[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 43 (Wednesday, March 5, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 12547-12550]
[FR Doc No: 2014-04795]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-71626; File No. SR-FINRA-2013-051]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Financial Industry Regulatory
Authority, Inc.; Order Approving Proposed Rule Change To Amend the
Uniform Branch Office Registration Form (Form BR)

February 27, 2014.

I. Introduction

    On November 25, 2013, the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority,
Inc. (``FINRA'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') the proposed rule change to amend the Uniform Branch
Office Registration Form (``Form BR'') pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (``Act'')\1\ and Rule 19b-4
thereunder.\2\ The proposed rule change was published for comment in
the Federal Register on December 13, 2013.\3\ The Commission received
three comment letters on the proposed rule change.\4\ On January 21,
2013 FINRA responded to the comment letters.\5\ On January 23, 2014,
the Commission extended the time period within which the Commission
must approve the proposed rule change, disapprove the proposed rule
change, or institute proceedings to determine whether to disapprove the
proposed rule change.\6\ 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. 71027 (December 9,
2013), 78 FR 75954 (``Notice'').
    \4\ See Letter from Jason Doss, President, Public Investors
Arbitration Bar Association to Elizabeth M. Murphy, Secretary,
Commission, dated January 2, 2014 (``PIABA Letter''); Letter from
Clifford Kirsch and Eric A. Arnold, Sutherland Asbill & Brennan LLP,
on behalf of the Committee of Annuity Insurers to Elizabeth M.
Murphy, Secretary, Commission, dated January 3, 2014 (``CAI
Letter''); Letter from David T. Bellaire, Esq., Executive Vice
President & General Counsel, Financial Services Institute to
Elizabeth M. Murphy, Secretary, Commission, dated January 3, 2014
(``FSI Letter'').
    \5\ See Letter from Kosha Dalal, Associate Vice President and
Associate General Counsel, FINRA, to Elizabeth M. Murphy, Secretary,
Commission, dated January 21, 2014 (``FINRA Response Letter'').
    \6\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 71373, 79 FR 4788
(January 29, 2014)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Description

Proposed Amendments

    Form BR is used by firms to register their branch offices with
FINRA, the New York Stock Exchange (``NYSE''), and participating states
via the Central Registration Depository (``CRD[supreg]''). Form BR
enables a firm: (1) To register a branch office, (2) amend a
registration, (3) close or terminate a registration, or (4) withdraw a
filing in the appropriate participating jurisdiction and self-
regulatory organization (``SRO'').
    In concert with a committee of regulatory and industry
representatives, FINRA recently undertook a review of Form BR. As a
result of this review, FINRA is proposing to amend Form BR to: (1)
Eliminate Section 6 (NYSE Branch Information), which is currently
applicable only to NYSE-registered firms; (2) add questions relating to
space sharing arrangements and the location of books and records that
are currently only in Section 6 and make them applicable to all
members; (3) modify existing questions and instructions to provide more
detailed selections for describing the types of activities conducted at
the branch office; (4) add an optional question to identify a branch
office as an ``Office of Municipal Supervisory Jurisdiction,'' as
defined under the rules of the Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board
(MSRB); and (5) make other technical changes to adopt uniform
terminology and clarify questions and instructions (collectively, the
proposed amendments to Form BR are hereinafter referred to as the
``Updated Form BR'').
    Delete Section 6 while Adding Questions on Space Sharing
Arrangements and Location of Books and Records. Currently only NYSE-
registered firms are required to complete and update Section 6 and are
the only firms that can view Section 6 on the CRD system. Section 6 of
Form BR allowed NYSE to administer a pre-approval process for
registration of certain branch offices that was in place at the time
Form BR was implemented.\7\ However, following the NASD/NYSE regulatory
consolidation, in an effort to eliminate disparate regulatory
standards, the NYSE amended NYSE Rule 342 to change its branch office

registration requirement from a pre-approval process to a notice-filing
requirement.\8\ Therefore, FINRA is proposing to delete this
section.\9\ However, FINRA is proposing to retain questions from
Section 6 relating to space sharing arrangements and the location of
books and records and add them to proposed Section 4 (Branch Office
Arrangements) of the Updated Form BR.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ In 2005 when Form BR was implemented, NYSE Rule 342
(Offices--Approval, Supervision and Control) required approval of
new branch office registrations, and NYSE Rule 343 (Offices--Sole
Tenancy, Hours, Display of Membership Certificates) required
approval of space sharing arrangements, before the branch office was
able to conduct business.
    \8\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 56143 (July 26,
2007), 72 FR 42453 (August 2, 2007) (Notice of Filing and Immediate
Effectiveness of File No. SR-NYSE-2007-59).
    \9\ The proposed revisions will also remove references to the
NYSE-specific terms from the form.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Specifically, FINRA is proposing to add a question to Section 4 of
the Updated Form BR that will require members to disclose if the branch
office occupies, shares space with or jointly markets with any other
investment-related entity, and if the answer is yes, to provide the
name of the entity.\10\ In addition, FINRA is proposing to add a
question to Section 4 regarding whether the books and records
pertaining to the registered branch office are maintained at any
location other than that branch office, the main office or office of
supervisory jurisdiction (OSJ) (if applicable). If the answer is yes, a
member will need to provide the address of such location and the name
and telephone number of a contact person.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ The term ``investment-related'' is defined in Form BR as
``[p]ertains to securities, commodities, banking, insurance, or real
estate (including, but not limited to, acting as or being associated
with a Broker-Dealer, issuer, investment company, Investment
Adviser, futures sponsor, bank, or savings association).''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Modify Existing Question on ``Types of Activities''. FINRA is
proposing to move questions relating to ``Types of Activities''
occurring at the branch office from Section 3 (Other Business/Names/Web
sites) to Section 2 (Registration/Notice Filing/Type of Office/
Activities) of the Updated Form BR and to expand the list of activity
types that may be selected to: (1) Include Retail and Institutional (as
types of Sales Activity), Public Finance, and Other; (2) add
``Trading'' to the existing Market Making activity; and (3) combine
Investment Banking and Underwriting, which are now listed separately.
In addition, FINRA is proposing to add ``Public Finance'' as an option
to enable members and regulators to identify via the Updated Form BR
office locations that require a Municipal Securities Principal (Series
53).
    Modify Supervisor/Person-in-Charge Details. FINRA is proposing to
expand the supervisor and person-in-charge details provided by firms in
Section 2 of the Updated Form BR, to enable firms (at their option) to
provide the ``type of activity'' associated with each on-site
supervisor or person-in-charge listed.
    Add Optional MSRB Branch Office of Municipal Supervisory
Jurisdiction Question. FINRA is proposing to add an optional question
to Section 2 to the Updated Form BR to provide FINRA members that are
also registered with the MSRB a means to track their OMSJs through a
standard CRD report that FINRA expects to develop following the
deployment of the Updated Form BR.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ FINRA is proposing technical and clarifying changes to
General and Specific Instructions, Explanation of Terms and Sections
of the Updated Form BR. See Notice at 75956--75957.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    No Requirement to Submit Amended Forms BR by a Date Certain. FINRA
is proposing that members with existing registered branch offices not
be required to file an Updated Form BR for existing offices immediately
upon deployment of the amended form, but will be required to provide
the new information items on the Updated Form BR when the members are
otherwise required to amend the form to update existing information
items that have become inaccurate or incomplete. FINRA represents that
it expects to evaluate the number of registered branch offices of FINRA
members for which an Updated Form BR has not been filed one year after
it deploys the form. If a significant number of registered branch
offices has not filed the information through an amendment during that
year, FINRA may consider imposing a deadline for providing the proposed
new information.

