates that paragraph (b)(11) of Rule
17a-4 imposes an annual burden of 3 hours per year to maintain the
requisite records. The Commission estimates that there are
approximately 200 internal broker-dealer systems, resulting in an
annual recordkeeping burden of 600 hours. Therefore, the Commission
estimates that compliance with Rule 17a-4

requires 956,656 hours each year ((3,764 broker-dealers x 254 hours) +
(200 broker-dealers x 3 hours) \1\. These burdens are recordkeeping
burdens.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ On June 5, 2019, the Commission adopted Rule 151-1 under the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 establishing a standard of conduct
for broker-dealers and natural persons who are associated persons of
a broker-dealer when making a recommendation of any securities. See
Securities Exchange Act Release No. 86031 (June 5, 2019), 84 FR
33318 (July 12, 2019). At the same time, the Commission adopted
Exchange Act Rule 17a-14 (CFR 240.17a-14) and Form CRS (17 CFR
249.640) under the Exchange Act. See Form CRS Relationship Summary;
Amendments to Form ADV Exchange Act Release No. 86032, Advisers Act
Release No. 5247, File No. S7-08-18 (June 5, 2019), 84 FR 33492
(July 12, 2019). As part of new Rule 17a-14 and Form CRS, and
Regulation Best Interest, the Commission amended Rule 17a-4 by
adding new paragraphs (a)(24) and (a)(35). The collections of
information and the related burdens associated with these amendments
have been separately noticed for comment and are currently under
review.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The staff believes that compliance personnel would be charged with
ensuring compliance with Commission regulation, including Rule 17a-4.
The staff estimates that the hourly salary of a Compliance Clerk is $70
per hour.\2\ Based upon these numbers, the total internal cost of
compliance for 4,104 respondents is the dollar cost of approximately
$67 (956,656 yearly hours x $70). The total burden hour decrease of
86,210 is due to a decrease in the number of respondents from 4,104 to
3,764.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ This figure is based on SIFMA's Office Salaries in the
Securities Industry 2013, modified by Commission staff to account
for an 1,800-hour work-year multiplied by 2.93 to account for
bonuses, firm size, employee benefits, and overhead.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Based on conversations with members of the securities industry and
the Commission's experience in the area, the staff estimates that the
average broker-dealer spends approximately $5,000 each year to store
documents required to be retained under Rule 17a-4. Costs include the
cost of physical space, computer hardware and software, etc., which
vary widely depending on the size of the broker-dealer and the type of
storage media employed. The Commission estimates that the annual
reporting and recordkeeping cost burden is $18,820,000. This cost is
calculated by the number of active, registered broker-dealers
multiplied by the reporting and recordkeeping cost for each respondent
(3,764 active, registered broker-dealers x $5,000).
    An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required
to respond to, a collection of information under the PRA unless it
displays a currently valid OMB control number.
    The public may view the background documentation for this
information collection at the following website: www.reginfo.gov.
Comments should be directed to: (i) Desk Officer for the Securities and
Exchange Commission, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs,
Office of Management and Budget, Room 10102, New Executive Office
Building, Washington, DC 20503, or by sending an email to:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>and (ii) Charles Riddle, Acting Director/
Chief Information Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission, c/o
Candace Kenner, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549, or by sending an
email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Comments must be submitted to OMB within
30 days of this notice.

    Dated: September 24, 2019.
Jill M. Peterson,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2019-21081 Filed 9-27-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 85 (Friday, May 1, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Page 25503]
[FR Doc No: 2020-09294]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[SEC File No. 270-137, OMB Control No. 3235-0145]

