[Federal Register: November 13, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 218)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 58539-58540]
[DOCID:fr13no09-2]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2009-0557; Directorate Identifier 2009-CE-031-AD;
Amendment 39-16086; AD 2009-23-12]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; SOCATA Model TBM 700 Airplanes

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

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: We are revising an existing airworthiness directive (AD) for
the products listed above. This AD results from mandatory continuing
airworthiness information (MCAI) issued by an aviation authority of
another country to identify and correct an unsafe condition on an
aviation product. The MCAI describes the unsafe condition as:

    During a SOCATA flight test, it has been noted some difficulties
for the pilot to release oxygen.
    After investigation it has been found that, due to the design of
the oxygen generator release pin, one of the mask's lanyard linked
to the pin can be jammed when it is pulled by a pilot or a
passenger.
    This condition, if not corrected, would lead, in case of an
emergency procedure due to decompression, to a risk of generator
fault with subsequent lack of oxygen on crew and/or passenger. * * *
    This revision has been released to clarify the applicability.

    We are issuing this AD to require actions to correct the unsafe
condition on these products.

DATES: This AD becomes effective December 18, 2009.
    As of July 9, 2009 (74 FR 29126, June 19, 2009), the Director of
the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of page
3.13.5 of Temporary Revision No. 3, dated March 2009, of SOCATA TBM 700
A & B Pilot Operating Handbook (POH), listed in this AD.

ADDRESSES: You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://
www.regulations.gov or in person at the Docket Management Facility,
U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West
Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE.,
Washington, DC 20590.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Albert Mercado, Aerospace Engineer,
FAA, Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Room 301, Kansas City,
Missouri 64106; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

    We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR
part 39 to include an AD that would apply to the specified products.
That NPRM was published in the Federal Register on September 2, 2009
(74 FR 45391), and proposed to revise AD 2009-13-05, Amendment 39-15944
(74 FR 29126, June 19, 2009). That NPRM proposed to correct an unsafe
condition for the specified products. The MCAI states that:

    During a SOCATA flight test, it has been noted some difficulties
for the pilot to release oxygen.
    After investigation it has been found that, due to the design of
the oxygen generator release pin, one of the mask's lanyard linked
to the pin can be jammed when it is pulled by a pilot or a
passenger.
    This condition, if not corrected, would lead, in case of an
emergency procedure due to decompression, to a risk of generator
fault with subsequent lack of oxygen on crew and/or passenger.
    For the reason described above, SOCATA has released Pilot
Operating Handbook (POH) Temporary Revision (TR) 03 which asks, in
case of failure to release oxygen, to pull on the other mask lanyard
in order to activate the oxygen generator.
    This revision has been released to clarify the applicability.
    A SOCATA modification enabling to solve this issue is under
preparation. Once this modification has been released, this AD is
expected to be revised to confirm the acceptability of that
modification.

    You may obtain further information by examining the MCAI in the AD
docket.

Comments

    We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing
this AD. We received no comments on the NPRM or on the determination of
the cost to the public.

Conclusion

    We reviewed the available data and determined that air safety and
the public interest require adopting the AD as proposed.

Differences Between This AD and the MCAI or Service Information

    We have reviewed the MCAI and related service information and, in
general, agree with their substance. But we might have found it
necessary to use different words from those in the MCAI to ensure the
AD is clear for U.S. operators and is enforceable. In making these
changes, we do not intend to differ substantively from the information
provided in the MCAI and related service information.
    We might also have required different actions in this AD from those
in the MCAI in order to follow FAA policies. Any such differences are
highlighted in a NOTE within the AD.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this AD will affect 147 products of U.S. registry.
We also estimate that it will take about 0.5 work-hour per product to
comply with the basic requirements of this AD. The average labor rate
is $80 per work-hour.
    Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of this AD on U.S.
operators to be $5,880, or $40 per product.

Authority for This Rulemaking

    Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to
issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the
authority of the FAA Administrator. ``Subtitle VII: Aviation
Programs,'' describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's
authority.
    We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in
``Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General
requirements.'' Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with
promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing
regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator
finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within
the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition
that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this
rulemaking action.

Regulatory Findings

    We determined that this AD will not have federalism implications
under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct
effect on the States, on the relationship between the national
government and the States, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various levels of government.
    For the reasons discussed above, I certify this AD:
    (1) Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive
Order 12866;
    (2) Is not a ``significant rule'' under DOT Regulatory Policies and
Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and
    (3) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or
negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
    We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to
comply with this AD and placed it in the AD Docket.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://
www.regulations.gov; or in person at the Docket Management Facility
between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays. The AD docket contains the NPRM, the regulatory evaluation,
any comments received, and other information. The street address for
the Docket Office (telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>) is in the ADDRESSES
section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after
receipt.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

    Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by
reference, Safety.

Adoption of the Amendment

0
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator,
the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows:

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

0
1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

0
2. The FAA amends Sec.  39.13 by removing Amendment 39-15944 (74 FR
29126, June 19, 2009) and adding the following new AD:

2009-23-12 SOCATA: Amendment 39-16086; Docket No. FAA-2009-0557;
Directorate Identifier 2009-CE-031-AD.

Effective Date

    (a) This airworthiness directive (AD) becomes effective December
18, 2009.

Affected ADs

    (b) This AD revises AD 2009-13-05, Amendment 39-15944.

Applicability

    (c) This AD applies to the following model and serial number
airplanes that are:
    (i) certificated in any category; and
    (ii) equipped with a chemical oxygen generation system.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                   Model                             Serial Nos.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
TBM 700...................................  1 through 204, 206 through
                                             239, and 241 through 243.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject

    (d) Air Transport Association of America (ATA) Code 35: Oxygen.

Reason

    (e) The mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MCAI)
states:
    During a SOCATA flight test, it has been noted some difficulties
for the pilot to release oxygen.
    After investigation it has been found that, due to the design of
the oxygen generator release pin, one of the mask's lanyard linked
to the pin can be jammed when it is pulled by a pilot or a
passenger.
    This condition, if not corrected, would lead, in case of an
emergency procedure due to decompression, to a risk of generator
fault with subsequent lack of oxygen on crew and/or passenger.
    For the reason described above, SOCATA has released Pilot
Operating Handbook (POH) Temporary Revision (TR) 03 which asks, in
case of failure to release oxygen, to pull on the other mask lanyard
in order to activate the oxygen generator.
    This revision has been released to clarify the applicability.
    A SOCATA modification enabling to solve this issue is under
preparation. Once this modification has been released, this AD is
expected to be revised to confirm the acceptability of that
modification.

Actions and Compliance

    (f) Unless already done, do the following actions.
    (1) Before further flight after July 9, 2009 (the effective date
retained from AD 2009-13-05), insert Page 3.13.5 of Temporary
Revision No. 3, dated March 2009, into the Emergency Procedures
section and the Limitations section of SOCATA TBM 700 A & B Pilot
Operating Handbook (POH).
    (2) Under 14 CFR section 43.7 of the Federal Aviation
Administration Regulations (14 CFR 43.7), the owner/operator holding
at least a private pilot certificate is allowed to insert the
temporary revision into the POH. Make an entry into the aircraft
logbook showing compliance with this portion of the AD per
compliance with section 43.9 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14
CFR 43.9).

FAA AD Differences

    Note: This AD differs from the MCAI and/or service information
as follows: No differences.

Other FAA AD Provisions

    (g) The following provisions also apply to this AD:
    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager,
Standards Office, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this
AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. Send
information to Attn: Albert Mercado, Aerospace Engineer, FAA, Small
Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Room 301, Kansas City, Missouri
64106; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>. Before using
any approved AMOC on any airplane to which the AMOC applies, notify
your appropriate principal inspector (PI) in the FAA Flight
Standards District Office (FSDO), or lacking a PI, your local FSDO.
    (2) Airworthy Product: For any requirement in this AD to obtain
corrective actions from a manufacturer or other source, use these
actions if they are FAA-approved. Corrective actions are considered
FAA-approved if they are approved by the State of Design Authority
(or their delegated agent). You are required to assure the product
is airworthy before it is returned to service.
    (3) Reporting Requirements: For any reporting requirement in
this AD, under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has
approved the information collection requirements and has assigned
OMB Control Number 2120-0056.