III. Summary of Comment Letters and FINRA's Response

    The Commission received three comment letters on the proposed rule
change.\12\ All three commenters expressed overall support for the
intent of proposed amendments to the Form BR.\13\ In particular, one
commenter noted that it supports the changes to Form BR because they
will make the branch office registration process more efficient and add
clarity to the questions currently asked on the form.\14\ Another
commenter similarly stated that it supports the increased efficiency of
the streamlined Updated Form BR.\15\ Two commenters, however, raised
concerns about specific aspects of the proposed rule change as
discussed below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ See note 4, supra.
    \13\ See PIABA Letter, CAI Letter, and FSI Letter.
    \14\ See FSI Letter, at 1.
    \15\ See PIABA Letter.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

A. Space Sharing Arrangements

    The Updated Form BR proposes to add a question about space sharing
arrangements at the branch office. Specifically, the proposed space
sharing arrangements question in Section 4 of the Updated Form BR
(``Question 4A'') asks ``[d]oes this branch office occupy or share
space with or jointly market with any other investment-related
entity?'' If the answer is ``yes,'' a member firm must provide the CRD
number (if applicable) and name of the investment-related entity and
select the type of investment-related entity. The term ``investment-
related'' is defined in Section 1 (Explanation of Terms) of the Updated
Form BR to mean, ``pertains to securities, commodities, banking,
insurance, or real-estate (including, but not limited to, acting as or
being associated with a Broker-Dealer, issuer, investment company,
Investment Adviser, futures sponsor, bank or savings association).''
    One commenter expressed support for the proposed space sharing
arrangements question and stated, ``[i]n addition to the increased
efficiency of the streamlined Updated Form BR, the inclusion of details
in the proposed form as to space sharing arrangements and locations of
office records provide additional important information to the
investing public.''Sec.  \16\ Two commenters, however, expressed
concern regarding proposed Question 4A.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ See PIABA Letter, at 1.
    \17\ See FSI Letter and CAI Letter.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    One commenter specifically noted that if space sharing arrangements
exist at a branch office, then firms must provide the name, CRD number,
and type of entity.\18\ The commenter explained that for independent
firms, space sharing arrangements are not an uncommon practice and may
include several different ``doing business as'' (DBA) entities.\19\ The
commenter stated that because these different DBA businesses and
entities may change frequently, it could be difficult for firms to have
to monitor and update this information on Updated Form BR.\20\ The
commenter further noted that this information would not have been
particularly burdensome for the business model of NYSE-registered firms
under the current Form BR, but the proposed changes introduce
challenges for independent firms.\21\ The commenter stated that it does
not believe that the burden of providing this

information outweighs the benefit to investors or regulators.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ See FSI Letter, at 2-3.
    \19\ Id.
    \20\ Id. at 3.
    \21\ Id.
    \22\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Another commenter also expressed concern about the information
proposed to be collected under Updated Form BR Question 4A.\23\ The
commenter argued that FINRA has underestimated the challenges and
expenses that firms such as insurance-affiliated broker-dealers would
incur to disclose the insurance entities with which they have entered
into space-sharing and joint marketing arrangements.\24\ The commenter
explained that such information is not readily maintained by insurance-
affiliated and other types of member firms and collecting the
information could prove to be burdensome.\25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ See CAI Letter.
    \24\ See CAI Letter, at 2.
    \25\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The commenter also stated that the Updated Form BR was unclear with
regard to the scope of a broker-dealer's obligation to identify
insurance entities with which it ``jointly markets'' products.\26\ The
commenter states that it is unclear whether the Updated Form BR is
focusing solely on joint marketing and space sharing with insurance
intermediaries or also insurance product issuers.\27\ The commenter
explained that the Updated Form BR could be read to require a firm to
report ``every insurance product manufacturer that each branch office
is authorized to offer if this is viewed as `jointly marketing' the
insurance products with the issuing insurer.''Sec.  \28\ The commenter
questioned how this detailed information would be useful to
regulators.\29\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ Id.
    \27\ Id.
    \28\ Id.
    \29\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In response to commenters' concerns regarding the information
proposed to be collected with regard to space sharing arrangements,
FINRA clarified that members that were not previously required to
complete Section 6 will be required to provide the name, CRD number and
type of investment-related entity with which a branch office occupies
space on the Updated Form BR.\30\ FINRA explained that the CRD system
will automatically complete the CRD number field (if applicable) when
the name of the investment-related entity is entered on the Updated
Form BR and vice versa, and that a member firm will not be required to
seek out the CRD number, if applicable, for each investment-related
entity with which the branch office shares space.\31\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \30\ See FINRA Response Letter, at 3-4.
    \31\ Id. at 3-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FINRA also addressed that commenters' concerns regarding the burden
of collecting and monitoring information relating to space sharing
arrangements at each branch office, particularly for member firms in
the independent broker-dealer channel and stated that the concerns stem
from a misunderstanding regarding the scope of the proposed question on
space sharing arrangements.\32\ FINRA explained that Question 4A on the
Updated Form BR seeks to elicit information regarding investment-
related businesses that jointly occupy office space with the branch
office.\33\ FINRA also clarified that the term ``jointly markets,'' as
used in proposed Question 4A, does not require disclosure of each
insurance product manufacturer that each branch office is authorized to
offer, but instead seeks disclosure regarding other investment-related
businesses that operate or jointly market business services out of the
same physical space as the registered branch office.\34\ FINRA
explained that the question is meant to capture, for example, instances
where a registered representative at a registered branch office also
operates an insurance business out of that same physical location, a
registered branch office location jointly occupies the physical space
with an investment adviser, or the registered branch office jointly
markets the location with other investment-related entities as offering
services.\35\ Given the more limited scope of proposed Question 4A,
FINRA stated that it believes compliance burdens associated with the
proposed question are more limited in nature.\36\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \32\ Id. at 4.
    \33\ Id.
    \34\ Id.
    \35\ Id.
    \36\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FINRA also stated that the question about proposed space sharing
arrangements serves a valuable regulatory purpose in that it will
collect basic information on space sharing arrangements that will
enable regulators to conduct more focused, risk-based examinations
based on a more complete understanding of the activities occurring at
each branch office, and also should highlight for members the potential
issues, such as, conflicts of interest, customer confusion,
recordkeeping, and other concerns that may arise when one location is
used for multiple business purposes.\37\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \37\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In response to commenters' assertions that it had failed to take
into account the potential costs and burdens to member firms associated
with proposed Question 4A, FINRA noted that current Question 4A on Form
BR elicits information regarding space sharing arrangements with a
bank, saving bank, saving association, credit union, or other federally
insured depository institution and, therefore, member firms not
previously subject to Section 6 of Form BR are nonetheless currently
providing information relating to these more limited space sharing
arrangements.\38\ Further, FINRA noted that member firms already should
have information regarding outside business activities and space
sharing arrangements at each registered branch office available to
enable them to engage in effective supervision and inspections of
branch offices.\39\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \38\ Id.
    \39\ Id. FINRA also noted that the commenters, while expressing
concerns regarding potential burdens and costs associated with the
proposal, did not provide any specific estimates of compliance costs
in support of their claims. Id. at 4-5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Technical Comments