Proposed Collection; Comment Request

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

Extension:
    Regulation 13D and Regulation 13G; Schedule 13D and Schedule 13G

    Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction
Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), the Securities and Exchange
Commission (``Commission'') is soliciting comments on the collection of
information summarized below. The Commission plans to submit this
existing collection of information to the office of Management and
Budget for extension and approval.
    Schedules 13D and 13G (17 CFR 240.13d-101 and 240.13d-102) are
filed pursuant to Sections 13(d) and 13(g) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m(d) and 78m(g)) (``Exchange Act'') and
Regulations 13D and 13G (17 CFR 240.13d-1--240.13d-7) thereunder to
report beneficial ownership of equity securities registered under
Section 12 (15 U.S.C. 78l) of the Exchange Act. Regulations 13D and 13G
provide investors, the subject issuers, and market participants with
information about the accumulation of equity securities that may have
the potential to change or influence control of an issuer. Schedules
13D and 13G are filed by persons, including small entities, to report
their ownership of more than 5% of a class of equity securities
registered under Section 12. We estimate that it takes approximately
14.5 burden hours to prepare a Schedule 13D and it is filed by
approximately 1,508 filers. In addition, we estimate that 25% of the
14.5 hours per response (3.625 hours per response) is carried
internally by the filer for a total annual reporting burden of 5,467
hours (3.625 hours per response x 1, 508 responses).
    We estimate that it takes approximately 12.4 hours per response to
prepare a Schedule 13G and it is filed by approximately 7,079 filers.
In addition, we estimate 25% of the 12.4 hours per response (3.1 hours
per response) is carried internally by the filer for a total annual
reporting burden of 21,945 hours (3.1 hours per response x 7,079
responses)
    The Schedules combined are filed by 8,587 filers and they take
approximately 12.769 hours per response. In addition, we estimate 25%
of the 12.769 (3.19225 hours per response) is carried internally by the
filer for a total annual reporting burden of 27,412 hours (3.1923 hours
per response x 8,587 responses). The estimated burden hours are made
solely for purposes of the Paperwork Reduction Act and are not derived
from a comprehensive or even a representative survey or study of the
costs of Commission rules and forms.
    Written comments are invited on: (a) Whether this proposed
collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of
the functions of the agency, including whether the information will
have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of
burden of the collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the
quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; and (d)
ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on
respondents, including through the use of automated collection
techniques or other forms of information technology. Consideration will
be given to comments and suggestions submitted in writing within 60
days of this publication.
    An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required
to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a
currently valid control number.
    Please direct your written comments to David Bottom, Director/Chief
Information Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission, c/o Cynthia
Roscoe, 100 F Street, NE, Washington DC. 20549 or send an email to:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
    Dated: April 28, 2020.
J. Matthew DeLesDernier,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2020-09294 Filed 4-30-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: October 21, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 203)]
[Notices]
[Page 65041-65042]
[DOCID:fr21oc10-85]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-63116; File No. SR-NYSEArca-2010-89]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE Arca, Inc.; Notice of Filing
and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Amending NYSE Arca
Equities Rule 7.37, Order Execution, To Clarify Users' Ability To
Instruct NYSE Arca To Bypass Non-Regulation NMS Protected Market
Centers When Routing Away

October 15, 2010.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) \1\ of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 (the ``Act'') and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given
that, on October 13, 2010, NYSE Arca, Inc. (the ``Exchange'' or ``NYSE
Arca'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the
``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I and II
below, which Items have been 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\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange proposes to amend NYSE Arca Equities Rule 7.37, Order
Execution, to clarify Users' ability to instruct NYSE Arca to bypass
non-Regulation NMS protected market centers when routing away. The text
of the proposed rule change is available at the Exchange, the
Commission's Public Reference Room, at the Commission's Web site at
http://www.sec.gov, and http://www.nyse.com.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to amend NYSE Arca Equities Rule 7.37, Order
Execution, to clarify Users' ability to instruct NYSE Arca when routing
eligible unexecuted orders to bypass any market centers that are not
posting Protected Quotations within the meaning of Regulation NMS.
    In March 2008, NYSE Arca Equities began offering clients access to
undisplayed liquidity via Indications of Interest by adding several new
routing venues (``IOI Routing Functionality''). In May 2008, NYSE Arca
Equities provided Users the ability to opt out of this IOI Routing
Functionality. Users are currently able to opt out of IOI Routing
Functionality while retaining the ability to use the full array of
routable orders by marking any routable order as not eligible to route
to market centers that are not posting Protected Quotations.
    In order to increase awareness of this option, the Exchange now
proposes to add the following text to proposed Rule 7.37(d)(4):
    For an order that has not been executed in its entirety pursuant to
paragraphs (a) through (c) of this Rule, and which is otherwise
eligible to route away, Users may instruct NYSE Arca to bypass any
market centers that are not posting Protected Quotations within the
meaning of Regulation NMS.
    The Exchange also notes that the proposed rule is substantially
similar to Nasdaq Rule 4758 (1)(A)(iv).
2. Statutory Basis
    The proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b) \3\ of the
Act, in general, and furthers the objectives of Section 6(b)(5) \4\ in
particular in that it is designed to prevent fraudulent and
manipulative acts and practices, to promote just and equitable
principles of trade, to foster cooperation and coordination with
persons engaged in facilitating transactions in securities, and to
remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open
market and a national market system. The Exchange believes that the
proposed amendment is consistent with the goal of removing impediments
to a free and open market because the changes proposed herein will
clarify currently existing routing options designed to give Users
flexibility and control over how their orders route to away market
centers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \4\ 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

    Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not: (i)
Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public
interest; (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii)
become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or
such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become
effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \5\ and Rule 19b-
4(f)(6)(iii) thereunder.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \6\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). In addition, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii)
requires that a self-regulatory organization submit to the
Commission written notice of its 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 satisfied this requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule
change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule
change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or
appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of

investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views and
arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the 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 No. SR-NYSEArca-2010-89 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File No. SR-NYSEArca-2010-89. This file
number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/
sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of 10
a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of such filing also will be available for
inspection and copying at the principal office of NYSE Arca. All
comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does
not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should
submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All
submissions should refer to File No. SR-NYSEArca-2010-89 and should be
submitted on or before November 12, 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. 2010-26508 Filed 10-20-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 87 (Monday, May 6, 2013)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 26300-26301]
[FR Doc No: 2013-10559]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R06-OAR-2011-0494; FRL-9808-1]

Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
Texas; Revisions to Control of Air Pollution From Nitrogen Compounds
From Stationary Sources

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The EPA is proposing to approve revisions to the Texas State
Implementation Plan (SIP), 30 TAC, Chapter 117 Control of Air Pollution
from Nitrogen Compounds. These revisions concern two separate actions.
First, we are proposing to approve revisions to Texas SIP, Chapter 117
emissions specifications for lean burn engines fired on landfill or
other biogas at minor sources of Nitrogen Oxides (NOX).
Second, we are proposing to approve revisions to Texas SIP, Chapter 117
to include low temperature drying and curing ovens used in wet-laid
non-woven fiber mat manufacturing operations when nitrogen containing
resins or other additives are used. These two actions affect
NOX sources operating in the Dallas Fort-Worth 1997 8-hour
ozone nonattainment area. The EPA is approving these two actions
pursuant to section 110 of the Federal Clean Air Act.

DATES: Written comments must be received on or before June 5, 2013.

ADDRESSES: Comments may be mailed to Mr. Guy Donaldson, Chief, Air
Planning Section (6PD-L), Environmental Protection Agency, 1445 Ross
Avenue, Suite 1200, Dallas, Texas 75202-2733. Comments may also be
submitted electronically or through hand delivery/courier by following
the detailed instructions in the Addresses section of the direct final
rule located in the rules section of this Federal Register.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Alan Shar, Air Planning Section
(6PD-L), telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax number<PHONE_NUMBER>; email address
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the final rules section of this Federal
Register, EPA is approving the State's SIP submittal as a direct final
rule without prior proposal because the Agency views this as a
noncontroversial submittal and anticipates no adverse comments. A
detailed rationale for the approval is set forth in the direct final
rule. If no relevant adverse comments are received in response to this
action, no further activity is contemplated. If EPA receives adverse
comments, the direct final rule will be withdrawn and all public
comments received will be addressed in a subsequent final rule based on
this proposed rule. EPA will not institute a second comment period. Any
parties interested in commenting on this action should do so at this
time. Please note that if EPA receives an adverse comment on an
amendment, paragraph, or section of this rule and if that provision may
be severed from the remainder of the rule, EPA may adopt as final those
provisions of the rule that are not the subject of an adverse comment.
    For additional information, see the direct final rule, which is
located in the rules section of this Federal Register.

    Dated: April 19, 2013.
Ron Curry,
Regional Administrator, Region 6.
[FR Doc. 2013-10559 Filed 5-3-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 111 (Tuesday, June 10, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 33243-33244]
[FR Doc No: 2014-13451]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-72306; File No. SR-ICC-2014-07]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; ICE Clear Credit LLC; Notice of
Filing of Proposed Rule Change to Revise End-of-Day Price Discovery
Policies and Procedures

June 4, 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 May 22, 2014, ICE Clear Credit LLC (``ICC'') 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 primarily by ICC. The Commission is publishing this
notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change from interested
persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The purpose of the proposed rule change is to revise the ICC End-
of-Day Price Discovery Policies and Procedures (``EOD Pricing Policy'')
to revise the expectations surrounding the unwind of any Firm Trade
transaction. This revision does not require any changes to the ICC
Rules.

