[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 56 (Monday, March 24, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Page 16095]
[FR Doc No: 2014-06357]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Twenty-First Meeting: RTCA Special Committee 214/EUROCAE WG-78:
Standards for Air Traffic Data Communication Services

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

ACTION: RTCA Special Committee 214 held jointly with EUROCAE WG-78:
Standards for Air Traffic Data Communication Services meeting.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA is issuing this notice to advise the public of twenty-
first meeting of RTCA Special Committee 214 to be held jointly with
EUROCAE WG-78: Standards for Air Traffic Data Communication Services.

DATES: The meeting will be held April 8-10, 2014 from 9:00 a.m. to 5:00
p.m.

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at Airtel-ATN, Royal Marine Hotel
(http://royalmarine.ie/), Marine Road, Dun Laoghaire, Dublin, Ireland.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sophie Bousquet,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or The RTCA Secretariat, 1150 18th Street NW., Suite
910, Washington, DC 20036, or by telephone at<PHONE_NUMBER>, fax at
(202) 833-9434, or Web site at http://www.rtca.org.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Pursuant to section 10(a)(2) of the Federal
Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, 5 U.S.C., App.), notice is
hereby given for a meeting of Special Committee 214/EUROCAE WG-78:
Standards for Air Traffic Data Communication Services. The agenda will
include the following:

April 8

 Welcome, Introductions, & Administrative
 Remarks/Welcome/Introduction/Administrative Remarks
 Approval of the Agenda
 Approval of the Minutes of Plenary 20 and Review Action Item
Status
 Coordination Activities
     ICAO OPLINK
     ICAO ACP, Status of PM-CPDLC & PM-ADS Technical Provisions
 Working Group/Special committee organization for future work
 Revision A to Baseline 2 Standards--ATC Winds service Report
Study familiarization
 Revision A to Baseline 2 Standards--Dynamic-RNP service ConOps
familiarization

April 9

 Revision A to Baseline 2 Standards--Dynamic-RNP impacts on
documents
 Revision A to Baseline 2 Standards--Advance-IM service ConOps
familiarization

April 10

 Approval of the Final version of Baseline 2 (Initial)
documents
 Approval of the Final version of DO-281B/ED-92B Change 1 and
DO-224C Change 1
 Status/discussions on ATN VDL2 issues
 Wrap-up and confirm high-level roadmap for Revision A to
Baseline 2 standards
 Review need for upcoming meetings and approve dates and
locations of Plenary and SG Meetings
 Any Other Business
 Adjourn
    Attendance is open to the interested public but limited to space
availability. With the approval of the chairman, members of the public
may present oral statements at the meeting. Persons wishing to present
statements or obtain information should contact the person listed in
the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. Members of the public may
present a written statement to the committee at any time.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on March 18, 2014.
Paige L. Williams,
Management Analyst, Business Operations Group, ANG-A12, Federal
Aviation Administration.
[FR Doc. 2014-06357 Filed 3-21-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 227 (Friday, November 25, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 85291-85295]
[FR Doc No: 2016-28311]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-79355; File No. SR-NYSE-2016-55]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; New York Stock Exchange LLC; Order
Granting Approval of Proposed Rule Change Adopting Maximum Fees Member
Organizations May Charge in Connection With the Distribution of
Investment Company Shareholder Reports Pursuant to Any Electronic
Delivery Rules Adopted by the Securities and Exchange Commission

November 18, 2016.

I. Introduction

    On August 15, 2016, New York Stock Exchange LLC (``NYSE'' or the
``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission''), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (``Exchange Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4
thereunder,\2\ a proposed rule change to adopt maximum fees NYSE member
organizations may charge in connection with the distribution of
investment company shareholder reports pursuant to any ``notice and
access'' electronic delivery rules adopted by the Commission. The
proposed rule change was published for comment in the Federal Register
on August 22, 2016.\3\ The Commission received fourteen comment letters
on