    One commenter suggested two technical changes to proposed Section 4
of the Updated Form BR.\40\ First, the commenter recommended that FINRA
clarify that the CRD number requested in Section 4(a) is not the CRD
Branch Number but rather the CRD number of the investment-related
entity (if applicable).\41\ Second, the commenter recommended that
FINRA revise the column in Section 4(a) currently titled ``Name'' to
``Name of Investment Related Entity'' for additional clarity.\42\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \40\ See CAI Letter, at 3.
    \41\ Id.
    \42\ Id. CAI also questioned whether the Form BR Working Group
included insurance affiliated broker-dealers and fully considered
how the Updated Form BR might affect such member firms' sale of
insurance products. See CAI Letter, at p. 3. In response, FINRA
explained that the Form BR Working Group consisted of
representatives from a diverse cross-section of the securities
industry and state regulators, including representatives from
independent broker-dealer member firms, many of which sell insurance
products. See FINRA Response Letter, at 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In response to the commenter's first suggestion, FINRA advised that
Section 4A elicits the CRD number of the investment-related entity (if
applicable).\43\ With regard to the commenter's second comment, FINRA
stated that, by expressly using the term ``investment-related entity,''
in the Instructions to Section 4A, it believes that member firms should
not be confused regarding the entity about which they are being asked
to provide information.\44\ FINRA further stated that to the extent
member firms have

questions when completing this Section, FINRA staff will provide
guidance as necessary, including in the regulatory notice announcing
approval of the rule change.\45\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \43\ See FINRA Response Letter, at 5.
    \44\ Id.
    \45\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. Implementation Timeline

    One commenter expressed concern that the proposal does not impose
an affirmative duty for members to submit the Updated Form BR by a date
certain, and that the proposed implementation timeframe would require
members to complete the proposed new questions only when a member
firm's existing information on file has become inaccurate or
incomplete.\46\ The commenter believes that this vague standard would
invite unnecessary problems and urged the Commission to require that
all members submit completed Forms BR by a date certain.\47\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \46\ The Commission notes that member firms have a continuing
obligation to promptly update Form BR whenever the information
becomes inaccurate or incomplete.
    \47\ See PIABA Letter, at 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Another commenter requested that FINRA provide member firms a
significant amount of time before the effective date of the proposed
requirements to allow them to prepare for the process of collecting the
newly required information.\48\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \48\ See CAI Letter, at 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In response to these comments, FINRA stated that it believes that
the proposed implementation timeline is reasonable and strikes the
correct balance, especially in light of the clarification provided
above regarding the scope of the proposed question on space sharing
arrangements.\49\ FINRA asserted that it proposed a flexible approach
to implementation to limit the burden on member firms.\50\ FINRA also
noted, however, that it will evaluate the number of registered branch
offices of FINRA member firms for which an Updated Form BR has not been
filed one year after deployment and may consider imposing a deadline
for providing the new information if a significant number of registered
branch offices has not filed the Updated Form BR in the ordinary
course.\51\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \49\ See FINRA Response Letter, at 5.
    \50\ Id.
    \51\ Id. at 5-6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Discussion and Commission Findings

    After carefully considering the proposal, the comments submitted,
and FINRA's response to the comments, the Commission finds that the
proposed rule change is consistent with the requirements of the Act and
the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to a national
securities association.\52\ In particular, the Commission finds that
the proposed rule change is consistent with Section 15A(b)(6) of the
Act,\53\ which requires, among other things, that FINRA rules be
designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to
promote just and equitable principles of trade, and, in general, to
protect investors and the public interest. The Commission has
considered the commenters' views on the proposed rule change and
believes that FINRA responded appropriately to the concerns raised.
Indeed, the Commission shares FINRA's belief that the Updated Form BR
will provide a more comprehensive profile of each firm's registered
branch offices, which will allow regulators and firms to better
understand the activities occurring at each registered branch office as
well as enable firms to engage in effective supervision and inspections
of branch offices and regulators to conduct more focused and effective
examinations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \52\ In approving this proposed rule change, the Commission has
considered the proposed rule's impact on efficiency, competition,
and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).
    \53\ 15 U.S.C. 78o-3(b)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Commenters raised concerns regarding the burden of collecting and
monitoring information relating to space sharing arrangements at each
branch office, particularly for member firms in the independent broker-
dealer channel,\54\ however, as FINRA explained in its response, those
concerns stem from a misunderstanding regarding the scope of the
proposed question on space sharing arrangements, and in fact, proposed
Question 4A is more narrow in scope and thus the compliance burdens
associated with the proposed question are more limited in nature.\55\
Although the Commission acknowledges the potential for firms covered by
these new reporting requirements to incur additional compliance burdens
and costs, the Commission shares FINRA's belief that any such burdens
are outweighed by the overall benefits of increased transparency of the
activities occurring at registered branch offices, which should enable
firms to provide enhanced supervision of branch offices and strengthen
their own compliance programs and regulators to conduct more focused
and effective examinations. Further, the Commission echoes FINRA's
belief that ``member firms should already have information regarding
outside business activities and space sharing arrangements at each
registered branch office available to them to engage in effective
supervision and inspections of branch offices.'' \56\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \54\ See note 21 supra, and accompanying text.
    \55\ See note 36 supra, and accompanying text.
    \56\ See FINRA Response letter at 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    One commenter was concerned that the proposal does not impose an
affirmative duty for members to submit the Updated Form BR by a date
certain, and that this would invite unnecessary problems.\57\ The
commenter urged the Commission to require that all members submit
completed Forms BR by a date certain.\58\ The Commission believes that
FINRA adequately responded to this concern,\59\ but expects FINRA to
monitor the effect of this change and to consider imposing a deadline
for providing the new information if a significant number of registered
branch offices has not filed the Updated Form BR within a year of
approval of this filing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \57\ See note 47 supra, and accompanying text.
    \58\ Id.
    \59\ See notes 49 and 50 supra, and accompanying text.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission believes that the proposed amendments to Form BR
will make the branch office registration process more efficient by
eliminating duplicative provisions, eliciting additional information
from all filers regarding space sharing arrangements and the location
of office records, and clarifying existing questions so that regulators
and firms can better understand the activities occurring at each
registered branch office and focus on potential conflicts of interest,
customer confusion, and other issues that can arise when a location is
used for more than one business purpose.

V. Conclusion

    It is therefore ordered, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act,
that the proposed rule change (SR-FINRA-2013-051), be, and hereby is,
approved.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\60\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \60\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2014-04795 Filed 3-4-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 250 (Tuesday, December 31, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Pages 72369-72370]
[FR Doc No: 2019-28247]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2016-N-3586]

Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission for Office
of Management and Budget Review; Comment Request; Focus Groups About
Drug Products as Used by the Food and Drug Administration

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or Agency) is announcing
that a proposed collection of information has been submitted to the
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and clearance under
the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA).

DATES: Fax written comments on the collection of information by January
30, 2020.

ADDRESSES: To ensure that comments on the information collection are
received, OMB recommends that written comments be faxed to the Office
of Information and Regulatory Affairs, OMB, Attn: FDA Desk Officer,
Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>, or emailed to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>All
comments should be identified with the OMB control number 0910-0677.
Also include the FDA docket number found in brackets in the heading of
this document.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ila S. Mizrachi, Office of Operations,
Food and Drug Administration, Three White Flint North, 10A-12M, 11601
Landsdown St., North Bethesda, MD 20852,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In compliance with 44 U.S.C. 3507, FDA has
submitted the following proposed collection of information to OMB for
review and clearance.