Material Incorporated by Reference

    (h) You must use page 3.13.5 of Temporary Revision No. 3, dated
March 2009, of SOCATA TBM 700 A & B Pilot Operating Handbook (POH),
to do the actions required by this AD, unless the AD specifies
otherwise.
    (1) On July 9, 2009 (74 FR 29126, June 19, 2009), the Director
of the Federal Register previously approved the incorporation by
reference of page 3.13.5 of Temporary Revision No. 3, dated March
2009, of SOCATA TBM 700 A & B Pilot Operating Handbook (POH).
    (2) For service information identified in this AD, contact
SOCATA, 65921--TARBES Cedex 9, France; telephone: +33 6 07 32 62 24;
or SOCATA, North Perry Airport, 7501 South Airport Rd., Pembrokes
Pines, FL 33023; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>;
Internet: http://mysocata.com.
    (3) You may review copies of the service information
incorporated by reference for this AD at the FAA, Central Region,
Office of the Regional Counsel, 901 Locust, Kansas City, Missouri
64106. For information on the availability of this material at the
Central Region, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (4) You may also review copies of the service information
incorporated by reference for this AD at the National Archives and
Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability
of this material at NARA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>, or go to: http://
www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_federal_regulations/
ibr_locations.html.

    Issued in Kansas City, Missouri, on November 6, 2009.
Margaret Kline,
Acting Manager, Small Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. E9-27321 Filed 11-12-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


MEMORANDUM

DATE:		4/2/2021

TO:	New Source Performance Standards: Electric Arc Furnaces (EAFs) and Argon-Oxygen Decarburization Vessels (AOD): New Source Performance Standards - 40 CFR 60 Subparts AA & AAa Review; Docket ID: EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0049

FROM:	Donna Lee Jones, U.S. EPA, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards (OAQPS), Research Triangle Park, NC

SUBJECT:	Conference call with EAF Industry Representatives  --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY

      A conference call was held on April 1, 2021, between the EPA and the Electric Arc Furnace (EAF) industry trade association representatives: Kelly Drye & Warren LLP, Steel Manufacturers Association (SMA), Specialty Steel Industry of North America (SSINA), and American Iron and Steel Institute (AISI), to discuss the status of the EAF New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) technology review.              The industry representative began by explaining that they want to help the EPA with the NSPS technology review and, in this regard, have consulted with their members on issues that they have experienced with the current NSPS for EAFs. The industry representative stated that the problems the current rule include same issues in AA as well as AAa. It also was discussed how much of the EAF industry is covered by each trade association.               Dr. Jones explained that a rule review subgroup of the work group, which includes people from EPA Region V, Office of General Council, and an EPA test measurement expert, have reviewed the industry's comments about their problems with the current rule and appreciate the industry input. Dr. Jones explained the next steps in the regulatory process and the schedule to meet the court ordered proposal deadline for 11/1/2021 and final deadline for 11/1/2022. Dr. Jones agreed to send industry representatives a summary of the historical rule changes to the EAF NSPS rules (AA and AAa), including the previous technology review done in 1984. Dr. Jones explained that the statutory requirements of the CAA for making significant revisions to the current NSPS subparts AA or AAa, i.e., proposing new standards, would require publishing emissions guideline along with a federal plan. Part of the technology review also includes determining if a new subpart would be warranted to reflect improvements in technology. Dr. Jones explained that if there was a new subpart it would be called AAb and would affect EAF new sources after the date of the proposal (11/1/2021).               Industry representatives asked whether EPA planned to do a section 114 information collection request (ICR) to support the technology review. Dr. Jones stated that EPA did not plan to do either a survey or test request because of the timeline of the court-ordered deadline, but also because there was particulate matter (PM) data available to the EPA that was collected from the previous ICR sent for the EAF NESHAP in 2010 to collect mercury data, with concurrent PM data. As part of the ICR in 2010, the EPA had asked for test reports from previous years so there were a number of test reports from the facilities that received the ICR. The industry representatives asked whether the data was available to the public in the EAF NESHAP docket and Dr. Jones indicated in the affirmative and that she would send the docket information to the industry representatives after the meeting. Dr. Jones also offered to send the industry representatives a summary of the facility names and years of test dates of the docket material.        Dr. Jones asked the industry representatives if they could provide any information from the recent past years on EAF facilities that triggered new source review due to major modifications, knowing that anti-trust laws prevent the trade organization from searching for same information for the future. The industry representatives said they would try to make an estimate for the EPA.              Dr. Jones explained that part of the regulatory process includes an environmental justice (EJ) analysis to determine if in the 5-mile radius around EAF facilities there is a higher percentage of demographic, minority, low income, and tribal areas as compared to the national average. In addition, the EJ analysis looks in a 50-mile radius for tribal land, which also includes off-reservation trust land. Industry noted they were aware of one EAF facility (Nucor Steel, Seattle) that was located on off-reservation trust land in Washington state. Dr. Jones asked if the industry representatives had any knowledge of problems or complaints made by the public about air pollution around any EAF facilities. Industry representatives did not indicate they knew of any complaints of this type.              The industry representatives said they would relay the information discussed in this meeting with EPA to their members and will let Dr. Jones know if they or their member facilities have any follow-up questions or information to bring forward to the EPA.        ATTENDEES        Donna Lee Jones, EPA/OAQPS Gabrielle Raymond, RTI International

Wayne D'Angelo, Kelley Drye & Warren LLP John Wittenborn, Kelley Drye & Warren LLP

Eric Stuart, Steel Manufacturers Association Joe Green, Specialty Steel Industry of North America

Paul Balserak, American Iron and Steel Institute

Dr. Ranajit Sahn, Consultant for EAF Industry


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 50 (Friday, March 14, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 14507-14508]
[FR Doc No: 2014-05695]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[FRL-9907-95-Region-4; CERCLA-04-2013-3763]

LWD, Inc. Superfund Site; Calverty City, Marshall County,
Kentucky; Notice of Settlement

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of Settlement.

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

SUMMARY: Under 122(h) of the Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA), the United States
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has entered into a settlement
with the approximately fifty (50) parties concerning the LWD, Inc.
Superfund Site located in Calvert City, Marshall County, Kentucky. The
settlement addresses remaining costs from a fund- lead Removal Action
taken by the EPA at the Site.

DATES: The Agency will consider public comments on the settlement until
April 14, 2014. The Agency will consider all comments received and may
modify or withdraw its consent to the settlement if comments received
disclose facts or considerations which indicate that the amended
settlement is inappropriate, improper, or inadequate.

ADDRESSES: Copies of the settlement are available from the Agency by
contacting Ms. Paula V. Painter, Environmental Protection Specialist
using the contact information provided in this notice. Comments may
also be submitted by referencing the Site's name through one of the
following methods:

     Internet: www.epa.gov/region4/superfund/programs/enforcement/enforcement.html.
     U.S. Mail: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Superfund
Division, Attn: Paula V. Painter, 61 Forsyth Street SW., Atlanta,
Georgia 30303.
     Email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Paula V. Painter at 404/562-8887

    Dated: February 21, 2014.
Anita L. Davis,
Chief, Superfund Enforcement & Information Management Branch, Superfund
Division.
[FR Doc. 2014-05695 Filed 3-13-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 63 (Monday, April 2, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 13975-13976]
[FR Doc No: 2018-06647]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 7804-029]

Gerald and Glenda Ohs, Gerald Ohs; Notice of Application for
Partial Transfer of License and Soliciting Comments, Motions To
Intervene, and Protests

    On July 14, 2017 and supplemented on November 2, 2017, Gerald Ohs
and Glenda Ohs co-licensees (transferors) filed an application for the
partial transfer of license for the North Willow Creek Project No.
7804, from Gerald and Glenda Ohs as co-licensees (transferors) to
Gerald Ohs as sole licensee (transferee). The project is located on
North Willow Creek in Madison County, Montana.
    The applicants seek Commission approval to partially transfer the
license for the North Willow Creek Project from the transferors as co-
licensees to Gerald Ohs as sole-licensee.
    Applicant's Contacts: For Transferors/Transferee: Mr. Gerald Ohs
and Ms. Glenda Ohs, P.O. Box 625, 63 North Willow Creek Road, Pony,
Montana 59747, Phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>, Email: [email protected].

    FERC Contact: Patricia W. Gillis,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
[email protected].
    Deadline for filing comments, motions to intervene, and protests:
30 days from the date that the Commission issues this notice. The
Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please file comments,
motions to intervene, and protests using the Commission's eFiling
system at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling.asp. Commenters can
submit brief comments up to 6,000 characters, without prior
registration, using the eComment system at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/ecomment.asp. You must include your name and contact information
at the end of your comments. For assistance, please contact FERC Online
Support at [email protected],<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free), or
(202) 502-8659 (TTY). In lieu of electronic filing, please send a paper
copy to: Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First
Street NE, Washington, DC 20426. The first page of any filing should
include docket number P-7804-029.