the proposal.\4\ On October 5, 2016, the Commission extended the time
period for Commission action on the proposal to November 20, 2016.\5\
This order approves the proposed rule change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 78589 (August 16,
2016), 81 FR 56717 (``Notice'').
    \4\ See letters to Brent J. Fields, Secretary, Commission from:
James R. Rooney, Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer, Ariel
Investment Trust, dated September 8, 2016 (``Ariel Letter'');
Mortimer J. Buckley, Chief Investment Officer, Vanguard, dated
September 12, 2016 (``Vanguard Letter''); Barbara Novick, Vice
Chairman, and Benjamin Archibald, Managing Director, BlackRock,
Inc., dated September 12, 2016 (``BlackRock Letter''); Charles V.
Callan, SVP Regulatory Affairs, Broadridge Financial Solutions,
Inc., dated September 12, 2016 (``Broadridge Letter''); John Zerr,
Managing Director and General Counsel, Invesco Advisers, Inc., dated
September 12, 2016 (``Invesco Letter''); Amy B.R. Lancellotta,
Managing Director, Independent Directors Council, dated September
12, 2016 (``IDC Letter''); David G. Booth, President and Co-Chief
Executive Officer, Dimensional Fund Advisers LP, dated September 12,
2016 (``Dimensional Letter''); David W. Blass, General Counsel,
Investment Company Institute, dated September 12, 2016 (``ICI
Letter''); Darrell N. Braman, Vice President & Managing Counsel, T.
Rowe Price Associates, Inc., dated September 12, 2016 (``T. Rowe
Letter''); Mark N. Polebaum, Executive Vice President and General
Counsel, MFS Investment Management, dated September 12, 2016 (``MFS
Letter''); Thomas E. Faust Jr., Chairman and Chief Executive
Officer, Eaton Vance Corp., dated September 12, 2016 (``Eaton Vance
Letter''); Ellen Greene, Managing Director, Securities Industry and
Financial Markets Association, dated September 15, 2016 (``SIFMA
Letter''); Christopher O. Petersen, President, Columbia Mutual
Funds, Columbia Threadneedle Investments, dated September 15, 2016
(``Columbia Letter''); and Rodney D. Johnson, Chairman, The
Independent Directors of the Blackrock Equity-Liquidity Funds, dated
September 27, 2016 (``Blackrock Directors Letter'').
    \5\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 79051 (October 5,
2016), 81 FR 70449 (October 12, 2016).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Description of the Proposed Rule Change

A. Background

    Pursuant to NYSE Rule 451, NYSE member organizations that hold
securities in street name \6\ are required to deliver, on behalf of an
issuer, proxy and other materials to beneficial owners if they are
assured they will receive reasonable reimbursement of expenses for such
distributions from the issuer.\7\ For this service, issuers reimburse
NYSE member organizations for all out-of-pocket expenses, including
reasonable clerical expenses, as well as actual postage costs and other
actual costs incurred for a particular distribution.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ The ownership of shares in street name means that a
shareholder, or ``beneficial owner,'' holds the shares through a
broker-dealer or bank, also known as a ``nominee.'' In contrast to
registered ownership (also known as record holders), where shares
are registered in the name of the shareholder, shares held in street
name are registered in the name of the nominee, or in the nominee
name of a depository, such as the Depository Trust Company. For more
detail regarding share ownership, see Securities Exchange Act
Release No. 62495 (July 14, 2010), 75 FR 42982 (July 22, 2010)
(Concept Release on the U.S. Proxy System) (``Proxy Concept
Release'').
    \7\ In this order, we refer to ``issuer'' to mean an investment
company registered under the Investment Company Act of 1940 (the
``Investment Company Act'') and an issuer of a class of securities
registered pursuant to Section 12 of the Exchange Act.
    \8\ See NYSE Rules 451(a)(2) and 451.90. See also infra note 9.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NYSE Rule 451 establishes the maximum approved rates \9\ that a
member organization can charge an issuer for distribution of proxies
and other materials absent prior notification to and consent of the
issuer.\10\ Although member organizations may seek reimbursement from
an issuer for less than the established rates,\11\ the Commission
understands that in practice most issuers are billed at the established
rates.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ In addition to the specified charges discussed in this order
and as set forth in NYSE Rule 451, member organizations also are
entitled to receive reimbursement for: (i) Actual postage costs
(including return postage at the lowest available rate); (ii) the
actual cost of envelopes (provided they are not furnished by the
person soliciting proxies); and (iii) any actual communication
expenses (excluding overhead) incurred in receiving voting returns
either telephonically or electronically. See NYSE Rule 451.90.
    \10\ See NYSE Rules 451.90 (schedule of approved charges by
member organizations in connection with proxy solicitations and the
processing of proxy and other material) and 451.93 (stating that a
member organization may request reimbursement of expenses at less
than the approved rates; however, no member organization may seek
reimbursement at rates higher than the approved rates without the
prior notification and consent of the person soliciting proxies or
the company). In adopting the direct shareholder communications
rules in the early 1980s, the Commission left the determination of
reasonable costs to the self-regulatory organizations (``SROs'')
(subject to submission of an SRO rule proposal to the Commission
pursuant to Section 19(b) of the Exchange Act), stating that ``the
Commission continues to believe that, because the [SROs] represent
the interests of both issuers and brokers, they are in the best
position to make a fair allocation of all the expenses associated
with the amendments, including start-up and overhead costs.'' See
Securities Exchange Act Release No. 20021 (July 28, 1983), 48 FR
35082 (August 3, 1983); see also Securities Exchange Act Release No.
45644 (March 25, 2002), 67 FR 15440, 15440, n.8 (April 1, 2002)
(order approving NYSE program revising reimbursement rates) (``2002
Approval Order'').
    \11\ See NYSE Rule 451.93.
    \12\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 70720 (October 18,
2013), 78 FR 63530, 63531 (October 24, 2013) (order approving an
amendment to the fees set forth in NYSE Rules 451 and 465).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The vast majority of broker-dealers that distribute issuer proxy
and other materials to beneficial owners are entitled to reimbursement
at the NYSE fee schedule rates because most are NYSE members, and those
that are not are members of the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority
(``FINRA''), which has similar rules.\13\ Over time, NYSE member
organizations increasingly have outsourced their proxy delivery and
other distribution obligations to third-party service providers, which
are generally called ``intermediaries,'' rather than handling this
processing internally.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ See FINRA Rule 2251. See also Proxy Concept Release, 75 FR
at 42995, n.110.
    \14\ See 2002 Approval Order, 67 FR at 15540. According to the
NYSE, this shift was attributable to the fact that NYSE member firms
believed that these distributions were not a core broker-dealer
business and that capital could be better used elsewhere. Id. At the
present time, a single intermediary, Broadridge Financial Solutions,
Inc. (``Broadridge''), handles almost all processing and
distribution of proxy and other material to beneficial owners
holding shares in the United States. See Notice, 81 FR at 56719; see
also Proxy Concept Release, 75 FR at 42988, n. 57, and at 42996,
n.129.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition to the distribution of proxy materials, the
reimbursement rates set forth in NYSE Rule 451 apply to the
distribution of annual and semi-annual shareholder reports.\15\ In this
regard, the reimbursement rates set forth in Rule 451 apply to the
distribution of investment company (``fund'') shareholder reports and
other materials to the beneficial owners of fund shares.\16\ For
example, as the Exchange noted, a fund pays an interim report fee of 15
cents per account when a broker distributes an annual or semi-annual
report to the accounts of shareholders holding its shares as beneficial
owners. Funds also pay a preference management fee of 10 cents for
every account with respect to which a member organization has
eliminated the need to send paper materials.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ See NYSE Rules 451.10 and 451.90(3); see also NYSE Rule 465
(Processing and Transmission of Interim Reports and Other Material).
    \16\ See Notice, 81 FR at 56718. In its filing, NYSE stated that
mutual funds are not listed on NYSE but that the fees in Rule 451
are applied by NYSE members in relation to distributions in
beneficial owners of mutual funds and operating company shares. See
also 402.07 (A) under the NYSE's Listed Company Manual, which states
that Exchange Rules 450-460 apply to both listed and unlisted
securities unless the context otherwise limits application.
    \17\ See NYSE Rule 451.90(4); see also Notice, 81 FR at 56718.
The preference management fee applies to each shareholder account
for which the nominee has eliminated the need to send materials in
paper format through the mails or by courier service. See NYSE Rule
451.90(4); see also Notice, 81 FR at 56719.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    While NYSE Rule 451 also establishes the fees that member firms can
charge issuers for proxy materials distributed
through the notice and access method,\18\ those fees would not apply to
the