Focus Groups About Drug Products as Used by the Food and Drug
Administration

OMB Control Number 0910-0677--Extension

    Focus groups provide an important role in gathering information
because they allow for a more indepth understanding of individuals'
attitudes, beliefs, motivations, and feelings than do quantitative
studies. Focus groups serve the narrowly defined need for direct and
informal opinion on a specific topic and, as a qualitative research
tool, have three major purposes:
     To obtain information that is useful for developing
variables and measures for quantitative studies;
     to better understand people's attitudes and emotions in
response to topics and concepts; and
     to further explore findings obtained from quantitative
studies.
    We use information gathered from focus group findings to test and
refine ideas and to help develop messages and other communications, but
will generally conduct further research before making important
decisions such as adopting new policies and allocating or redirecting
significant resources to support these policies.
    Our Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, as well as other
Agency components, engage focus groups about

regulated drug products on a variety of topics related to consumer,
patient, or healthcare professional perceptions and use of drug
products and related materials. These materials may include, but are
not limited to direct-to-consumer prescription drug promotion,
physician labeling of prescription drugs, medication guides, over-the-
counter drug labeling, emerging risk communications, patient labeling,
online sales of medical products, and consumer and professional
education.
    In the Federal Register of July 17, 2019 (84 FR 34186), FDA
published a 60-day notice requesting public comment on the proposed
collection of information. No comments were received.
    Annually, we project that 20 studies will be initiated using 160
focus groups with an average of 9 persons per group. We assume each
focus group will last an average of 1.75 hours.
    We estimate the burden for the information collection as follows:

                                                     Table 1--Estimated Annual Reporting Burden \1\
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Number of
                              Activity                                  Number of      responses per     Total annual    Average burden    Total hours
                                                                       respondents       respondent       responses       per response
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Focus Group Study..................................................           1,440                1            1,440             1.75            2,520
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ There are no capital costs or operating and maintenance costs associated with this collection of information.

    Based on a review of the information collection since our last
request for OMB approval, we have made no adjustments to our burden
estimate.

    Dated: December 18, 2019.
Lowell J. Schiller,
Principal Associate Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2019-28247 Filed 12-30-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4164-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 26 (Tuesday, February 8, 2022)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 7042]
[FR Doc No: 2022-02583]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[Docket No. USCG-2022-0028]

Security Zone; Potomac River and Anacostia River, and Adjacent
Waters; Washington, DC

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of enforcement of regulation.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard will enforce a security zone along the Potomac
River and Anacostia River, and adjacent waters at Washington, DC, for
activities associated with the U.S. President's State of the Union
Address before a Joint Session of Congress. The zone will be enforced
on March 1, 2022 through the early morning hours on March 2, 2022. This
action is necessary to protect government officials, mitigate potential
terrorist acts and incidents, and enhance public and maritime safety
and security immediately before, during, and after this activity.
During the enforcement period, entry into or remaining within the zone
is prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of the Port or his
designated representative.

DATES: The regulations in 33 CFR 165.508 will be enforced from 9 a.m.
on March 1, 2022 until 2 a.m. on March 2, 2022, for the security zone
locations identified in 33 CFR 165.508(a)(6).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions about this
notice of enforcement, call or email Mr. Ron Houck, U.S. Coast Guard
Sector Maryland-National Capital Region (Waterways Management
Division); telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, email [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Coast Guard will enforce regulations in
33 CFR 165.508 for the zone locations identified in paragraph (a)(6)
from 9 a.m. on March 1, 2022 to 2 a.m. on March 2, 2022. This action is
being taken to protect government officials, mitigate potential
terrorist acts and incidents, and enhance public and maritime safety
and security immediately before, during, and after this event. Our
regulations for the Security Zone; Potomac River and Anacostia River,
and adjacent waters; Washington, DC, Sec.  165.508(a)(6), specifies the
location for this security zone as an area that includes all navigable
waters described in paragraphs (a)(1) through (a)(3), which includes
Zones 1, 2, and 3.
     Security Zone 1, paragraph (a)(1); all navigable waters of
the Potomac River, from shoreline to shoreline, bounded to the north by
the Francis Scott Key (US-29) Bridge, at mile 113, and bounded to the
south by a line drawn from the Virginia shoreline at Ronald Reagan
Washington National Airport, at 38[deg]51'21.3'' N, 077[deg]02'00.0''
W, eastward across the Potomac River to the District of Columbia
shoreline at Hains Point at position 38[deg]51'24.3'' N,
077[deg]01'19.8'' W, including the waters of the Boundary Channel,
Pentagon Lagoon, Georgetown Channel Tidal Basin, and Roaches Run.
     Security Zone 2, paragraph (a)(2); all navigable waters of
the Anacostia River, from shoreline to shoreline, bounded to the north
by the John Philip Sousa (Pennsylvania Avenue) Bridge, at mile 2.9, and
bounded to the south by a line drawn from the District of Columbia
shoreline at Hains Point at position 38[deg]51'24.3'' N,
077[deg]01'19.8'' W, southward across the Anacostia River to the
District of Columbia shoreline at Giesboro Point at position
38[deg]50'52.4'' N, 077[deg]01'10.9'' W, including the waters of the
Washington Channel.
     Security Zone 3 paragraph (a)(3); all navigable waters of
the Potomac River, from shoreline to shoreline, bounded to the north by
a line drawn from the Virginia shoreline at Ronald Reagan Washington
National Airport, at 38[deg]51'21.3'' N, 077[deg]02'00.0'' W, eastward
across the Potomac River to the District of Columbia shoreline at Hains
Point at position 38[deg]51'24.3'' N, 077[deg]01'19.8'' W, thence
southward across the Anacostia River to the District of Columbia
shoreline at Giesboro Point at position 38[deg]50'52.4'' N,
077[deg]01'10.9'' W, and bounded to the south by the Woodrow Wilson
Memorial (I-95/I-495) Bridge, at mile 103.8.
    During the enforcement period, as specified in Sec.  165.508(b),
entry into or remaining in these zones is prohibited unless authorized
by the Coast Guard Captain of the Port Maryland-National Capital
Region. Public vessels and vessels already at berth at the time the
security zone is implemented do not have to depart the security zone.
All vessels underway within the security zone at the time it is
implemented are to depart the zone at the time the security zone is
implemented. To seek permission to transit the zone, the Captain of the
Port Maryland-National Capital Region can be contacted at telephone
number<PHONE_NUMBER> or on Marine Band Radio, VHF-FM channel 16 (156.8
MHz). Coast Guard vessels enforcing this zone can be contacted on
Marine Band Radio, VHF-FM channel 16 (156.8 MHz). The Coast Guard may
be assisted by other Federal, state or local law enforcement agencies
in enforcing this regulation. If the Captain of the Port or his
designated on-scene patrol personnel determines the security zone need
not be enforced for the full duration stated in this notice, a
Broadcast Notice to Mariners may be used to suspend enforcement and
grant general permission to enter the security zone.
    In addition to this notice of enforcement in the Federal Register,
the Coast Guard plans to provide notification of this enforcement
period via the Local Notice to Mariners, and marine information
broadcasts.

    Dated: February 3, 2022.
James R. Bendle,
Commander, U.S. Coast Guard, Acting Captain of the Port Maryland-
National Capital Region.
[FR Doc. 2022-02583 Filed 2-7-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 197 (Friday, October 13, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Pages 71063-71065]
[FR Doc No: 2023-22610]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-98701; File No. SR-MEMX-2023-27]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; MEMX LLC; Notice of Filing and
Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To Amend the
Exchange's Fee Schedule

October 6, 2023.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) \1\ of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 (the ``Act'') \2\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\3\ notice is hereby
given that, on September 29, 2023, MEMX LLC (``MEMX'' or the
``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the
``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I, II
and III below, which Items have been 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\ 15 U.S.C. 78a.
    \3\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange is filing with the Commission a proposed rule change
to amend the Exchange's fee schedule applicable to Members \4\ (the
``Fee Schedule'') pursuant to Exchange Rules 15.1(a) and (c). The
Exchange proposes to implement the changes to the Fee Schedule pursuant
to this proposal immediately. The text of the proposed rule change is
provided in Exhibit 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See Exchange Rule 1.5(p).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and the
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 purpose of the proposed rule change is to amend the Fee
Schedule to add clarifying language to the MEMX Equities Liquidity
Provision Tiers. The Exchange notes that certain criteria of Liquidity
Provision Tier 4 \5\ (namely, criteria (2)),\6\ will expire no later
than