    Dated: March 27, 2018.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2018-06647 Filed 3-30-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 133 (Wednesday, July 13, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 41703-41706]
[FR Doc No: 2022-14921]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. CP22-44-000]

Equitrans, L.P.; Notice of Intent To Prepare an Environmental
Impact Statement for the Proposed Ohio Valley Connector Expansion
Project, Request for Comments on Environmental Issues, and Schedule for
Environmental Review

    The staff of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or
Commission) will prepare an environmental impact statement (EIS) that
will discuss the environmental impacts of the Ohio Valley Connector
Expansion Project (Project) involving construction and operation of
facilities by Equitrans, L.P. (Equitrans) in Greene County,
Pennsylvania, Wetzel County, West Virginia, and Monroe County, Ohio.
The Commission will use this EIS in its decision-making process to
determine whether the Project is in the public convenience and
necessity. The schedule for preparation of the EIS is discussed in the
Schedule for Environmental Review section of this notice.
    As part of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) review
process, the Commission takes into account concerns the public may have
about proposals and the environmental impacts that could result
whenever it considers the issuance of a Certificate of Public
Convenience and Necessity. This gathering of public input is referred
to as ``scoping.'' By notice issued on May 23, 2022, in Docket No.
CP22-44-000, the Commission opened a scoping period to solicit
comments. Commission staff intends to prepare an EIS that will address
the concerns raised during the scoping process and comments received in
response to this notice.
    As mentioned above, the Commission opened a scoping period which
expired on June 22, 2022; however, Commission staff continued to accept
comments after the comment period closed. All substantive written and
oral comments provided will be addressed in the EIS. Therefore, if you
submitted comments on this Project to the Commission during the
previous scoping period, you do not need to file those comments again.
    By this notice, the Commission requests public comments on the
scope of issues to address in the EIS, including comments on potential
alternatives and impacts, and any relevant information, studies, or
analyses of any kind concerning impacts affecting the quality of the
human environment. To ensure that your comments are timely and properly
recorded, please submit your comments so that the Commission receives
them in Washington, DC on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on August 8,
2022. Comments may be submitted in written form. Further details on how
to submit comments are provided in the Public Participation section of
this notice.
    If you are a landowner receiving this notice, a pipeline company
representative may contact you about the acquisition of an easement to
construct, operate, and maintain the proposed facilities. The company
would seek to negotiate a mutually acceptable easement agreement. You
are not required to enter into an agreement. However, if the Commission
approves the Project, the Natural Gas Act conveys the right of eminent
domain to the company. Therefore, if you and the company do not reach
an easement agreement, the pipeline company could initiate condemnation
proceedings in court. In such instances, compensation would be
determined by a judge in accordance with state law. The Commission does
not grant, exercise, or oversee the exercise of eminent domain
authority. The courts have exclusive authority to handle eminent domain
cases; the Commission has no jurisdiction over these matters.
    Equitrans provided landowners with a fact sheet prepared by the
FERC entitled ``An Interstate Natural Gas Facility On My Land? What Do
I Need To Know?''

which addresses typically asked questions, including the use of eminent
domain and how to participate in the Commission's proceedings. This
fact sheet along with other landowner topics of interest are available
for viewing on the FERC website (www.ferc.gov) under the Natural Gas
Questions or Landowner Topics link.

Public Participation

    There are three methods you can use to submit your comments to the
Commission. The Commission encourages electronic filing of comments and
has staff available to assist you at<PHONE_NUMBER> or
[email protected]. Please carefully follow these instructions
so that your comments are properly recorded.
    (1) You can file your comments electronically using the eComment
feature, which is located on the Commission's website (www.ferc.gov)
under the link to FERC Online. Using eComment is an easy method for
submitting brief, text-only comments on a project;
    (2) You can file your comments electronically by using the eFiling
feature, which is located on the Commission's website (www.ferc.gov)
under the link to FERC Online. With eFiling, you can provide comments
in a variety of formats by attaching them as a file with your
submission. New eFiling users must first create an account by clicking
on ``eRegister.'' You will be asked to select the type of filing you
are making; a comment on a particular project is considered a ``Comment
on a Filing''; or
    (3) You can file a paper copy of your comments by mailing them to
the Commission. Be sure to reference the project docket number (CP22-
44-000) on your letter. Submissions sent via the U.S. Postal Service
must be addressed to: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Room 1A, Washington, DC
20426. Submissions sent via any other carrier must be addressed to:
Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission,
12225 Wilkins Avenue, Rockville, MD 20852.
    Additionally, the Commission offers a free service called
eSubscription. This service provides automatic notification of filings
made to subscribed dockets, document summaries, and direct links to the
documents. Go to https://www.ferc.gov/ferc-online/overview to register
for eSubscription.

Project Purpose and Need, Summary of Facilities, and Expected Impacts

    According to Equitrans, its Project would expand Equitrans'
existing Ohio Valley Connector assets to deliver approximately 350,000
dekatherms per day of incremental firm natural gas transportation to
mid-continent and Gulf Coast markets along the Rockies Express and
Rover pipeline systems.
    Equitrans proposes to acquire and operate the existing non-
jurisdictional Cygrymus Compressor Station, located in Greene County,
Pennsylvania, and install two new turbines. Equitrans would also
install one additional compressor unit each at the existing Corona
Compressor Station Wetzel County, West Virginia and at the existing
Plasma Compressor Station in Monroe County, Ohio. Equitrans would also
construct approximately 5.5 miles of pipeline and ancillary facilities
in different locations related to the compressor stations.
Specifically, the Project would consist of the following facilities in:

Greene County, Pennsylvania

     addition of two Taurus 70 turbines at the existing
Cygrymus Compressor Station;
     approximately 0.5 mile of 16-inch-diameter natural gas
pipeline (H-327);
     approximately 0.5-mile of 12-inch-diameter natural gas
pipeline (H-328);
     a deep anode groundbed and rectifier; and
     ancillary facilities, such as a valve yard, taps, and
internal inspection device (e.g., pig \1\) launchers and receivers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ A ``pig'' is a tool that the pipeline company inserts into
and pushes through the pipeline for cleaning the pipeline,
conducting internal inspections, or other purposes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Wetzel County, West Virginia

     addition of one Mars 100 compressor at the existing Corona
Compressor Station;
     approximately 3.7 miles of new 24-inch-diameter natural
gas pipeline (H-326);
     approximately 129 feet of new 8-inch-diameter natural gas
pipeline (H-329);
     approximately 0.7 mile of new 16-inch-diameter natural gas
pipeline (H-330);
     approximately 0.09 mile of new 16-inch-diameter natural
gas pipeline (H-330 Spur);
     approximately 160 feet of new 12-inch-diameter natural gas
pipeline (Logansport Spur); and
     ancillary facilities, such as mainline valves, valve
yards, measuring equipment, and internal inspection device (pig
launchers and receivers).

Monroe County, Ohio

     addition of one Titan 130 compressor at the existing
Plasma Compressor Station.
    The general location of the Project facilities is shown in appendix
1.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ The appendices referenced in this notice will not appear in
the Federal Register. Copies of the appendices were sent to all
those receiving this notice in the mail and are available at
www.ferc.gov using the link called ``eLibrary.'' For instructions on
connecting to eLibrary, refer to the last page of this notice. At
this time, the Commission has suspended access to the Commission's
Public Reference Room due to the proclamation declaring a National
Emergency concerning the Novel Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19),
issued by the President on March 13, 2020. For assistance, contact
FERC at [email protected] or call toll free,<PHONE_NUMBER>
or TTY<PHONE_NUMBER>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Based on the environmental information provided by Equitrans,
construction of the proposed facilities would disturb about 117 acres
of land for the aboveground facilities and the pipeline. Following
construction, Equitrans would maintain about 32 acres for operation of
the Project facilities; the remaining acreage would be restored and
revert to former uses. The proposed H-326, H-330, and H-330 spur
pipelines would be collocated with existing pipelines for approximately
58.8 percent, 76.8 percent, and 88.9 percent of the proposed
alignments, respectively, and the H-327 and H-328 pipelines are
parallel and would be located within a shared pipeline construction
right-of-way.
    Based on an initial review of Equitrans' proposal and public
comments received during scoping, Commission staff have identified
several expected impacts that deserve attention in the EIS. The Project
would impact 13 waterbodies and about 0.4 acre of wetland habitat.
Operation of the Project would result in emissions estimated at 6.77
million metric tonnes per year of carbon dioxide (CO2) from
the end use of the natural gas. Construction of the Project would also
have impacts on noise, traffic, and road conditions. In response to the
Notice of Scoping, the Commission received comments from the Teamsters
National Pipeline Labor Management Cooperation Trust (Teamsters);
Center for Coalfield Justice (Coalfield Justice); the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA); and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service (USFWS). The Teamsters comments were supportive of the Project.
Primary issues raised by the Coalfield Justice include potential
Project impacts on environmental

justice communities; especially in Greene County, Pennsylvania; and
climate change and air quality concerns. The EPA stated that the
environmental document should discuss project need and alternatives;
potential impacts on water quality and wetlands; air quality, climate
change, and greenhouse gas emissions; community, social, and economic
impacts, including environmental justice communities; noise impacts;
and potential spread of noxious weeds. The USFWS comments included
potential Project impacts on federally listed species, including
Indiana and northern long-eared bats, clubshell and snuffbox mussels,
migratory birds, and bald and golden eagles.