electronic distribution of investment company shareholder reports. With
respect to notice and access distributions of proxy materials, NYSE
Rule 451 sets forth an incremental, tiered fee structure based on the
number of nominee broker-dealer accounts through which the issuer's
securities are beneficially owned.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ See NYSE Rule 451.90(3); see also Notice, 81 FR at 56718.
Pursuant to Rule 14a-16 under the Exchange Act, issuers may
distribute proxy material electronically through the ``notice and
access'' method. See 17 CFR 240.14a-16; see also Proxy Concept
Release, 75 FR at 42986, n.32. The ``notice and access'' method for
proxy distributions permits issuers to send shareholders what is
called a ``Notice of Internet Availability of Proxy Materials'' in
lieu of the traditional paper mailing of proxy materials. See Proxy
Concept Release, 75 FR at 42986, n.32. The notice and access model
works in tandem with electronic delivery--although an issuer
electing to send a notice in lieu of a full proxy package would be
required to send a paper copy of that notice, it may send that
notice electronically to a shareholder who has provided to its
broker an affirmative consent to electronic delivery. Id.
    \19\ Specifically, when an issuer elects to utilize notice and
access for a proxy distribution, there is an incremental fee based
on all nominee accounts through which the issuer's securities are
beneficially owned as follows: (1) 25 cents for each account up to
10,000 accounts; (2) 20 cents for each account over 10,000 accounts,
up to 100,000 accounts; (3) 15 cents for each account over 100,000
accounts, up to 200,000 accounts; (4) 10 cents for each account over
200,000 accounts, up to 500,000 accounts; (5) 5 cents for each
account over 500,000 accounts. Under this schedule, every issuer
will pay the tier one rate for the first 10,000 accounts, or portion
thereof, with decreasing rates applicable only on additional
accounts in the additional tiers. See NYSE Rule 451.90(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On May 20, 2015, the Commission proposed new Rule 30e-3 under the
Investment Company Act, which, among other things, would permit, but
not require, funds to satisfy their annual and semi-annual shareholder
report delivery obligations by making shareholder reports available
electronically on a Web site.\20\ Funds relying on this provision would
be required, among other things, to meet conditions relating to the
provision of notice to shareholders of the internet availability of
shareholder reports.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ See Notice, 81 FR at 56718; see also Securities Act Release
No. 9776, Securities Exchange Act Release No. 75002, Investment
Company Act Release No. 316180, 80 FR 33590 (June 12, 2015)
(Investment Company Reporting Modernization; Proposed Rule).
    \21\ See Notice, 81 FR at 56718.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Proposed Changes to NYSE Rule 451.90(5)