October 31, 2023 and Liquidity Provision Tier 6 \7\ will expire no
later than November 30, 2023. As described below, the Exchange wishes
to add language clarifying the applicability of other language on the
Fee Schedule to such Tiers in light of their expiration. The Exchange
does not propose to change the rebates offered to Members under
Liquidity Provision Tier 4 or Liquidity Provision Tier 6, nor does the
Exchange propose to change the criteria under such tiers. Rather, the
Exchange wishes to make clear which months Members are eligible for
such tiers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ The pricing for Liquidity Provision Tier 4 is referred to by
the Exchange on the Fee Schedule under the existing description
``Added displayed volume, Liquidity Provision Tier 4'' with a Fee
Code of ``B4'', ``D4'' or ``J4'', as applicable, to be provided by
the Exchange on the monthly invoices provided to Members.
    \6\ This criteria provides that a Member may qualify for
Liquidity Provision Tier 4 by achieving a Displayed ADAV that is
equal to or greater than 0.02% of the TCV and a Step-Up Displayed
ADAV of the TCV from April 2023 that is equal to or greater than 50%
of the Member's April 2023 Displayed ADAV of the TCV. As set forth
on the Fee Schedule, ``Displayed ADAV'' means ADAV with respect to
displayed orders. ``ADAV'' means the average daily added volume
calculated as the number of shares added per day, which is
calculated on a monthly basis. ``Step-Up Displayed ADAV'' means
Displayed ADAV in the relevant baseline month subtracted from
current Displayed ADAV. ``TCV'' is total consolidated volume
calculated as the volume reported by all exchanges and trade
reporting facilities to a consolidated transaction reporting plan
for the month for which the fees apply. See also the Exchange's Fee
Schedule (available at https://info.memxtrading.com/fee-schedule/).
    \7\ The pricing for Liquidity Provision Tier 6 is referred to by
the Exchange on the Fee Schedule under the existing description
``Added displayed volume, Liquidity Provision Tier 6'' with a Fee
Code of ``B6'', ``D6'' or ``J6'', as applicable, to be provided by
the Exchange on the monthly invoices provided to Members.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Liquidity Provision Tiers section of the Fee Schedule contains
the following language in the first footnote (denoted by ``*''):
``Members that qualify for Tier 4, 5, or 6 based on activity in a given
month will also receive the associated Tier 4, 5, or 6 rebate during
the following month.'' The second footnote (denoted by ``**'') of the
Liquidity Provision Tiers section of the Fee Schedule provides that
Criteria 2 of Liquidity Provision Tier 4 will expire no later than
October 31, 2023. The third footnote (denoted by ``***'') of the
Liquidity Provision Tiers section of the Fee Schedule provides that
Liquidity Provision Tier 6 will expire no later than November 30, 2023.
The Exchange now proposes to add clarifying language to the second and
third footnote of the Liquidity Provision Tiers section, in order to
make it more clear to Members that the months in which they are
eligible to qualify for either (i) Liquidity Provision Tier 4 rebates
based upon Criteria (2) of such tier, or (ii) Liquidity Provision Tier
6 rebates.
Clarify Liquidity Provision Tier 4 Criteria (2)
    Currently, the second footnote of the Liquidity Provision Tiers
section of the Fee Schedule states that ``Criteria (2) of Liquidity
Provision Tier 4 will expire no later than October 31, 2023''. The
Exchange wishes to clarify that, since Criteria (2) of Liquidity
Provision 4 will expire on October 31, 2023, a Member's activity during
the month of October will not qualify such Member for the Liquidity
Provision 4 rebate in the following month if the Member qualifies for
the tier based on Criteria (2). Thus, a Member qualifying based on
Criteria (2) will not qualify for the Liquidity Provision 4 rebate in
November based on October activity, because Criteria (2) expires as of
October 31. The Exchange now proposes to amend the second footnote of
the Liquidity Provision Tiers section to add the following sentence:
``Due to the expiration of Criteria (2), Members that qualify for Tier
4 based on activity meeting Criteria (2) in October 2023 will not
receive the Liquidity Provision Tier 4 rebate during the following
month.'' The Exchange wishes to make clear that, while a Member whose
October activity meets Tier 4 via Criteria (2) would be eligible to
receive Tier 4 rebates in October, such Member is not eligible to
qualify for the Tier 4 rebate in the following month (November 2023)
based on October activity. As noted above, the Exchange does not
propose to change the Tier 4 rebate, nor does the Exchange propose to
modify the criteria to achieve such rebate. The Exchange believes that
this proposed clarifying language will provide Members with additional
certainty when trading on the Exchange, which in turn, will incentivize
Members to achieve certain volume thresholds on the Exchange on an
ongoing basis.
Clarify Liquidity Provision Tier 6
    Currently, the third footnote of the Liquidity Provision Tiers
section of the Fee Schedule states that ``Liquidity Provision Tier 6
will expire no later than November 30, 2023.'' The Exchange wishes to
clarify that, since Liquidity Provision 6 will expire on November 30,
2023, a Member's activity during the month of November will not qualify
such Member for the Liquidity Provision 6 rebate in the following
month. Thus, a Member's activity in November will not qualify the
Member for the Liquidity Provision 6 rebate in December based on
November activity, because Criteria (2) expires as of November 30. The
Exchange now proposes to amend the third footnote to add the following
sentence: ``Due to the expiration of Tier 6, Members that qualify for
Tier 6 based on activity in November 2023, will not receive the
Liquidity Provision Tier 6 rebate during the following month.'' The
Exchange wishes to make clear that, while a Member who qualifies for
Tier 6 rebates based upon November activity would be eligible to
receive Tier 6 rebates in November 2023, such Member would not qualify
for Tier 6 rebates in the following month (December 2023) based on
November activity. As noted above, the Exchange does not propose to
change the Tier 6 rebate, nor does the Exchange propose to modify the
criteria to achieve such rebate. The Exchange believes that this
proposed clarifying language will provide Members with additional
certainty when trading on the Exchange, which in turn, will incentivize
Members to achieve certain volume thresholds on the Exchange on an
ongoing basis.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with the provisions of Section 6 of the Act,\8\ in general, and with
Sections 6(b)(4) and 6(b)(5) of the Act,\9\ in particular, in that it
provides for the equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees and
other charges among its Members and other persons using its facilities
and is not designed to permit unfair discrimination between customers,
issuers, brokers, or dealers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78f.
    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4) and (5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange notes that volume-based incentives (such as Liquidity
Provision Tiers) have been widely adopted by exchanges (including the
Exchange), and are reasonable, equitable, and not unfairly
discriminatory because they are open to all members on an equal basis
and provide additional benefits or discount that are reasonably related
to the value to an exchange's market quality associated with higher
levels of market activity, such as higher levels of liquidity provision
and/or growth patterns, and the introduction of higher volumes of
orders into the price and volume discovery process.
    The Exchange believes the proposed clarifying language to the
second and third footnotes in the Liquidity Provision Tiers section of
the Fee Schedule is reasonable because it is designed to avoid
confusion in reading the Fee Schedule. The Liquidity Provision Tiers
continue to provide Members with incremental incentives to achieve
certain volume thresholds on the Exchange, are available to all Members
on an equal basis, and, as described above, are reasonably designed to
encourage Members to maintain or increase their order flow to the
Exchange. The Exchange believes that the proposed clarifying language
will provide Members with an added layer of certainty with respect to
the expiring Tiers, namely Liquidity Provision Tier 4 Criteria (2) and
Liquidity Provision Tier 6.
    The Exchange also believes the proposed change is equitable and not
unfairly discriminatory because it will apply equally to all Members
and