The NEPA Process and the EIS

    The EIS issued by the Commission will discuss impacts that could
occur as a result of the construction and operation of the proposed
Project under the relevant general resource areas:
     geology and soils;
     water resources and wetlands;
     vegetation and wildlife;
     threatened and endangered species;
     cultural resources;
     land use and visual impacts;
     socioeconomics and environmental justice;
     air quality and climate change;
     noise; and
     reliability and safety.
    Commission staff will also make recommendations on how to lessen or
avoid impacts on the various resource areas, and will review
alternatives as discussed further below. Your comments will help
Commission staff focus its analysis on the issues that may have a
significant effect on the human environment.
    The EIS will present Commission staff's independent analysis of the
issues. Staff will prepare a draft EIS which will be issued for public
comment. Commission staff will consider all timely comments received
during the comment period on the draft EIS and revise the document, as
necessary, before issuing a final EIS. Any draft and final EIS will be
available in electronic format in the public record through eLibrary
\3\ and the Commission's natural gas environmental documents web page
(https://www.ferc.gov/industries-data/natural-gas/environment/environmental-documents). If eSubscribed, you will receive instant
email notification when the environmental document is issued.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ For instructions on connecting to eLibrary, refer to the
last page of this notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Alternatives Under Consideration

    The EIS will evaluate reasonable alternatives that are technically
and economically feasible and meet the purpose and need for the
proposed action.\4\ Alternatives currently under consideration include:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ 40 CFR 1508.1(z).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     the no-action alternative, meaning the Project is not
implemented;
     one route alternative for the H-327 and H-328 Pipelines
and two route alternatives for the H-326 Pipeline; and
     electric motor-driven compression.
    With this notice, the Commission requests specific comments
regarding any additional potential alternatives to the proposed action
or segments of the proposed action. Please focus your comments on
reasonable alternatives (including alternative facility sites and
pipeline routes) that meet the Project objectives, are technically and
economically feasible, and avoid or lessen environmental impact.

Consultation Under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation
Act

    In accordance with the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's
implementing regulations for section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act, the Commission is using this notice to initiate
consultation with the applicable State Historic Preservation Office(s),
and other government agencies, interested Indian tribes, and the public
to solicit their views and concerns regarding the Project's potential
effects on historic properties.\5\ The Project EIS will document
findings on the impacts on historic properties and summarize the status
of consultations under section 106.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ The Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's regulations
are at Title 36, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 800. Those
regulations define historic properties as any prehistoric or
historic district, site, building, structure, or object included in
or eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic
Places.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Schedule for Environmental Review

    On February 11, 2022, the Commission issued its Notice of
Application for the Project. Among other things, that notice alerted
other agencies issuing federal authorizations of the requirement to
complete all necessary reviews and to reach a final decision on the
request for a federal authorization within 90 days of the date of
issuance of the Commission staff's final EIS for the Project. This
notice identifies the Commission staff's planned schedule for
completion of the final EIS for the Project, which is based on an
issuance of the draft EIS in September 2022.

Issuance of Notice of Availability of the final EIS--January 20, 2023
90-day Federal Authorization Decision Deadline \6\--April 20, 2023
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ The Commission's deadline applies to the decisions of other
federal agencies, and state agencies acting under federally
delegated authority, that are responsible for federal
authorizations, permits, and other approvals necessary for proposed
projects under the Natural Gas Act. Per 18 CFR 157.22(a), the
Commission's deadline for other agency's decisions applies unless a
schedule is otherwise established by federal law.

    If a schedule change becomes necessary for the final EIS, an
additional notice will be provided so that the relevant agencies are
kept informed of the Project's progress.

Permits and Authorizations

    The table below lists the anticipated permits and authorizations
for the Project required under federal law. This list may not be all-
inclusive and does not preclude any permit or authorization if it is
not listed here. Agencies with jurisdiction by law and/or special
expertise may formally cooperate in the preparation of the Commission's
EIS and may adopt the EIS to satisfy their NEPA responsibilities
related to this Project. Agencies that would like to request
cooperating agency status should follow the instructions for filing
comments provided under the Public Participation section of this
notice.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 Agency                               Permit
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission...  Certificate of Public
                                          Convenience and Necessity.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE)     Pennsylvania (PA) State
 Pittsburgh District.                     Programmatic General Permit--
                                          6.
USACE Huntington West Virginia (WV)      Nationwide Permit 12/Individual
 District.                                Permit.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS)   Endangered Species Act (ESA)
 PA Field Office.                         Consultation; Fish and
                                          Wildlife Coordination Act
                                          Coordination; Migratory Bird
                                          Treaty Act (MBTA)
                                          Coordination; Bald and Golden
                                          Eagle Protection Act (BGEPA)
                                          Consultation.
USFWS--WV Field Office.................  ESA Consultation, and MBTA and
                                          BGEPA Coordination.

USFWS--Ohio (OH) Field Office..........  ESA Consultation, and MBTA and
                                          BGEPA Coordination.
PA Department of Environmental           Section 401 Water Quality
 Protection--Regional Permitting          Certificate.
 Coordination Office.
PA State Historic Preservation Office    National Historic Preservation
 (SHPO).                                  Act (NHPA), Section 106
                                          Consultation.
WV Department of Environmental           Section 401 Water Quality
 Protection Division of Water and Waste   Certificate.
 Management.
WV SHPO................................  NHPA, Section 106 Consultation.
OH Environmental Protection Agency.....  Clean Water Act, Section 401.
OH SHPO................................  NHPA, Section 106 Consultation.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Environmental Mailing List

    This notice is being sent to the Commission's current environmental
mailing list for the Project which includes federal, state, and local
government representatives and agencies; elected officials;
environmental and public interest groups; Native American Tribes; other
interested parties; and local libraries and newspapers. This list also
includes all affected landowners (as defined in the Commission's
regulations) who are potential right-of-way grantors, whose property
may be used temporarily for Project purposes, or who own homes within
certain distances of aboveground facilities, and anyone who submits
comments on the Project and includes a mailing address with their
comments. Commission staff will update the environmental mailing list
as the analysis proceeds to ensure that Commission notices related to
this environmental review are sent to all individuals, organizations,
and government entities interested in and/or potentially affected by
the proposed Project. State and local government representatives should
notify their constituents of this proposed Project and encourage them
to comment on their areas of concern.
    If you need to make changes to your name/address, or if you would
like to remove your name from the mailing list, please complete one of
the following steps:
    (1) Send an email to [email protected] stating your
request. You must include the docket number CP22-44-000 in your
request. If you are requesting a change to your address, please be sure
to include your name and the correct address. If you are requesting to
delete your address from the mailing list, please include your name and
address as it appeared on this notice. This email address is unable to
accept comments.
    OR
    (2) Return the attached ``Mailing List Update Form'' (appendix 2).

Additional Information

    Additional information about the Project is available from the
Commission's Office of External Affairs, at (866) 208-FERC, or on the
FERC website at www.ferc.gov using the eLibrary link. Click on the
eLibrary link, click on ``General Search'' and enter the docket number
in the ``Docket Number'' field, excluding the last three digits (i.e.,
CP22-44). Be sure you have selected an appropriate date range. For
assistance, please contact FERC Online Support at
[email protected] or<PHONE_NUMBER>, or for TTY, contact (202)
502-8659. The eLibrary link also provides access to the texts of all
formal documents issued by the Commission, such as orders, notices, and
rulemakings.
    Public sessions or site visits will be posted on the Commission's
calendar located at https://www.ferc.gov/news-events/events along with
other related information.