    Accordingly, the Exchange has proposed to amend Rule 451.90(5) to
specify that the notice and access fees set forth therein for
distribution of proxy materials also will be charged with respect to
distributions of fund shareholder reports pursuant to any notice and
access rules adopted by the Commission in relation to such
distributions.\22\ The Exchange noted that the notice and access
process under proposed Rule 30e-3 is similar to the existing proxy
notice and access process for which the Exchange has already adopted a
fee schedule in Rule 451, and thus the Exchange believes that it would
be appropriate to apply the existing notice and access fees, with
certain modifications, to fund shareholder report distributions, if the
Commission ultimately adopts proposed Rule 30e-3.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ See proposed NYSE Rule 451.90(5).
    \23\ See Notice, 81 FR at 56718-19. The Exchange stated that the
proposed notice and access fees for fund distributions will be
effective only if the Commission adopts Rule 30e-3. See Notice, 81
FR at 56718, n.8.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange also has proposed to set forth in Rule 451 that the
notice and access fee will not be charged for any account with respect
to which a fund pays a ``preference management fee'' in connection with
a distribution of fund reports.\24\ As a result, funds would be charged
notice and access fees only with respect to accounts that actually
receive a notice and access mailing.\25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ See proposed Rule 451.90(5).
    \25\ See Notice, 81 FR at 56719. The Exchange stated that this
is a departure from the current practice under NYSE Rule 451.90(5),
where an issuer utilizing notice and access for proxy distributions
pays the notice and access fee for all shareholder accounts,
including those for which it also pays a preference management fee.
Id. See also supra note 17 (describing the current application of
the preference management fee).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, because funds often issue multiple classes of shares,
the Exchange believes it is necessary to be clear how the pricing tiers
in Rule 451 would be applied to fund shareholder reports.\26\
Specifically, the Exchange has proposed to set forth in Rule 451 that,
in calculating the rates at which a fund will be charged notice and
access fees for shareholder report distributions, all accounts holding
shares of any class of stock of the fund eligible to receive the same
report distribution will be aggregated in determining the appropriate
pricing tier.\27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ See Notice, 81 FR at 56719.
    \27\ See proposed Rule 451.90(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Summary of Comments Received

    As noted above, the Commission received a total of fourteen comment
letters on the Exchange's proposed rule change.\28\ In general,
commenters broadly supported the proposed rule change.\29\ Two
commenters, however, expressed concern about making a determination on
the fees without a final Commission rule in place that permitted notice
and access for fund report distributions.\30\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ See supra note 4.
    \29\ Id.
    \30\ See SIFMA Letter; Broadridge Letter.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Several commenters took the position that the proposed rates set
forth in NYSE's proposal would help realize the cost savings meant to
be achieved through notice and access delivery of fund shareholder
reports.\31\ Some pointed out that shareholder report delivery is an
expense that fund shareholders bear, and asserted that the cost savings
would directly benefit fund shareholders.\32\ One commenter also noted
that the three changes being proposed by the NYSE would resolve
ambiguity in the NYSE's fee schedule as it would apply to notice and
access delivery of fund shareholder reports, potentially paving the way
for the Commission to move forward with its proposal.\33\ According to
this commenter, the NYSE's proposal would ensure significant cost
savings for fund shareholders if the Commission were to adopt a notice
and access proposal.\34\ This commenter also suggested that, absent
NYSE's proposed rule change, these cost savings could be erased.\35\
Similarly, another commenter asserted that, absent adoption of NYSE's
proposal, Rule 451 would be applied in a manner that diminished Rule
30e-3 shareholder cost savings, or even increased shareholder
costs.\36\ In addition, this commenter was of the view that each
element of proposed Rule 451.90(5) was logical and fair.\37\ Another
commenter believed that the proposed rule would ensure cost savings
under proposed Rule 30e-3 and provide needed explanation on how Rule
451 would apply to electronic delivery of fund shareholder reports.\38\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \31\ See ICI Letter; Eaton Vance Letter; Vanguard Letter;
Blackrock Letter; Invesco Letter; IDC Letter; Dimensional Letter;
MFS Letter; Blackrock Directors Letter.
    \32\ See ICI Letter; Blackrock Directors Letter; Blackrock
Letter; Invesco Letter; Colombia Letter.
    \33\ See ICI Letter. See also MFS Letter (stating that NYSE's
proposal would clarify certain ambiguities of Rule 451 and provide a
reasonable means of conformance to proposed Rule 30e-3).
    \34\ See ICI Letter.
    \35\ Id. See also Eaton Vance Letter.
    \36\ See MFS Letter.
    \37\ Id.
    \38\ See Vanguard Letter.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Two commenters, however, expressed concerns about commenting on the
NYSE fee proposal before proposed Rule 30e-3 was finally adopted. One
commenter indicated that it could not definitively conclude whether the
proposed fee structure was appropriate without a final rule specifying
the details of the broker-dealer processing requirements for notice and
access delivery.\39\ Another commenter, the largest provider of
shareholder communication services, stated that it performed an
analysis in order to estimate the costs of a notice and access
distribution of fund shareholder reports, but noted that it had to make
certain assumptions that could change based on the final requirements
of proposed Rule 30e-3.\40\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \39\ See SIFMA Letter.
    \40\ See Broadridge Letter. While the commenter stated that
NYSE's proposal would generally support the development of notice
and access services for annual and semi-annual fund reports held by
beneficial owners, the commenter noted that ultimately the work and
costs involved are dependent on several factors including the final
requirements of proposed Rule 30e-3, the number and size of fund
distributions pursuant to a notice and access method, and the number
and mode of investor requests for hard copy reports.