because the opportunity to qualify for Liquidity Provision Tiers is
open to all members on an equal basis. Upon the expiration of Liquidity
Provision Tier 4 Criteria (2) for activity on the Exchange after
October 31, 2023, no Member will be able to qualify for Liquidity
Provision Tier 4 based on Criteria (2). Similarly, upon the expiration
of Liquidity Provision Tier 6 for activity on the Exchange after
November 30, 2023, no Member will be able to qualify for Liquidity
Provision Tier 6.
    For the reasons discussed above, the Exchange submits that the
proposal satisfies the requirements of Sections 6(b)(4) and 6(b)(5) of
the Act \10\ in that it provides for the equitable allocation of
reasonable dues, fees and other charges among its Members and other
persons using its facilities and is not designed to unfairly
discriminate between customers, issuers, brokers, or dealers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4) and (5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposal will result in any
burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act. Rather, as described above, the
proposed change is intended to provide clear and easy-to-understand
language in its Fee Schedule related to the expiring Tiers, as
described above. The Exchange believes that providing clarifying
language enables Members to make better decisions about where to route
their orders and would enable the Exchange to better compete with other
exchanges that offer similar pricing structures and incentives to
market participants.
    The Exchange does not believe the proposal would impose any burden
on intermarket competition that is not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act, as the Exchange believes the
proposal is not concerned with competitive issues, but rather relates
to clarifying the applicability of certain expiring Tiers, as described
above. Additionally, the Exchange believes the proposal would not
impose any burden on intramarket competition that is not necessary or
appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act because, as
described above, the proposed changes will apply to all Members
uniformly and in the same manner.

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

    The Exchange neither solicited nor received comments on the
proposed rule change.

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

    The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act \11\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(2) \12\ thereunder.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii).
    \12\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule
change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule
change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or
appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or
otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission
takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings to
determine whether the proposed rule change 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 (https://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to [email protected]. Please include
file number SR-MEMX-2023-27 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to file number SR-MEMX-2023-27. 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 website (https://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 website viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE,
Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of 10
a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available for
inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. Do not
include personal identifiable information in submissions; you should
submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. We
may redact in part or withhold entirely from publication submitted
material that is obscene or subject to copyright protection. All
submissions should refer to file number SR-MEMX-2023-27 and should be
submitted on or before November 3, 2023.

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

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

J. Lynn Taylor,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2023-22610 Filed 10-12-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 14 (Wednesday, January 22, 2014)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 3496]
[FR Doc No: 2014-01240]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 117

[Docket No. USCG-2013-0964]

Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Upper Mississippi River,
Dubuque, IA

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of change in deviation from drawbridge regulation.

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

SUMMARY: On December 2, 2013, the Coast Guard issued a temporary
deviation, lasting approximately 10 weeks, from the operating schedule
that governs the Illinois Central Railroad Drawbridge across the Upper
Mississippi River, mile 579.9, at Dubuque, Iowa. This temporary
deviation allows the bridge to open on signal if at least 24 hours
advance notice is given. It is necessary to allow the bridge owner time
to perform preventive maintenance that is essential to the continued
safe operation of the drawbridge. Maintenance is scheduled in the
winter and when there is less impact on navigation; instead of
scheduling work in the summer, when river traffic increases. We are
modifying that temporary deviation to allow for two three-day periods
during the deviation when the bridge will remain in the closed-to-
navigation position.

DATES: The temporary deviation published in the Federal Register of
December 2, 2013, (78 FR 72022) remains in effect; however, from 8
a.m., January 20, 2014 to 8 a.m., January 23, 2014 and 8 a.m. February
3, 2014, to 8 a.m., February 6, 2014, the bridge will remain in the
closed-to-navigation position.

ADDRESSES: The docket for this deviation, [USCG-2013-0964] is available
at http://www.regulations.gov. Type the docket number in the ``SEARCH''
box and click ``SEARCH.'' Click on Open Docket Folder on the line
associated with this deviation. You may also visit the Docket
Management Facility in Room W12-140 on the ground floor of the
Department of Transportation, West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue
SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through
Friday, except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this
temporary deviation, call or email Eric A. Washburn, Bridge
Administrator, Western Rivers, Coast Guard; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>,
email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>If you have questions on viewing the
docket, call Cheryl Collins, Program Manager, Docket Operations,
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Chicago, Central & Pacific Railroad
requested a temporary deviation for the Illinois Central Railroad
Drawbridge, across the Upper Mississippi River, mile 579.9, at Dubuque,
Iowa to open on signal if at least 24 hours advance notice is given for
76 days from 12:01 a.m., December 18, 2013 to 7 a.m., March 3, 2014 to
allow the bridge owner time for preventive maintenance. The temporary
deviation published in the Federal Register on December 2, 2013 (78 FR
72022). The Chicago, Central & Pacific Railroad further requested, to
support preventative maintenance on the bridge, to leave the bridge in
the closed-to-navigation position for 6 days from 8 a.m., January 20,
2014 to 8 a.m., January 23, 2014 and 8 a.m., February 3, 2014 to 8
a.m., February 6, 2014. The Illinois Central Railroad Drawbridge
regularly operates in accordance with 33 CFR 117.5, which states the
general requirement that drawbridges shall open promptly and fully for
the passage of vessels when a request to open is given in accordance
with the subpart.
    There are no alternate routes for vessels transiting this section
of the Upper Mississippi River.
    Winter conditions on the Upper Mississippi River coupled with the
closure of Army Corps of Engineer's Lock No. 18 (Mile 410.5, UMR) and
Lock No. 22 (Mile 301.2, UMR) until 11:00 a.m., March 4, 2014 will
preclude any significant navigation demands for the drawspan opening.
    The Illinois Central Railroad Drawbridge, in the closed-to-
navigation position, provides a vertical clearance of 19.9 feet above
normal pool. Navigation on the waterway consists primarily of
commercial tows and recreational watercraft. This temporary deviation
has been coordinated with waterway users. No objections were received.
    In accordance with 33 CFR 117.35(e), the drawbridge must return to
its regular operating schedule immediately at the end of the effective
period of this temporary deviation. This deviation from the operating
regulations is authorized under 33 CFR 117.35.

    Dated: January 9, 2013.
Eric A. Washburn,
Bridge Administrator, Western Rivers.
[FR Doc. 2014-01240 Filed 1-21-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 85 (Thursday, May 4, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 20959-20961]
[FR Doc No: 2017-09003]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

[Docket No. FMCSA-2014-0383]

Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; Hearing

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

ACTION: Notice of renewal of exemptions; request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: FMCSA announces its decision to renew exemptions for 9
individuals from the hearing requirement in the Federal Motor Carrier
Safety Regulations (FMCSRs) for interstate commercial motor vehicle
(CMV) drivers. The exemptions enable these hard of hearing and deaf
individuals to continue to operate CMVs in interstate commerce.

DATES: The renewed exemptions were effective on the dates stated in the
discussions below and will expire on the dates stated in the
discussions below. Comments must be received on or before June 5, 2017.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Christine A. Hydock, Chief,
Medical Programs Division,<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>FMCSA,
Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Room W64-224,
Washington, DC 20590-0001. Office hours are from 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m.,
e.t., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. If you have
questions regarding viewing or submitting material to the docket,
contact Docket Services, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments bearing the Federal Docket
Management System (FDMS) Docket No. FMCSA-2013-0123; FMCSA-2013-0124
using any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting
comments.
     Mail: Docket Management Facility; U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., West Building Ground Floor,
Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
     Hand Delivery: West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140,
1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.
e.t., Monday through Friday, except Federal Holidays.
     Fax: 1-202-493-2251.
    Instructions: Each submission must include the Agency name and the
docket number(s) for this notice. Note that all comments received will
be posted without change to http://www.regulations.gov, including any
personal information provided. Please see the Privacy Act heading below
for further information.
    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or
comments, go to http://www.regulations.gov at any time or Room W12-140
on the ground level of the West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE.,
Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., e.t., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays. The FDMS is available 24 hours each day, 365
days each year. If you want acknowledgment that we received your
comments, please include a self-addressed, stamped envelope or postcard
or print the acknowledgement page that appears after submitting
comments online.
    Privacy Act: In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits
comments from the public to better inform its rulemaking process. DOT
posts these comments, without edit, including any personal information
the commenter provides, to http://www.regulations.gov, as described in
the system of records notice (DOT/ALL-14 FDMS), which can be reviewed
at http://www.dot.gov/privacy.