    Dated: July 7, 2022.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2022-14921 Filed 7-12-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 220 (Tuesday, November 15, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 80109-80114]
[FR Doc No: 2016-27365]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-79260; File No. SR-BX-2016-055]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NASDAQ BX, Inc.; Notice of Filing
and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Adopt Cease and
Desist Authority Rules

November 8, 2016
    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 28, 2016, NASDAQ BX, Inc. (``BX'' or the ``Exchange'') filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'') the
proposed rule change as described in Items I and II below, which Items
have been prepared by the Exchange. 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 adopt Rules 9556 and 9800, which were
previously adopted as a pilot the term of which has since expired, and
to make related changes to the 9100, 9200, 9300, 9550, and 9800 Rule
Series.
    The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's
Web site at http://nasdaqomxbx.cchwallstreet.com/, at the principal
office of the Exchange, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

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 Exchange 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. The Exchange 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
    The Exchange is proposing to adopt new Rules 9556 and 9800, which
were previously adopted as a pilot the term of which has since expired,
and to make related changes to the 9100, 9200, 9300, 9550, and 9800
Rule Series. In May 2003, the Commission approved, on a pilot basis, a
rule change to adopt NASD Rules 9556 and 9800 that gave NASD, now known
as FINRA, authority to issue temporary cease and desist orders and made
explicit NASD's ability to impose permanent cease and desist orders as
a remedy in disciplinary cases.\3\ Because NASD was, and now FINRA is,
the Exchange's regulatory services provider and administers the
Exchange's disciplinary program under contract, the Exchange seeks to
maintain comparability between its disciplinary procedure rules and
those of NASD and now FINRA. As a consequence, the Exchange adopted
Rules 9556 and 9800 to mirror the then-FINRA rules to operate as a
pilot in conjunction with the related FINRA pilot.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 47925 (May 23, 2003)
(File No. SR-NASD-98-80), 68 FR 33548 (June 4, 2003). See also
Securities Exchange Act Release No. 51860 (June 16, 2005), 70 FR
36427 (June 23, 2005) (SR-NASD-2005-061) (extending the pilot to
June 23, 2007 and making non-substantive changes); and Securities
Exchange Act Release No. 55819 (May 25, 2007), 72 FR 30895 (June 4,
2007) (SR-NASD-2007-033) (extending the pilot to June 23, 2009 and
making non-substantive changes).
    \4\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 59154 (December 23,
2008), 73 FR 80468 (December 31, 2008) (SR-BSE-2008-48).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On June 23, 2009, the Exchange's Rule 9556 and 9800 pilot programs
expired, at which time those rules and certain references thereto
became obsolete, notwithstanding that they remained in the rulebook.
The FINRA pilot program, however, continued and was approved on July
14, 2009 on a permanent basis.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Securities Exchange Act Release No. 60306 (July 14, 2009),
74 FR 36292 (July 22, 2009) (SR-FINRA-2009-035). The Exchange notes
that FINRA, in its rule change proposal to make its pilot program
permanent, noted that it had used the authority under Rules 9556 and
9800 sparingly. Id. at 36293.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Neither the Exchange nor FINRA, acting on behalf of the Exchange
pursuant to agreement, have [sic] used the cease and desist authority
under Rules 9556 and 9800 during the time that the rules were
effective. Nonetheless, the Exchange believes that, in addition to
maintaining similar disciplinary rules, adoption of Rules 9556 and 9800
is important to the Exchange's disciplinary program. The authority
under these rules will provide the Exchange and FINRA, operating on
behalf of the Exchange, with a mechanism to take appropriate remedial
action against a member or an associated person that has engaged (or is
engaging) in violative conduct that could cause continuing harm to the
investing public if not addressed expeditiously, such as dissipation or
conversion of assets. It must be emphasized, however, that the cease
and desist provisions contain numerous procedural protections for
respondents to ensure that the proceedings are fair. Consequently, the
Exchange believes that adoption of these rules is important to its
regulatory program, notwithstanding that it anticipates exercising the
authority provided by the rules sparingly.
    The Exchange is proposing to delete Rules 9556 and 9800 (and
related references in other rules \6\) because the pilot period for
these rules has expired rendering them void, and adopt new Rules 9556
and 9800 (and related references in other rules) \7\ based on FINRA's
analogous cease and desist rules, which include amendments to the
former BX cease and desist rules to reflect changes that FINRA has made
to its cease and desist rules in 2011 and 2015 after they were made
permanent.\8\ The Exchange is also proposing to amend other Rules under
the 9000 Series to incorporate changes that FINRA made to its analogous
rules in

2015, as discussed below. These proposed changes include significant
amendments made by FINRA to not only its Rules 9556 and 9800, but also
to its 9100, 9200, 9300, 9550, and 9800 Rule Series in 2015. Unless
otherwise noted, BX is adopting the FINRA Rules with only minor changes
to reflect the Exchange's committee structure and rules,\9\ as
described below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ The Exchange is deleting text from related provisions of
Rules 8310, IM-8310-3(c)(1), 9120(r), 9241(c), 9290, 9311(b),
9312(b), and 9360 that also expired on June 23, 2009 and is
inserting new text identical to what was deleted.
    \7\ As a consequence of the expiration of the pilot rendering
the existing related rule text void, in certain cases the Exchange
is deleting the void text and reinserting identical rule text
thereafter so the text may have effect once again. For example, the
Exchange is deleting Rule 8310(a)(6), concerning imposition of a
temporary or permanent cease and desist order, and adopting a new
Rule 8310(a)(6) identical to what was deleted.
    \8\ In 2013, FINRA consolidated the publication standards for
expedited proceeding decisions, including under FINRA Rule 9556, in
FINRA Rule 8313(a)(3) and consequently amended FINRA Rule 9556 to
remove paragraph (h) ``Notice to Membership'' from the rule. See
Securities Exchange Act Release No. 69825 (June 21, 2013), 78 FR
38771 (June 27, 2013) (SR-FINRA-2013-018). The Exchange did not have
such a provision in its Rule 9556. The Exchange's disclosure
obligations are provided under IM-8310-3, including the Exchange's
disclosure obligations related to expedited proceedings. See IM-
8310-3(c).
    \9\ The Exchange is replacing references to FINRA and FINRA
staff with references to the Exchange and Exchange staff, which are
the appropriate analogous parties at BX. The Exchange is also
replacing FINRA text that states ``Chief Executive Officer or such
other senior officer as the Chief Executive Officer may designate''
with ``Chief Regulatory Officer,'' which is the Exchange officer
vested with the authority described under the rules. For example,
old Rules 9556(a) and 9860 vested authority with the Chief
Regulatory Officer to authorize notice and initiation of
proceedings, respectively, whereas the analogous FINRA rules
authorize its Chief Executive Officer or such other senior officer
as the Chief Executive Officer may designate instead. Last, the
Exchange is adding clarifying language to Rule 9810 to make it clear
that initiation of a proceeding must not only be authorized by
FINRA's Chief Executive Officer or such other senior officer as the
Chief Executive Officer may designate, but also BX's Chief
Regulatory Officer. As a practical matter, the Chief Regulatory
Officer must agree that such a proceeding should be brought pursuant
to BX rules.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2011 FINRA Rule Changes
    In 2011, FINRA amended Rules 9552(b), 9553(b), 9554(b), 9555(b),
and 9556(b), all of which concern service of notice.\10\ Each of these
rules concern [sic] the process followed when a person or entity
subject to FINRA's jurisdiction fail [sic] to comply with various
requirements under its rules. FINRA amended the rule provisions noted
above to allow notice of failure to comply with a temporary or
permanent cease and desist order to be served on counsel representing
the member or person, or other person authorized to represent others
under FINRA Rule 9141,\11\ when counsel or other person authorized to
represent others under FINRA Rule 9141 agrees to accept service for the
member or person.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ Securities Exchange Act Release No. 60306 (January 4,
2012), 77 FR 1524 (January 10, 2012) (SR-FINRA-2011-044). FINRA also
amended other rules in the FINRA Rule 9000 Series not addressed in
this filing. Id.
    \11\ FINRA Rule 9141, entitled ``Appearance and Practice; Notice
of Appearance,'' provides, among other things, what is permissible
in terms of representation before an Adjudicator. Exchange Rule 9141
is consistent with FINRA Rule 9141.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2015 FINRA Rule Changes
    In 2015, FINRA made significant changes to its temporary and
permanent cease and desist rules.\12\ FINRA lowered the evidentiary
standard to obtain a temporary cease and desist order, adopted a new
expedited proceedings [sic] to address situations involving repeated
violations of temporary or permanent cease and desist orders, and made
a series of rule amendments to the temporary cease and desist order
rules under FINRA Rule Series 9800, the expedited proceedings rules
under FINRA Rule Series 9550,\13\ and FINRA's Code of Procedure (FINRA
Rule Series 9000) that harmonize service provisions in temporary cease
and desist proceedings and expedited proceedings, ease administrative
burdens in temporary cease and desist proceedings, and clarify the
process by which permanent cease and desist orders may be imposed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ Securities Exchange Act Release No. 75629 (August 6, 2015),
80 FR 48379 (August 12, 2015) (SR-FINRA-2015-019).
    \13\ FINRA amended its Rule 9551 ``Failure to Comply with Public
Communications Standards.'' BX does not have such a rule (BX Rule
9551 is held in reserve) and is thus not incorporating those
changes. In a related change, the Exchange is also amending its Rule
9559 to delete the references to Rule 9551, which were erroneously
included in the rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