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

    Finally, several commenters commented on issues concerning the fees
and the Exchange's role in setting those fees that are outside the
scope of the Exchange's proposal.\41\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \41\ Several commenters supported the transition of
responsibility for setting shareholder distribution fees from the
NYSE to FINRA. See ICI Letter; Ariel Letter; T. Rowe Letter; MFS
Letter; Invesco Letter; Dimensional Letter; Columbia Letter. The
other comments outside the scope of the proposal are as follows:
Invesco Letter (the reasonableness and application of the current
fee structure); Ariel Letter (reasonableness of the current fee
structure); Columbia Letter (reasonableness of the current fee
structure); MFS Letter (preference management fee in the context of
managed accounts); Dimensional Letter (due to a virtual monopoly in
the market for third-party service providers, funds have little to
no control over the fees incurred for shareholder report
distribution). Further, the Blackrock Directors Letter commented
about providing a one year or reasonable transition period for to
shift to on-line delivery of reports and providing a phone number
for shareholders to call if they prefer to receive paper. We note
that this comment also does not refer to the NYSE fee proposal being
considered herein.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Discussion and Commission Findings

    After careful review, the Commission finds that the proposed rule
change is consistent with the requirements of the Exchange Act and
rules and regulations thereunder applicable to a national securities
exchange.\42\ In particular, the Commission finds that the proposed
rule change is consistent with Section 6(b)(4) of the Exchange Act,\43\
which requires that an exchange have rules that provide for the
equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees and other charges among
its members, issuers and other persons using its facilities; Section
6(b)(5) of the Exchange Act,\44\ which requires that the rules of an
exchange be designed, among other things, to prevent fraudulent and
manipulative acts and practices, to promote just and equitable
principles of trade, to remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism
of a free and open market and a national market system and, in general,
to protect investors and the public interest, and not be designed to
permit unfair discrimination between customers, issuers, brokers or
dealers; and Section 6(b)(8) of the Exchange Act,\45\ which prohibits
any exchange rule from imposing a burden on competition that is not
necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the Exchange Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \42\ In approving the proposed rule changes, the Commission has
considered their impact on efficiency, competition, and capital
formation. See 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).
    \43\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).
    \44\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
    \45\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(8).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Under the Exchange's proposal, the reimbursement rates set forth in
NYSE Rule 451.90(5), which currently only apply to proxy distributions
where the issuer elects to use notice and access, would become
applicable to distributions of fund shareholder reports, pursuant to
any notice and access rules adopted by the Commission.\46\ Although the
Commission has not adopted a notice and access rule, the Commission
believes that it is appropriate and consistent with the Exchange Act to
have in place rules that set forth the maximum reimbursement rates that
funds may be charged for notice and access distributions should the
Commission adopt a notice and access rule for fund shareholder reports.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \46\ See proposed NYSE Rule 451.90(5). The Commission notes that
the proposed fees for notice and access delivery of fund shareholder
reports would only become applicable if the Commission adopts rules
providing for notice and access delivery of investment company
shareholder reports. Such rules could be in the form of Rule 30e-3,
if adopted, or another Commission rulemaking establishing notice and
access as an acceptable distribution method for fund reports, should
Rule 30e-3 not be adopted.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission believes that the application of the currently
approved reimbursement rates for notice and access proxy distributions
to fund shareholder report distributions, with the proposed amendments
described herein, should establish a reasonable and practical
reimbursement structure, if notice and access distribution of fund
shareholder reports is authorized. In this regard, the Commission notes
that the notice and access process for proxy distributions is similar
in many respects to the notice and access process for fund shareholder
report distributions proposed under Rule 30e-3.\47\ In addition, the
approval of the NYSE's fee proposal should facilitate any future
Commission consideration of notice and access distributions for fund
shareholder reports, by providing clarity on the maximum reimbursement
rates for such distributions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \47\ See Notice, 81 FR at 56718-19.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission also believes that it is reasonable and appropriate
for proposed Rule 451.90(5) to specify that funds utilizing notice and
access will not be charged a notice and access fee for any account with
respect to which they are being charged a preference management fee in
connection with a distribution of shareholder reports. Today under NYSE
Rule 451.90(4), issuers, including funds, are charged a preference
management fee for each account for which the need to send materials in
paper format through the mails (or by courier service) has been
eliminated.\48\ In the context of notice and access distributions of
proxy materials under Rule 451.90(5), however, issuers are charged a
notice and access fee for all accounts through which the issuer's
securities are beneficially owned, with the result that issuers could
be charged both preference management fees and notice and access fees
with respect to the same account. The Exchange's proposal would
eliminate this potential double-charging in the context of fund
distributions of shareholder reports, in that the notice and access fee
will not be charged for any account for which a preference management
fee is already paid due to the elimination of the need for a paper
mailing.\49\ The Commission understands that the preference management
fee generally is intended to reimburse intermediaries for the
processing work and costs involved in keeping track of each account
holder's election to eliminate paper mailings.\50\ Accordingly, as the
Exchange noted, funds will only pay notice and access fees with respect
to accounts that actually receive notice and access mailings.\51\ The
Commission believes that this result is consistent with Section 6(b) of
the Exchange Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \48\ See Notice, 81 FR at 56719; see also NYSE Rule 451.90(4);
Securities Exchange Act Release No. 68936 (February 15, 2013), 78 FR
12381, 12386 (``2013 Proxy Fee Notice'').
    \49\ See supra note 17. For example, if a beneficial account
holder has affirmatively consented to receive fund shareholder
material electronically, such accounts would, under the NYSE's
proposal, be charged a preference management fee, but not a notice
and access fee, since no paper mailings of a notice of internet
availability would be sent to such account holder.
    \50\ See 2013 Proxy Fee Notice, 78 FR at 12386.
    \51\ See Notice, 81 FR at 56719.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, the Commission believes that it is consistent with the
Exchange Act for proposed Rule 451.90(5) to clarify that, in
determining the appropriate pricing tier for notice and access fees in
connection with investment company shareholder report distributions,
all accounts holding shares of any share class that is eligible to
receive the same report distribution will be aggregated. This
clarification should resolve the ambiguity as to whether pricing tiers
would be calculated by share class, resulting in potentially higher
fees than if the accounts are aggregated as proposed. The Commission
further believes this clarification is reasonable because it