I. Background

    Under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, FMCSA may grant an exemption
for two years if it finds ``such exemption would likely achieve a level
of safety that is equivalent to or greater than the level that would be
achieved absent such exemption.'' The statute also allows the Agency to
renew exemptions at the end of the two-year period.
    The physical qualification standard for drivers regarding hearing
found in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(11) states that a person is physically
qualified to driver a CMV if that person:

    First perceives a forced whispered voice in the better ear at
not less than 5 feet with or without the use of a hearing aid or, if
tested by use of an audiometric device, does not have an average
hearing loss in the better ear greater than 40 decibels at 500 Hz,
1,000 Hz, and 2,000 Hz with or without a hearing aid when the
audiometric device is calibrated to American National Standard
(formerly ASA Standard) Z24.5--1951.

    49 CFR 391.41(b)(11) was adopted in 1970, with a revision in 1971
to allow drivers to be qualified under this standard while wearing a
hearing aid, 35 FR 6458, 6463 (April 22, 1970) and 36 FR 12857 (July 3,
1971).
    The 9 individuals listed in this notice have requested renewal of
their exemptions from the hearing standard in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(11), in
accordance with FMCSA procedures. Accordingly, FMCSA has evaluated
these applications for renewal on their merits and decided to extend
each exemption for a renewable two-year period.

II. Request for Comments

    Interested parties or organizations possessing information that
would otherwise show that any, or all, of these drivers are not
currently achieving the statutory level of safety should immediately
notify FMCSA. The Agency will evaluate any adverse evidence submitted
and, if safety is being compromised or if continuation of the exemption
would not be consistent with the goals and objectives of 49 U.S.C.
31136(e) and 31315, FMCSA will take immediate steps to revoke the
exemption of a driver.

III. Basis for Renewing Exemptions

    Under 49 U.S.C. 31315(b)(1), an exemption may be granted for no
longer than two years from its approval date and may be renewed upon
application. In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, each of
the twelve applicants has satisfied the renewal conditions for
obtaining an exemption from the hearing requirement (80 FR 57032; 80 FR
60747). In addition, for Commercial Driver's License (CDL) holders, the
Commercial Driver's License Information System (CDLIS) and the Motor
Carrier Management Information System (MCMIS) are searched for crash
and violation data. For non-CDL holders, the Agency reviews the driving
records from the State Driver's Licensing Agency (SDLA). These factors
provide an adequate basis for predicting each driver's ability to
continue to safely operate a CMV in interstate commerce.
    The 9 drivers in this notice remain in good standing with the
Agency and have not exhibited any medical issues that would compromise
their ability to safely operate a CMV during the previous two-year
exemption period. FMCSA has concluded that renewing the exemptions for
each of these applicants is likely to achieve a level of safety equal
to that existing without the exemption. Therefore, FMCSA has decided to
renew each exemption for a two-year period. In accordance with 49
U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, each driver has received a renewed
exemption.
    As of May 8, 2017, the following 9 drivers have satisfied the
renewal conditions for obtaining an exemption from the hearing
requirement in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(11), from driving CMVs in interstate
commerce (80 FR 18697).

Herbert Crowe (MO)
Kelly Gene Eller (NC)
Jason R. Gensler (OH)
Thomas Lipyanic Jr. (PA)
Donald B. Malley (MO)
Kathy A. Meadows (GA)
David W. Shores (NC)
Richard E. Whittaker (IN)
Brian Whittington (MI)

    The drivers were included in FMCSA-2014-0383. The exemptions were
effective on May 8, 2017, and will expire on May 8, 2019.

IV. Conditions and Requirements

    The exemptions are extended subject to the following conditions:
(1) Each driver must report any crashes or accidents as defined in 49
CFR 390.5; and (2) report all citations and convictions for
disqualifying offenses under 49 CFR part 383 and 49 CFR 391 to FMCSA.
In addition, the driver must

also have a copy of the exemption when driving, for presentation to a
duly authorized Federal, State, or local enforcement official. The
driver is prohibited from operating a motorcoach or bus with passengers
in interstate commerce. The exemption does not exempt the individual
from meeting the applicable CDL testing requirements. Each exemption
will be valid for two years unless rescinded earlier by FMCSA. The
exemption will be rescinded if: (1) The person fails to comply with the
terms and conditions of the exemption; (2) the exemption has resulted
in a lower level of safety than was maintained before it was granted;
or (3) continuation of the exemption would not be consistent with the
goals and objectives of 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315.

IV. Conclusion

    Based upon its evaluation of the nine exemption applications, FMCSA
renews the exemptions of the aforementioned drivers from the hearing
requirement in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(11). In accordance with 49 U.S.C.
31136(e) and 31315, each exemption will be valid for two years unless
revoked earlier by FMCSA.

    Issued on: April 27, 2017.
Larry W. Minor,
Associate Administrator for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2017-09003 Filed 5-3-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 168 (Thursday, August 29, 2013)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 53269-53270]
[FR Doc No: 2013-21024]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R06-OAR-2008-0633; FRL-9900-32-Region6]

Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Arkansas;
Interstate Transport of Fine Particulate Matter

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is approving portions of State Implementation Plan (SIP)
submittals from the State of Arkansas to address Clean Air Act (CAA or
Act) requirements in section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) that prohibit air
emissions which will contribute significantly to nonattainment or
interfere with maintenance in any other state for the 1997 and 2006
fine particulate matter (PM2.5) national ambient air quality
standards (NAAQS). EPA has determined that the existing SIP for
Arkansas contains adequate provisions to prohibit air emissions from
significantly contributing to nonattainment or interfering with
maintenance of the 1997 annual and 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS (1997
PM2.5 NAAQS) and the 2006 revised 24-hour PM2.5
NAAQS (2006 PM2.5 NAAQS) in any other state as required by
section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) of the Act.

DATES: This final rule is effective on September 30, 2013.

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID
No. EPA-R06-OAR-2008-0633. All documents in the docket are listed on
the http://www.regulations.gov Web site. Although listed in the index,
some information is not publicly available, e.g., Confidential Business
Information or other information whose disclosure is restricted by
statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is not
placed on the Internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy
form. Publicly available docket materials are available either
electronically through http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at
the Air Planning Section (6PD-L), Environmental Protection Agency, 1445
Ross Avenue, Suite 700, Dallas, Texas 75202-2733. The file will be made
available by appointment for public inspection in the Region 6 Freedom
of Information Act Review Room between the hours of 8:30 a.m. and 4:30
p.m. weekdays except for legal holidays. Contact the person listed in
the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT paragraph below to make an
appointment. If possible, please make the appointment at least two
working days in advance of your visit. There will be a 15 cent per page
fee for making photocopies of documents. On the day of the visit,
please check in at the EPA Region 6 reception area at 1445 Ross Avenue,
Suite 700, Dallas, Texas.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Carl Young, Air Planning Section (6PD-
L), Environmental Protection Agency, Region 6, 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite
700, Dallas, Texas 75202-2733, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; email address
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document wherever ``we,''
``us,'' or ``our'' is used, we mean the EPA.