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

    In its filing with the Commission, ICC 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. ICC has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B,
and C below, of the most significant aspects of these statements.

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

    The proposed revision to ICC's EOD Pricing Policy is intended to
make the policy more readily enforceable, while maintaining the same or
similar level of incentive for ICC Clearing Participants to provide
quality price submissions.
    ICC believes such revision will facilitate the prompt and accurate
clearance and settlement of securities transactions and derivative
agreements, contracts, and transactions for which it is responsible.
The proposed revision is described in detail as follows.
    ICC Clearing Participants (``CPs'') may be required from time to
time, under the ICC EOD Pricing Policy, to enter into trades with other
CPs as part of the ICC end-of-day price discovery process (``Firm
Trade''). ICC does not require CPs to maintain Firm Trades as
outstanding positions for any particular length of time. Currently, the
ICC EOD Pricing Policy requires CPs that elect to unwind a Firm Trade
to do so ``at the then-current market price.'' There are practical
difficulties with objectively determining whether an unwind transaction
was executed at the ``then-current market price'' and therefore such
policy is difficult to enforce. ICC proposes revising the ICC EOD
Pricing Policy to replace references to the ``then-current market
price'' with the requirement that unwind transactions be executed in a
competitive manner. Further, ICC proposes adding the requirement that,
upon request, CPs be able to demonstrate to ICC's satisfaction that
such unwind transaction was executed in a competitive manner.
Additionally, ICC proposes adding a non-exclusive list of examples of
how CPs may be able to demonstrate competitive execution of unwind
transactions. Specifically, such examples include: (i) Execution on an
available trading venue (e.g., a SEF or DCM); (ii) multiple dealer
quotes received and execution of the unwind transaction at the best
quoted price; or (iii) placement of the unwind transaction with an
interdealer broker with price terms and instructions commensurate with
a competitive execution.
    Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act \3\ requires, among other things,
that the rules of a clearing agency be designed to promote the prompt
and accurate clearance and settlement of securities transactions and,
to the extent applicable, derivative agreements, contracts, and
transactions and to comply with the provisions of the Act and the rules
and regulations thereunder. ICC believes that the proposed revision to
the EOD Pricing Policy is consistent with the requirements of the Act
and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to ICC, in
particular, to Section 17(A)(b)(3)(F),\4\ because ICC believes that the
proposed rule changes will facilitate the prompt and accurate
settlement of swaps and contribute to the safeguarding of securities
and funds associated with swap transactions which are in the custody or
control of ICC or for which it is responsible. The update to ICC's EOD
Pricing Policy regarding Firm Trade unwind transactions makes the
policy more readily enforceable, while maintaining the same or similar
level of incentive for CPs to provide quality price submissions. ICC
considers the proposed revision to be an enhancement of its consistent
underlying intention to assure that CPs unwind Firm Trades
competitively. The inclusion of Firm Trades in ICC's end-of-day price
discovery process provides incentive for CPs to submit quality price
submissions. If CPs unwound Firm Trades non-competitively at the
original Firm Trade Price, thereby alleviating the Firm Trade's impact
to their portfolio, the incentive to provide quality price submissions
would be diminished. Receiving quality prices from its CPs is paramount
to the pricing process and ICC believes the proposed revision both
clarifies and enhances its EOD Pricing Policy. As such, the proposed
revision will facilitate the prompt and accurate settlement of swaps
and contribute to the safeguarding of securities and funds associated
with swap transactions which are in the custody or control of ICC or
for which it is responsible within the meaning of Section 17A(b)(3)(F)
\5\ of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1(b)(3)(F).
    \4\ Id.
    \5\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    ICC does not believe the proposed rule changes would have any
impact, or impose any burden, on competition. The revision to ICC's EOD
Pricing Policy regarding the unwinding of Firm Trades apply uniformly
across all CPs. Therefore, ICC does not believe the proposed revision
imposes any burden on competition that is inappropriate 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

    Written comments relating to the proposed rule change have not been
solicited or received. ICC will notify the Commission of any written
comments received by ICC.

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 up to 90 days (i) as the
Commission may designate 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 the 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-ICC-2014-07 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-ICC-2014-07. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of
10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of such filings will also be available
for inspection and copying at the principal office of ICE Clear Credit
and on ICE Clear Credit's Web site at https://www.theice.com/notices/Notices.shtml?regulatoryFilings.
    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-ICC-2014-07
and should be submitted on or before July 1, 2014.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2014-13451 Filed 6-9-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P