recognizes the unique nature of the fund industry in treating
distributions with respect to a common group of shareholders as a
single distribution for purposes of the fee tiers.
    The Commission understands that, in setting the reimbursement rates
in Rule 451.90, the Exchange balances the competing interests of
issuers who must pay for distributions of shareholder reports and
brokers who need assurance of adequate reimbursement for making such
distributions on their behalf.\52\ The Commission notes that all
commenters broadly supported NYSE's proposal.\53\ As discussed above,
two commenters expressed some concern with assessing the details of the
NYSE's proposal before a final decision is made on proposed Rule 30e-3.
However, given that the Exchange's rule is applicable to the
``distribution of investment company shareholder reports pursuant to
any `notice and access' rules adopted by the [Commission] in relation
to such distributions'' as well as the functional similarities between
notice and access processing for proxy and investment company report
distributions,\54\ the Commission believes, for the reasons discussed
above, that it is appropriate at this time to approve substantially
similar reimbursement rates, with the proposed amendments described
herein, which should establish a reasonable and practical reimbursement
structure, if notice and access distribution of investment company
shareholder reports is authorized.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \52\ The Commission notes that the Exchange and certain
commenters suggested that FINRA may be better positioned than the
Exchange to perform the regulatory role of setting the reimbursement
rates for mutual fund report distributions. See Notice, 81 FR at
56718; see also ICI Letter; Ariel Letter; T. Rowe Letter; MFS
Letter; Invesco Letter; Dimensional Letter; Columbia Letter. The
issue of whether FINRA would be better positioned than the Exchange
to perform this regulatory role is outside the scope of the
Commission's consideration of whether to approve the Exchange's
proposed rule change. See Section 19(b)(2)(C) of the Exchange Act
(``The Commission shall approve a proposed rule change of a self-
regulatory organization if it finds that such proposed rule change
is consistent with the requirements of this title and the rules and
regulations applicable to such organization.'').
    \53\ See supra note 4.
    \54\ See Broadridge Letter (stating that processing work for
investment company shareholder report distribution using notice and
access is functionally similar in many respects to proxy report
distribution through notice and access, although many of the
underlying systems and production operations would be different).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For the reasons discussed above, the Commission believes that the
proposed rule change is consistent with the Exchange Act.