Table of Contents

I. Background
II. Final Action
III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. Background

    The background for today's action is discussed in detail in our May
7, 2013 proposal (78 FR 26568). In that notice, we proposed to approve
portions of SIP submittals for the State of Arkansas submitted on
December 17, 2007, and September 16, 2009, and the technical supplement
submitted on March 20, 2013, that determined the existing SIP for
Arkansas contains adequate provisions to prohibit air emissions from
contributing significantly to nonattainment or interfering with
maintenance of the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS in any other
state as required by CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). This action is
being taken under section 110 of the Act. We did not receive any
comments regarding our proposal.

II. Final Action

    We are approving portions of SIP submittals for the State of
Arkansas submitted on December 17, 2007, and September 16, 2009, and
the technical supplement submitted on March 20, 2013, to address
interstate transport for the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. We
approve the portions of the SIP submittals and technical supplement
determining the existing SIP for Arkansas contains adequate provisions
to prohibit air emissions from contributing significantly to
nonattainment or interfering with maintenance of the 1997 and 2006
PM2.5 NAAQS in any other state as required by CAA section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). This action is being taken under section 110 of the
Act.

III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve a
SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and
applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a).
Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state
choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act.
Accordingly, this action merely approves state law as meeting Federal
requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those
imposed by state law. For that reason, this action:
     Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
     does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     is not subject to requirements of section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the Clean Air Act; and
     does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).

In addition, this rule does not have tribal implications as specified
by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), because the
SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country

located in the state, and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial
direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.
    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. EPA will submit a report containing this action and
other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2).
    Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for
judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court
of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by October 28, 2013. Filing a
petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule
does not affect the finality of this action for the purposed of
judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for
judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness
of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in
proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Nitrogen dioxide, Particulate matter, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic compounds.

    Dated: August 14, 2013.
William K. Honker,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 6.

    40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:

PART 52--[AMENDED]

0
1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

Subpart E--Arkansas

0
2. The third table in Sec.  52.170(e) entitled ``EPA-Approved
Nonregulatory Provisions and Quasi-Regulatory Measures in the Arkansas
SIP'' is amended by adding an entry at the end for ``Interstate
transport for the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS'' to read as
follows:

Sec.  52.170  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (e) * * *
* * * * *

            EPA-Approved Non-regulatory Provisions and Quasi-Regulatory Measures in the Arkansas SIP
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                    Applicable            State
    Name of SIP provision          geographic or       submittal/      EPA approval           Explanation
                                nonattainment  area  effective date        date
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
Interstate transport for the   Statewide...........      12/17/2007  8/29/2013        ..........................
 1997 and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS                                9/16/2009   [Insert FR
 (contribute to nonattainment                                         page number
 or interfere with                                                    where document
 maintenance).                                                        begins].
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 2013-21024 Filed 8-28-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register: July 24, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 141)]
[Notices]
[Page 36801-36802]
[DOCID:fr24jy09-153]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-60316; File No. SR-CBOE-2009-050]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Chicago Board Options Exchange,
Incorporated; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed
Rule Change to Immediately Add New FAZ and FAS Option Series Within
Five Days of Expiration

July 16, 2009.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the ``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given
that on July 15, 2009, the Chicago Board Options Exchange, Incorporated
(``Exchange'' or ``CBOE'') filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission (the ``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described
in Items I and II below, which Items have been prepared by the
Exchange. The Exchange filed the proposal as a ``non-controversial''
proposed rule change pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act
\3\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder.\4\ 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.
    \3\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(iii).
    \4\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    CBOE is seeking to immediately list new option series on Direxion
Daily Financial Bear 3X Shares (``FAZ'') and on Direxion Daily
Financial Bull 3X Shares (``FAS'') that expire this Friday, July 17,
2009, notwithstanding Interpretation and Policy .04 to Rule 5.5, Series
of Option Contracts Open for Trading. The Exchange is not proposing any
rule text changes. The Exchange is not proposing any rule text
changes.[sic] Although the proposed rule change would not amend the
text of Rule 5.5.04, the proposed change would have the effect of
permitting the Exchange to immediately add new series of FAZ and FAS
options within five business days prior to expiration on Friday, July
17, 2009.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    The purpose of this proposed rule change is to allow the Exchange
to immediately list new option series on FAZ and FAS that expire this
Friday, July 17, 2009, notwithstanding Interpretation and Policy .04 to
Rule 5.5, Series of Option Contracts Open for Trading. CBOE Rule 5.5.04
permits the Exchange to list new series of options until the beginning
of the month in which the option contract will expire. Due to unusual
market conditions, CBOE, in its discretion, may add new series of
options until five business days prior to expiration.
    On July 14, 2009, NASDAQ OMX PHLX listed additional series on FAZ
that expire on July 17, 2009, and on July 15, 2009, NASDAQ OMX PHLX
listed additional series on FAS that expire on July 17, 2009.
Specifically, NASDAQ OMX PHLX listed July 2009 options on FAZ with the
following strikes: 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43 and 44, and
NASDAQ OMX PHLX listed July 2009 options on FAS with the following
strikes: 25, 26, 27 and 28. NASDAQ OMX PHLX does not have restrictions
pertaining to the timing of adding new series. See NASDAQ OMX PHLX
Rules 1012, Series of Options Open for Trading, and 1101A, Terms of
Option Contracts. However, under CBOE's existing rules, the Exchange is
not permitted to add these same series. As a result, the Exchange has
submitted this current filing seeking to immediately list the same
series listed by NASDAQ OMX PHLX on July 14 and 15, 2009. To the extent
any additional series are added by NASDAQ OMX PHLX between the time
this filing is submitted and Friday, July 17, 2009, the Exchange
similarly seeks to immediately list such same series.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with
the Act \5\ and the rules and regulations thereunder and, in
particular, the requirements of Section 6(b) of the Act.\6\
Specifically, the Exchange believes the proposed rule change is
consistent with the Section 6(b)(5)\7\ requirements that the rules of
an exchange be designed to promote just and equitable principles of
trade, to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts, to remove
impediments to and to perfect the mechanism for a free and open market
and a national market system, and, in general, to protect investors and
the public interest. The Exchange believes adding the new FAZ and FAS
series will foster competition and benefit investors.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    CBOE 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.

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

    No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the
proposed rule change.

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

    Because the foregoing proposed rule 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) of the Act \8\ and Rule 19b-
4(f)(6) thereunder.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \9\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). In addition, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)
requires a self-regulatory organization to give the Commission
written notice of its intent to file the proposed rule change at
least five business days prior to the date of filing of the proposed
rule change, or such shorter time as designated by the Commission.
The Commission deems this requirement to have been met.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    CBOE has requested that the Commission waive the 30-day operative
delay period. The Commission has determined that waiving the 30-day
operative delay of the CBOE's proposal is consistent with the
protection of investors and in the public interest in that it will
allow CBOE to immediately add options series that another options
exchange currently lists and trades, which should promote
competition.\10\ Therefore, the Commission designates the proposal
operative upon filing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ For the 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 such proposed rule
change, the Commission may summarily abrogate such rule change if it
appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate
in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise
in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://
www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-CBOE-2009-050 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

     Send paper comments in triplicate to Elizabeth M. Murphy,
Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20549-1090.
    All submissions should refer to File Number SR-CBOE-2009-050. This
file number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used.
To help the Commission process and review your comments more
efficiently, please use only one method. The Commission will post all
comments on the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/
rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments,
all written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that
are filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating
to the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person,
other than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance
with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for inspection
and copying in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street,
NE., Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours
of 10 a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of such filing also will be available for
inspection and copying at the principal office of the CBOE. 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-CBOE-2009-050 and should be
submitted on or before August 14, 2009.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\11\
Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

[FR Doc. E9-17628 Filed 7-23-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010-01-P