(i) Evidentiary Standard for Imposing a Temporary Cease and Desist
Order
    FINRA amended FINRA Rule 9840(a)(1) to change the evidentiary
standard applied by Hearing Panels in issuing a temporary cease and
desist order. Specifically, FINRA changed the standard for issuing a
temporary cease and desist order from ``by a preponderance of the
evidence that the alleged violation specified in the notice has
occurred'' to a ``showing of a likelihood of success on the merits.''
FINRA noted that it believed that the ``preponderance of the evidence''
standard set too high an evidentiary threshold for this critical
investor-protection tool, and noted that it is the identical standard
for proving a violation in the underlying disciplinary proceeding that
must be pursued at the same time.\14\ Thus, to obtain a temporary cease
and desist order--and thereby prevent the likely and significant
dissipation or conversion of assets or other significant harm to
investors--FINRA's prosecuting department had to make an evidentiary
presentation in the temporary cease and desist proceeding that is
similar in extent to its evidentiary presentation in the subsequent
underlying disciplinary proceeding, but in an expedited manner.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 75333 (June 30,
2015), 80 FR 38783 (July 7, 2015) (Notice of Filing File No. SR-
FINRA-2015-019) at 38784.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FINRA also made a corresponding amendment to FINRA Rule 9840(a)(2).
Prior to the amendment, FINRA Rule 9840(a)(2) provided that a temporary
cease and desist order shall be imposed if the Hearing Panel finds that
the violative conduct or continuation thereof is likely to result in
significant dissipation or conversion of assets or other significant
harm to investors prior to the completion of the underlying proceeding.
The 2015 rule change modified this requirement to apply to the
``alleged'' violative conduct or continuation thereof, to be consistent
with the proposed change to the evidentiary standard.
(ii) Failures To Comply With Temporary Cease and Desist Orders and
Permanent Cease and Desist Orders (FINRA Rule 9556)
    FINRA also made amendments to FINRA Rule 9556, which sets forth
expedited procedures for enforcing violations of FINRA-issued temporary
and permanent cease and desist orders. FINRA was concerned that their
[sic] existing expedited procedures may permit cease and desist orders
to be circumvented without any real threat of a sanction.\15\ Thus,
FINRA amended FINRA Rule 9556 to adopt a new paragraph (h) to permit
its staff (with prior authorization from FINRA's Chief Executive
Officer or other designated senior officer) to institute a new kind of
expedited proceeding if the subject of a temporary or permanent cease
and desist order fails to comply with that order and has previously
been served with a notice under Rule 9556(a) for failure to comply with
any provision of the same temporary or permanent cease and desist
order. FINRA adopted the change to prevent a respondent from abusing
the existing process by repeatedly violating a cease and desist order
and curing that violation before the effective date of any FINRA Rule
9556 notice,\16\ without being subject to the immediate sanctions or
review by the Office of Hearing Officers for a prolonged period. FINRA
noted in its filing that the new FINRA Rule 9556(h) proceeding differs
from other FINRA Rule 9556 expedited proceedings in other respects that
reflect the response that FINRA believes is warranted for situations
involving repeated violations of temporary or permanent cease and
desist orders.\17\ These differences include the following:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ Id. at 38785.
    \16\ Under the then-current FINRA Rule 9556, if a member or
person failed to comply with a temporary or permanent cease and
desist order, FINRA staff (with prior authorization from FINRA's
Chief Executive Officer or other designated senior officer) may have
issued a notice stating that the failure to comply within seven days
will result in a suspension or cancellation of membership or a
suspension or bar from associating with any member and also would
have stated what the respondent must do to avoid such action.
    \17\ See supra note 14 at 38785.

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

     A FINRA Rule 9556(h) proceeding could be initiated only if
the respondent has previously been served, under FINRA Rule 9556(a),
with a notice for failing to comply with any provision of the same
temporary or permanent cease and desist order;
     FINRA's prosecuting department would initiate a FINRA Rule
9556(h) proceeding by filing a petition with FINRA's Office of Hearing
Officers (and serving the respondent) that seeks the imposition of
sanctions for the violation (rather than issuing a notice to the
respondent);
     FINRA's prosecuting department would seek the imposition
of any fitting sanction at the outset of the FINRA Rule 9556(h)
proceeding (in contrast to other FINRA Rule 9556 expedited proceedings,
where the recipient of a notice is not subject to the imposition of any
fitting sanction unless such recipient opts for a hearing);
     a hearing is required in a FINRA Rule 9556(h) proceeding;
     the hearing for a FINRA Rule 9556(h) proceeding must be
held in a condensed time frame (ten business days after a respondent is
served the petition, versus other Rule 9556 proceedings which require a
respondent to request a hearing within seven business days after
service of a notice instituting a proceeding and require hearings to be
held within 14 days after a request for a hearing is filed); \18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ See FINRA Rule 9559(f)(2) and (3); FINRA Rule 9556(e).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     a FINRA Rule 9556(h) proceeding is presided over by a
Hearing Officer,\19\ rather than a Hearing Panel; \20\ and
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ As defined by FINRA Rule 9120(r).
    \20\ As defined by FINRA Rule 9120(s). See FINRA Rule 9559(d)(1)
and (2) for a description of the appointment and authority [sic] of
a Hearing Officer and/or Hearing Panel in expedited proceedings.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     the Hearing Officer may issue default decisions in FINRA
Rule 9556(h) proceedings.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ See FINRA Rule 9559(m)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Under amended FINRA Rule 9556(h)(4), the FINRA department that
filed the petition can withdraw it without prejudice and shall be
permitted to refile a petition based on allegations concerning the same
facts and circumstances that are set forth in the withdrawn petition.
FINRA noted that this provision provides it the flexibility to withdraw
the petition where, for instance, the respondent evidences a good faith
intent to comply with the temporary or permanent cease and desist order
without the need to adjudicate the petition, while preserving FINRA's
right to refile the petition if the respondent fails to do so.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ See supra note 14 at 38785.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

(iii) Service Provisions in Temporary Cease and Desist Proceedings and
Expedited Proceedings
    FINRA also made the rules that govern service of documents in
temporary cease and desist proceedings and the eight different types of
expedited proceedings under the Rule 9550 Series more consistent.\23\
Prior to the changes, some provisions of these rules explicitly
addressed service by facsimile and on counsel, while some did not.
FINRA's amendments explicitly allow service by facsimile and on counsel
across all temporary cease and desist and expedited proceedings, noting
that doing so removed unnecessary burdens and inefficiencies. FINRA
also amended its rules to permit service by email for all temporary
cease and desist proceedings and expedited proceedings. FINRA noted
that email service would allow parties to receive information quickly,
which is particularly important in these types of proceedings,
considering the short time frames involved.\24\ As part of the changes
allowing service by email, FINRA also now requires duplicate service
through some other means such as overnight courier or personal delivery
and made changes to its Rule 9550 Series to reflect this requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ The Exchange notes that in SR-FINRA-2015-019 FINRA replaced
references to ``contact questionnaires'' with reference to the
``FINRA Contact System,'' FINRA's proprietary system that
facilitates member firm reporting of key contacts to FINRA. Exchange
members are required to use the FINRA Contact System to report to
the Exchange all contact information required by the Exchange and
update its required contact information promptly. See Rule 1160.
Under the FINRA Rule 9550 Series, the rules cite Article 4, Section
III of the FINRA By-Laws as the authority pursuant to which its
members have an obligation to report required contact information to
it via the FINRA Contact System, whereas the Exchange's authority is
pursuant to Rule 1160, as noted above. Thus, the Exchange is instead
referencing Rule 1160 in the Rule 9550 Series as the authority
pursuant to which members have the reporting obligation.
    \24\ See supra note 14 at 38785-6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

(iv) Clarifying FINRA's Authority To Impose Permanent Cease and Desist
Orders
    FINRA clarified its rules concerning the process for imposing
permanent cease and desist orders in disciplinary proceedings. FINRA
noted that when it obtained the authority to impose temporary cease and
desist orders, it also obtained the authority to impose permanent cease
and desist orders.\25\ Thus, the clarifying changes were procedural in
nature and did not reflect any change to FINRA's prior representations
concerning the context in which it would seek permanent cease and
desist orders.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ See supra note 14 at 38786.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