V. Conclusion

    It is therefore ordered, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the
Exchange Act \55\ that the proposed rule change (SR-NYSE-2016-55) be,
and hereby is, approved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \55\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(2).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\56\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \56\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Brent J. Fields,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2016-28311 Filed 11-23-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 170 (Tuesday, September 5, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Page 41947]
[FR Doc No: 2017-18736]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. TS17-2-000]

American Municipal Power, Inc.; Notice of Filing

    Take notice that on August 28, 2017, pursuant to sections
35.28(e)(2)and 358.1(d) and Rules 101(e) and 207 of the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission's (Commission) Rules of Practice and
Procedure,\1\ American Municipal Power, Inc. filed a petition
requesting that the Commission waive reciprocity-based standards of
conduct and Open Access Same-Time Information System requirements that
might otherwise apply under Order Nos. 889 \2\ and 717.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 18 CFR 35.28(e)(2), 358.1(d), 385.101(e), 385.207.
    \2\ Open Access Same-Time Information System (formerly Real-Time
Information Networks) and Standards of Conduct, Order No. 889, 61 FR
21,737 (May 10, 1996), FERC Stats. & Regs. 31,035 (1996), clarified,
76 FERC 61,009 (1996), modified, Order No. 889-A, 62 FR 12,484 (Mar.
14, 1997), FERC Stats. & Regs. 31,049 (1997), reh'g denied, Order
No. 889-B, 81 FERC 61,253 (1997), aff'd in part and remanded in part
sub nom. Transmission Access Policy Study Grp. v. FERC, 225 F.3d 667
(D.C. Cir. 2000), aff'd sub nom. New York v. FERC, 535 U.S. 1
(2002).
    \3\ Standards of Conduct for Transmission Providers, Order No.
717, 73 FR 63,796 (Oct. 27, 2008), FERC Stats. & Regs. 31,280
(2008), on reh'g, Order No. 717-A, 74 FR 54,463 (Oct. 22, 2009),
FERC Stats. & Regs. 31,297 (2009), clarified, Order No. 717-B, 129
FERC 61,123 (2009), on reh'g, Order No. 717-C, 131 FERC 61,045
(2010), on reh'g and clarification, Order No. 717-D, 135 FERC 61,017
(2011).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to
be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the
proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of
intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices,
motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date. On or
before the comment date, it is not necessary to serve motions to
intervene or protests on persons other than the Applicant.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper using the eFiling link at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an
original and 5 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC
20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the
eLibrary link and is available for review in the Commission's Public
Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link on the
Web site that enables subscribers to receive email notification when a
document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with any
FERC Online service, please email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call
(866) 208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Comment Date: 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on September 18, 2017.

    Dated: August 29, 2017.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2017-18736 Filed 9-1-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 226 (Wednesday, November 23, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Page 84577]
[FR Doc No: 2016-28270]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2016-0385; FRL-9955-44]

FIFRA Scientific Advisory Panel; Notice of Rescheduled Public
Meeting

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Agency is issuing this notice to reschedule the 4-day
meeting of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act
Scientific Advisory Panel (FIFRA SAP) to consider and review a set of
scientific issues being evaluated by the Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) regarding EPA's evaluation of the carcinogenic potential
of glyphosate, a non-selective, phosphonomethyl amino acid herbicide
registered to control weeds in various agricultural and non-
agricultural settings.

DATES: The meeting will be held on December 13-16, 2016, from
approximately 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at the Environmental Protection
Agency, Conference Center, Lobby Level, One Potomac Yard (South Bldg.),
2777 S. Crystal Dr., Arlington, VA 22202.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Steven M. Knott, DFO, Office of
Science Coordination and Policy (7201M), Environmental Protection
Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001;
telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    The Agency is issuing this notice to reschedule the 4-day meeting
of the FIFRA SAP to consider and review a set of scientific issues
being evaluated by EPA regarding EPA's evaluation of the carcinogenic
potential of glyphosate, a non-selective, phosphonomethyl amino acid
herbicide registered to control weeds in various agricultural and non-
agricultural settings. The meeting was originally scheduled for October
18-21, 2016 as announced in the Federal Register on July 26, 2016 (81
FR 48794) (FRL 9949-22). The new meeting dates are December 13-16,
2016. For additional information, please visit the public docket for
this meeting at http://www.regulations.gov (Docket number EPA-HQ-OPP-
2016-0385), the FIFRA SAP Web site at http://www.epa.gov/sap or contact
the Designated Federal Official (DFO) listed under FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT.

    Authority: 7 U.S.C. 136 et. seq.; 21 U.S.C. 301 et seq.

    Dated: November 17, 2016.
Laura Bailey,
Acting Director, Office of Science Coordination and Policy.
[FR Doc. 2016-28270 Filed 11-22-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register: March 26, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 59)]
[Notices]
[Page 16020-16021]
[DOCID:fr26mr08-77]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2008-N-0170]

Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed Collection;
Comment Request; Premarket Notification for a New Dietary Ingredient

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing an
opportunity for public comment on the proposed collection of certain
information by the agency. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
(the PRA), Federal agencies are required to publish notice in the
Federal Register concerning each proposed collection of information,
including each proposed extension of an existing collection of
information, and to allow 60 days for public comment in response to the
notice. This notice solicits comments on the procedure by which a
manufacturer or distributor of dietary supplements or of a new dietary
ingredient is to submit to FDA information upon which the manufacturer
or distributor has based its conclusion that a dietary supplement
containing a new dietary ingredient will reasonably be expected to be
safe.

DATES: Submit written or electronic comments on the collection of
information by May 27, 2008.

ADDRESSES: Submit electronic comments on the collection of information
to http://www.regulations.gov. Submit written comments on the
collection of information to the Division of Dockets Management (HFA-
305), Food and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, rm. 1061,
Rockville, MD 20852. All comments should be identified with the docket
number found in brackets in the heading of this document.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jonna Capezzuto, Office of the Chief
Information Officer (HFA-250), Food and Drug Administration, 5600
Fishers Lane, Rockville, MD 20857,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Under the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), Federal
agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor.
``Collection of information'' is defined in 44 U.S.C. 3502(3) and 5 CFR
1320.3(c) and includes agency requests or requirements that members of
the public submit reports, keep records, or provide information to a
third party. Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A))
requires Federal agencies to provide a 60-day notice in the Federal
Register concerning each proposed collection of information, including
each proposed extension of an existing collection of information,
before submitting the collection to OMB for approval. To comply with
this requirement, FDA is publishing notice of the proposed collection
of information set forth in this document.
    With respect to the following collection of information, FDA
invites comments on these topics: (1) Whether the proposed collection
of information is necessary for the proper performance of FDA's
functions, including whether the information will have practical
utility; (2) the accuracy of FDA's estimate of the burden of the
proposed collection of information, including the validity of the
methodology and assumptions used; (3) ways to enhance the quality,
utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) ways
to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents,
including through the use of automated collection techniques, when
appropriate, and other forms of information technology.

Premarket Notification for a New Dietary Ingredient--21 CFR 190.6 (OMB
Control Number 0910-0330)--Extension

    Section 413(a) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the
act) (21 U.S.C. 350b(a)) provides that at least 75 days before the
introduction or delivery for introduction into interstate commerce of a
dietary supplement that contains a new dietary ingredient, a
manufacturer or distributor of dietary supplements or of a new dietary
ingredient is to submit to FDA (as delegate for the Secretary of Health
and Human Services) information upon which the manufacturer or
distributor has based its conclusion that a dietary supplement
containing a new dietary ingredient will reasonably be expected to be
safe. Part 190 (21 CFR part 190) implements these statutory provisions.
Section 190.6(a) requires each

manufacturer or distributor of a dietary supplement containing a new
dietary ingredient, or of a new dietary ingredient, to submit to the
Office of Nutrition, Labeling, and Dietary Supplements notification of
the basis for their conclusion that said supplement or ingredient will
reasonably be expected to be safe. Section 190.6(b) requires that the
notification include the following: (1) The complete name and address
of the manufacturer or distributor, (2) the name of the new dietary
ingredient, (3) a description of the dietary supplements that contain
the new dietary ingredient, and (4) the history of use or other
evidence of safety establishing that the dietary ingredient will
reasonably be expected to be safe.
    The notification requirements described previously are designed to
enable FDA to monitor the introduction into the food supply of new
dietary ingredients and dietary supplements that contain new dietary
ingredients, in order to protect consumers from unsafe dietary
supplements. FDA uses the information collected under these regulations
to help ensure that a manufacturer or distributor of a dietary
supplement containing a new dietary ingredient is in full compliance
with the act.
    FDA estimates the burden of this collection of information as
follows:

                                 Table 1.--Estimated Annual Reporting Burden\1\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                      No. of         Annual Frequency       Total Annual        Hours per
21 CFR Section     Respondents         per Response          Responses           Response         Total Hours
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
190.6                          71                     1                 71                 20              1,420
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ There are no capital costs or operating and maintenance costs associated with this collection of
  information.

    The agency believes that there will be minimal burden on the
industry to generate data to meet the requirements of the premarket
notification program because the agency is requesting only that
information that the manufacturer or distributor should already have
developed to satisfy itself that a dietary supplement containing a new
dietary ingredient is in full compliance with the act. However, the
agency estimates that extracting and summarizing the relevant
information from the company's files and presenting it in a format that
will meet the requirements of section 413 of the act will require a
burden of approximately 20 hours of work per submission.
    The estimated number of premarket notifications and hours per
response is an average based on the agency's experience with
notifications received during the last 3 years (i.e., 2005, 2006, and
2007), and information from firms that have submitted recent premarket
notifications.
    Please note that on January 15, 2008, the FDA Division of Dockets
Management Web site transitioned to the Federal Dockets Management
System (FDMS). FDMS is a Government-wide, electronic docket management
system. Electronic comments or submissions will be accepted by FDA
through FDMS only.

    Dated: March 19, 2008.
Jeffrey Shuren,
Associate Commissioner for Policy and Planning.
[FR Doc. E8-6061 Filed 3-25-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4160-01-S