(v) Administrative Changes to Temporary Cease and Desist Proceedings
    FINRA also expanded the pool of persons eligible to serve on
hearing panels to include those who may serve on hearing panels for
disciplinary matters, as provided under FINRA Rules 9231(b) and
9559(d)(2).\26\ Specifically, FINRA amended its Rule 9820 to provide
that the potential panelists for the Hearing Panels that preside over
temporary cease and desist proceedings to [sic] include persons who
currently serve or previously served on a District Committee; \27\
previously served on the National Adjudicatory Council; \28\ previously
served on a disciplinary subcommittee of the National Adjudicatory
Council or the National Business Conduct Committee;\29\ previously
served as a member of the Board of Directors of FINRA Regulation or of
the Board of Governors of FINRA; or currently serve or previously
served on a committee appointed or approved by the Board of Governors
of FINRA, but do not serve currently on the National Adjudicatory
Council or as a member of the Board of Directors of FINRA Regulation or
of the Board of Governors of FINRA. The amendment to FINRA Rule 9820
also required that each panelist be associated with a member of FINRA
or retired therefrom. FINRA noted that, while its Office of Hearing
Officers has presided over only a limited number of temporary cease and
desist proceedings, those experiences have revealed that the narrowly
circumscribed set of potential panelists can impede the recruitment of
Hearing Panel members, especially considering that the expedited nature
of temporary cease and desist proceedings will

already preclude many from being able to serve.\30\ FINRA also noted
that it had concerns that the small pool of potential panelists will
often make it difficult to recruit hearing panelists who can serve on
both the temporary cease and desist proceeding and the subsequent
underlying disciplinary proceeding, as well as any related expedited
proceeding under FINRA Rule 9556.\31\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ FINRA harmonized the categories of individuals eligible for
appointment as a Hearing Panelist under FINRA Rule 9820 with FINRA
Rule 9231(b) (providing that each panelist shall be associated with
a member of FINRA or retired therefrom and that the pool of
panelists for disciplinary proceedings includes current or previous
members of District Committees, former members of the National
Adjudicatory Council, past members of disciplinary subcommittees of
the National Adjudicatory Council or the National Business Conduct
Committee, past members of the Board of Directors of FINRA
Regulation or past members of the Board of Governors of FINRA, and
current or previous members of committees appointed or approved by
the Board of Governors of FINRA); FINRA Rule 9559(d)(2) (providing
for the same pool for FINRA Rule 9556 expedited proceedings).
    \27\ As defined by FINRA Rule 9120(g).
    \28\ See By-Laws of FINRA Regulation, Inc., Article V, National
Adjudicatory Council.
    \29\ The predecessor to the FINRA National Adjudicatory Council.
    \30\ See supra note 14 at 38786.
    \31\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange is proposing to, likewise, expand the categories of
individuals eligible to participate as Hearing Panelists. Like FINRA,
the Exchange is harmonizing the categories of eligible individuals with
the criteria under Rules 9231(b) and 9559(d)(2).\32\ Thus, the Exchange
is allowing the Chief Hearing Officer to select as a Panelist pursuant
to proposed Rule 9820(a) a person who: previously served on the
Exchange Review Council; \33\ previously served on a disciplinary
subcommittee of the Exchange Review Council, including a Subcommittee,
an Extended Proceeding Committee,\34\ or their predecessor
subcommittees; previously served as a Director, or as a Governor of the
Exchange prior to its acquisition by The NASDAQ OMX Group, Inc., but
does not serve currently in that position; or is a FINRA Panelist
approved by the Exchange Board at least annually, including a member of
FINRA's Market Regulation Committee or a person who previously served
on the Market Regulation Committee not earlier than four years before
the date the complaint was served upon the Respondent who was the first
served Respondent in the disciplinary proceeding for which the Hearing
Panel or the Extended Hearing Panel is being appointed, or from other
sources the Board deems appropriate given the responsibilities of
Panelists.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \32\ Like FINRA's Rule 9559(d)(2), Rule 9559(d)(2) provides for
the same pool for Rule 9556 expedited proceedings) [sic]. Supra note
26.
    \33\ See By-Laws of NASDAQ BX, Inc., Article VII, Exchange
Review Council.
    \34\ As defined by Rule 9120(n).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FINRA's proposed changes also eased other administrative burdens
created by the shortened time frame of a temporary cease and desist
proceeding. Those proposed changes were aimed at improving Hearing
Panels' and parties' ability to prepare for hearings and giving Hearing
Officers some needed flexibility. For example, under FINRA Rule 9830(a)
prior to the 2015 amendments a Hearing Officer was not able to extend a
hearing date in a temporary cease and desist proceeding unless all
parties consented to the extension. The requirement to obtain the
parties' consent was problematic in instances whereby the Office of
Hearing Officers, rather than one of the parties, had a need for an
extension, such as when it encounters difficulty in quickly appointing
a Hearing Panel. To address this problem, FINRA amended its Rule
9830(a) to allow hearing deadlines to be extended by the Chief Hearing
Officer or Deputy Chief Hearing Officer for good cause shown.
    FINRA also made similar amendments to the process by which
extensions are obtained to the deadlines for issuing decisions in
temporary cease and desist proceedings and responding to requests to
modify, set aside, limit, or suspend a temporary cease and desist
order. Before the amendments to FINRA Rule 9840(a), the Hearing Panel's
deadline for issuing its written decision could not be extended, even
where there was good cause, without the consent of the parties.
Likewise, prior to amending FINRA Rule 9850, a Hearing Panel's deadline
for responding to an application to have a temporary cease and desist
order modified, set aside, limited, or suspended could not be extended,
even where there was a good cause, without the consent of the Parties.
To allow a Hearing Panel some flexibility where there is a need for
additional time to prepare its decision or respond to a FINRA Rule 9850
request (e.g., when a member of the Hearing Panel becomes ill, where
the temporary cease and desist proceeding is highly complex), FINRA
amended FINRA Rules 9840(a) and 9850 to permit the deadlines for
issuing decisions and responding to FINRA Rule 9850 applications to be
extended by the Chief Hearing Officer or Deputy Chief Hearing Officer
for good cause shown.
    To further address the burdens created by the short time frame of
temporary cease and desist proceedings, FINRA amended its rules to: (i)
Require FINRA's prosecuting department to file a memorandum of points
and authorities with the notice initiating a temporary cease and desist
proceeding; and (ii) permit the Hearing Officer to order a party to
furnish to all other parties and the Hearing Panel such information as
deemed appropriate, including any or all of the pre-hearing submissions
described in FINRA Rule 9242(a). FINRA noted that requiring its
prosecuting department to file a memorandum of points and authorities
at the initiation of the proceeding provides more context to the
allegations and set [sic] forth legal authorities on which the notice
seeking a temporary cease and desist order is premised.\35\ FINRA
believed that the change would, in turn, facilitate a more efficient
process and improve the quality of the hearing through more thorough
preparation, which are the same goals of the pre-hearing processes in
FINRA disciplinary proceedings. FINRA also noted that requiring the
filing of a memorandum of points and authorities at the initiation of a
temporary cease and desist proceeding also enhances disclosure of the
prosecuting department's allegations, which would inure to the benefit
of the respondents and further increases the fairness of the
proceeding.\36\ Last, FINRA noted that all of these objectives are
served by authorizing Hearing Officers to order a party to furnish
other pre-hearing submissions.\37\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \35\ See supra note 14 at 38787.
    \36\ Id.
    \37\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FINRA also proposed Rule 9840(e), which is a delivery requirement
that requires a member firm that is the subject of a temporary cease
and desist order to provide a copy of the order to its associated
persons, within one business day of receiving it. Considering the
significant nature of the harm that a temporary cease and desist order
is aimed at stopping, FINRA believed that there is a heightened need to
ensure that the persons who may act on behalf of the member firm are
made aware of the contents of a temporary cease and desist order
imposed against the member firm and the delivery requirement furthers
that goal.\38\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \38\ Similarly, FINRA made related amendments to FINRA Rules
9269, 9270, and 9840 to require that the Office of Hearing Officers,
the Department of Enforcement, the Department of Market Regulation,
or the General Counsel, as appropriate, disseminate default
decisions, orders of acceptance of settlement, and temporary cease
and desist orders to each member of FINRA with which a respondent is
associated. FINRA noted that these dissemination requirements are
intended to ensure that a respondent's member firm is made aware of
the disciplinary history of its associated persons, regardless of
the specific disciplinary procedure involved. See supra note 14 at
38787, n. 15. FINRA also noted that the amendments are consistent
with other FINRA Rules that already require the Office of Hearing
Officers, the National Adjudicatory Council, or the Board of
Governors of FINRA to provide copies of a decision issued by a
Hearing Panel, an Extended Hearing Panel, the National Adjudicatory
Council, or the Board of Governors of FINRA to each member firm with
which a respondent is associated. Id.; see also FINRA Rules 9268(d),
9349(c), 9351(e). The Exchange is adopting these amendments to Rules
9269, 9270, and 9840.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FINRA's rule change clarified the following additional three
issues: (1) How settlements may be approved in temporary cease and
desist proceedings; (2) which Hearing Panel has jurisdiction to preside
over applications filed under FINRA Rule 9850 to modify, set aside,
limit or suspend temporary cease and desist orders that are filed after
a

Hearing Panel has already been appointed in the underlying disciplinary
proceeding; and (3) whether temporary and permanent cease and desist
orders imposed against a firm also apply to successors of that firm.
    With respect to the first issue, new FINRA Rule 9810(c) established
that, if the parties agree to the terms of a proposed temporary cease
and desist order, the Hearing Officer has the authority to approve and
issue the order. On the second issue, amended FINRA Rule 9850 provided
that the Hearing Panel that presided over the temporary cease and
desist order proceeding shall retain jurisdiction to review a FINRA
Rule 9850 application unless at the time the application is filed a
Hearing Panel has already been appointed in the underlying disciplinary
proceeding commenced under FINRA Rule 9211, in which case the Hearing
Panel appointed in the disciplinary proceeding has jurisdiction. As to
the third issue, amended FINRA Rule 9840(b) and new Rule 9291(a)
established that when a temporary or permanent cease and desist order
is imposed against a member firm, it also applies to any successor of
the member firm.
    Finally, FINRA amended certain provisions of FINRA Rule 9120. FINRA
amended FINRA Rule 9120(s), ``Hearing Panel,'' to include an
Adjudicator that is constituted under Rule 9231 to conduct a
disciplinary proceeding governed by the Rule 9800 Series. The Exchange
is adopting this amendment in its Rule 9120(s).
    FINRA also amended FINRA Rule 9120(t), ``Interested Staff,'' to:
(1) Insert ``or petition'' under paragraph (2)(A) of the rule, thus
expanding the definition to include FINRA staff that filed a petition
in a proceeding under the Rule 9520 Series or Rule 9550 Series; and (2)
include a new paragraph (4) to list FINRA staff that are defined as
Interested Staff in a proceeding under the FINRA Rule 9800 Series. The
Exchange is also adopting the amendment to its Rule 9120(t)
``Interested Staff,'' but is expanding the definition to also include
BX Regulation employees who directly participated in the authorization
of the notice that initiates a temporary cease and desist proceeding,
or directly participated in an examination, investigation, prosecution,
or litigation related to a specific temporary cease and desist
proceeding, under new paragraphs (t)(4)(C) and (D) of the rule.
    FINRA also amended FINRA Rule 9120(w), ``Panelists,'' to include
references to Panelists in the Rule 9550 Series, and the Rule 9800
Series within the definition provided by the rule. The Exchange is
adopting this amendment in Rule 9120(z). FINRA also amended Rule
9120(z) ``Respondent'' to define a Respondent in a proceeding governed
by the Rule 9800 Series to mean a FINRA member or associated person
that has been served a notice initiating a cease and desist proceeding.
The Exchange is adopting this amendment in Rule 9120(bb)
``Respondent.''
    The Exchange believes that the changes made by FINRA in 2011 and
2015, as described above, improve the cease and desist authority as
well as the service provisions. Consequently, the Exchange is proposing
to adopt the changes, as described above, as its own.
Other Non-Substantive Changes
    The Exchange is also proposing to make other non-substantive
changes to its rules to correct misuse of the word ``FINRA,'' which
were introduced erroneously when the Exchange adopted the rules.
Specifically, the Exchange is proposing to amend Rule 9555(g) to remove
reference to FINRA and replace it with reference to the Exchange to
make clear that it is BX's departments that should be contacted. The
Exchange is also replacing references to FINRA's rules under new Rule
9810 with references to analogous rules of BX. Specifically, BX is
replacing reference to FINRA Rule 2010 with reference to Equity Rule
2110, reference to FINRA Rule 2020 with reference to Equity Rule 2120,
and FINRA Rule 4330 with reference to Equity Rule 2150.\39\ The
Exchange is also replacing the word ``FINRA'' with ``Exchange'' in
adopting Rule 9840(d) to make it clear that the rule applies to BX
members. Last, the Exchange is proposing not to include the word
``FINRA'' prior to ``Rule 9211'' in adopting Rule 9850 to make it clear
that the rule referenced is BX's rule, not FINRA's.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \39\ BX notes that the BX rules cited in new Rule 9810 are the
same as those that were cited under old Rule 9810(a). BX further
notes that under FINRA Rule 9810(a), FINRA cites to FINRA Rules
2010, 2020, and 4330. BX is replacing reference to the FINRA rules
with reference to BX's analogous Equity Rules 2110, 2120 and 2150,
as was the case in old Equity Rule 9810(a). While the provisions of
Equity Rules 2110 and 2120 closely mirror FINRA Rules 2010 and 2020,
Equity Rule 2150 is significantly different than FINRA Rule 4330.
FINRA Rule 4330 concerns the permissible use of customers' margin
securities while Equity Rule 2150 requires a member and persons
associated with a member to comply with FINRA's Rule 2150. FINRA
Rule 2150 is titled ``Improper Use of Customers' Securities or
Funds; Prohibition Against Guarantees and Sharing in Accounts'' and,
among other things, prohibits members or persons associated with a
member from making improper use of a customer's securities or funds,
guaranteeing a customer against loss in connection with any
securities transaction or in any securities account of such
customer, and setting forth what is permissible in terms of sharing
in profits and losses in a customer account. BX believes that Equity
Rule 2150 is the appropriate rule cite under new Rule 9810(a) for
purposes of alleged violations concerning misuse or conversion of
customer assets.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section
6(b) of the Act,\40\ in general, and furthers the objectives of Section
6(b)(5) of the Act,\41\ in particular, in that it is designed to
promote just and equitable principles of trade, to remove impediments
to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national
market system, and, in general to protect investors and the public
interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \40\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \41\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange also believes that the proposed rule is consistent
with Section 6(b)(6) of the Act,\42\ which requires the rules of an
exchange provide that its members be appropriately disciplined for
violations of the Act as well as the rules and regulations thereunder,
or the rules of the Exchange, by expulsion, suspension, limitation of
activities, functions, and operations, fine, censure, being suspended
or barred from being associated with a member, or any other fitting
sanction.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \42\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with these provisions because the proposed changes are based on the
cease and desist authority that FINRA has adopted, which the Exchange
believes furthers the objectives of the Act by providing it with
ability to stop violative conduct that is likely to cause dissipation
or conversion of assets or other significant harm to investors, and on
other changes to its related rules that clarify, harmonize, and improve
its disciplinary process.
    The proposed rule change will improve the Exchange's capacity to
enforce compliance with applicable laws and rules by its members and
persons associated with members and improving [sic] the Exchange's
capability to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices.
Thus, this authority is a vitally important tool to have to protect
market participants.
    The Exchange acknowledges that, when used, the cease and desist
authority proposed herein would significantly impact a respondent. The
Exchange, however, notes that the proposed rules incorporate numerous
procedural protections for respondents to ensure that the proceedings
initiated under these rules are fair, including

notice and an opportunity to be heard before a neutral tribunal.
Moreover, the Exchange anticipates using the authority provided by
these rules sparingly.

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 not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The changes are being proposed
to provide an important regulatory tool to the Exchange and FINRA,
acting on its behalf, which will protect investors when violative
conduct is being taken by a member or person associated with a member,
and time is of the essence to prevent harm, or further harm, to
investors.
    The proposed change does not impose a burden on competition among
participants or other venues because it will only be used in
circumstances where investor harm is imminent or is occurring. Thus, to
the extent a burden on competition results from use of the authority
provided by the proposed rules, such burden is necessary to protect
investors, which is consistent with 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 either solicited or received.

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, 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)(iii) of the
Act \43\ and subparagraph (f)(6) of Rule 19b-4 thereunder.\44\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \43\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(iii).
    \44\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange has asked the Commission to waive the 30-day operative
delay so that the proposal may become operative upon filing. The
Exchange has stated that it is requesting this waiver so that the
Exchange could apply, at the earliest time possible, the authority to
issue temporary cease and desist orders and explicit authority to
impose permanent cease and desist orders as a remedy in disciplinary
cases. The Exchange explained that although it does not anticipate that
it will be necessary to use this authority, when its cease and desist
authority is needed, the Exchange must be able to move swiftly to
prevent or stop investor harm. The Commission believes that waiving the
30-day operative delay is consistent with the protection of investors
and the public interest because this waiver will enable the Exchange to
utilize the temporary or permanent cease and desist authority described
herein without delay in the unlikely event that circumstances arise
that warrant its use. For this reason, the Commission hereby waives the
30-day operative delay and designates the proposed rule change as
operative upon filing.\45\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \45\ For purposes only of waiving the 30-day operative delay,
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 summarily may temporarily suspend such rule
change if it appears to the Commission that such action is: (i)
Necessary or appropriate in the public interest; (ii) for the
protection of investors; or (iii) otherwise in furtherance of the
purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the
Commission shall institute proceedings to determine whether the
proposed rule should be approved or 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-BX-2016-055 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-BX-2016-055. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549 on official business days between the hours of
10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of such filing also will be available
for inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All
comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does
not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should
submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All
submissions should refer to File Number SR-BX-2016-055, and should be
submitted on or December 6, 2016.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\46\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \46\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Brent J. Fields,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2016-27365 Filed 11-14-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P