[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 195 (Tuesday, October 9, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 50708-50713]
[FR Doc No: 2018-21782]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-84341; File No. SR-MSRB-2018-07]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Municipal Securities Rulemaking
Board; Notice of Filing of a Proposed Rule Change To Amend MSRB Rule G-
3, on Professional Qualification Requirements, To Require Municipal
Advisor Principals To Become Appropriately Qualified by Passing the
Municipal Advisor Principal Qualification Examination

October 2, 2018.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the ``Exchange Act'' or ``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\
notice is hereby given that on September 19, 2018 the Municipal
Securities Rulemaking Board (the ``MSRB'' or ``Board'') filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission (the ``SEC'' or ``Commission'') the
proposed rule change as described in Items I, II, and III below, which
Items have been prepared by the MSRB. The Commission is publishing this
notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change from interested
persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The MSRB filed with the Commission a proposed rule change to amend
Rule G-3, on professional qualification requirements, to (i) require
persons who meet the definition of a municipal advisor principal, as
defined under Rule G-3(e)(i), to pass the Municipal Advisor Principal
Qualification Examination (``Series 54 examination'') in order to
become appropriately qualified as a municipal advisor principal; (ii)
specify that such persons who cease to be associated with a municipal
advisor for two or more years at any time after having qualified as a
municipal advisor principal must requalify by examination unless a
waiver is granted; (iii) add the Series 54 examination to the list of
qualification examinations for which a waiver can be sought; (iv)
provide that municipal advisor representatives may function as a
principal for 120 calendar days without being qualified with the Series
54 examination; and (v) make a technical amendment to Rule G-3(e) to
clarify that a municipal advisor principal must pass the Municipal
Advisor Representative Qualification Examination (``Series 50
examination'') as a prerequisite to becoming qualified

as a municipal advisor principal (collectively the ``proposed rule
change''). The MSRB requests that the proposed rule change become
effective 30 days from the date of SEC approval.
    The text of the proposed rule change is available on the MSRB's
website at www.msrb.org/Rules-and-Interpretations/SEC-Filings/2018-Filings.aspx, at the MSRB's principal office, and at the Commission's
Public Reference Room.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    The MSRB is charged with setting professional qualification
standards for municipal advisors. Section 15B(b)(2)(A) of the Act
authorizes the MSRB to prescribe ``standards of training, experience,
competence, and such other qualifications as the Board finds necessary
or appropriate in the public interest or for the protection of
investors and municipal entities or obligated persons.'' \3\
Additionally, Sections 15B(b)(2)(A)(i) \4\ and 15B(b)(2)(A)(iii) \5\ of
the Act also provide that the Board may appropriately classify
associated persons of dealers and municipal advisors and require
persons in any such class to pass tests prescribed by the Board. The
examinations are intended to determine whether an individual meets the
MSRB's qualification standards for a particular qualification category.
More specifically, the MSRB's professional qualification examinations
measure a candidate's knowledge of the business activities, as well as
the regulatory requirements, including MSRB rules and federal laws.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See 15 U.S.C. 78o-4(b)(2)(A).
    \4\ See 15 U.S.C. 78o-4(b)(2)(A)(i).
    \5\ See 15 U.S.C. 78o-4(b)(2)(A)(iii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Background
    In connection with its statutory mandate, beginning Spring 2014,
the MSRB set out on a multi-year effort to establish professional
qualification requirements for municipal advisor professionals. The
MSRB published Notice 2014-08 \6\ seeking comment on a proposal to,
among other things, establish qualification classifications for
municipal advisor professionals; and to require that municipal advisor
professionals engaging in municipal advisory activities and those
engaging in the management, direction or supervision of a firm's
municipal advisory activities pass the Municipal Advisor Representative
Qualification Examination (``Series 50 examination'') to be qualified
in accordance with MSRB rules. The MSRB stated at that time, at a later
date, it would consider a qualification examination for municipal
advisor principals.\7\ Also, the MSRB noted, ``[i]f such an examination
is proposed, it is expected that each municipal advisor principal
would, as a prerequisite, be required to pass the municipal advisor
representative qualification examination before taking the municipal
advisor principal qualification examination.'' \8\ On February 26,
2015, among other things, the SEC approved amendments to Rule G-2 to
require that no municipal advisor shall engage in municipal advisory
activities unless such municipal advisor is qualified in accordance
with MSRB rules; and approved Rules G-3(d)(i) and (e)(i) to create two
new qualification classifications for municipal advisors: Municipal
advisor representative \9\ and municipal advisor principal \10\ and to
require persons meeting the definition of a municipal advisor
representative and/or municipal advisor principal to pass the Series 50
examination.\11\ In addition, as amended, each municipal advisor would
be required to designate at least one individual as a municipal advisor
principal who would be responsible for supervising the municipal
advisory activities of the municipal advisor and its associated
persons.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See MSRB Notice 2014-08 (Request for Comment on Establishing
Professional Qualification Requirements for Municipal Advisors)
(March 17, 2014).
    \7\ Id.
    \8\ Id.
    \9\ Under Rule G-3(d) a ``municipal advisor representative'' is
defined as ``a natural person associated with a municipal advisor
who engages in municipal advisory activities on the municipal
advisor's behalf, other than a person performing only clerical,
administrative support or similar functions.''
    \10\ Under Rule G-3(e) a ``municipal advisor principal'' is
defined as ``a natural person associated with a municipal advisor
who is qualified as a municipal advisor representative and is
directly engaged in the management, direction or supervision of the
municipal advisory activities of the municipal advisor and its
associated persons.''
    \11\ See Exchange Act Release No. 74384 (February 26, 2015), 80
FR 11706 (March 4, 2015) (SR-MSRB-2014-08) (Notice of Filing of
Amendment No. 1 and Amendment No. 2 and Order Granting Accelerated
Approval).
    \12\ Rule G-44 sets forth the obligation of municipal advisor
principals to supervise the municipal advisory activities of the
municipal advisor and its associated persons to ensure compliance
with applicable securities laws and regulations, including
applicable Board rules.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the 2014 filing,\13\ the MSRB addressed the development of a
principal-level examination in response to a commenter's recommendation
\14\ that the MSRB should make a supervisor examination available
before, or simultaneously with the representative examination and
eliminate the need for a supervisor to take both examinations. The MSRB
articulated that it was ``important that the representative examination
be introduced prior to any principal examination because the
[representative] examination would determine the basic competency of
those individuals who are engaged in municipal advisory activity.''
\15\ More importantly, the MSRB noted, and has continued to communicate
to municipal advisor professionals that the MSRB would consider an
examination for principals at a later date.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ See Exchange Act Release No. 73708 (December 1, 2014), 79
FR 72225 (December 5, 2014) (SR-MSRB-2014-08) (Notice of Filing of a
Proposed Rule Change).
    \14\ On March 17, 2014, the MSRB published a request for public
comment on establishing professional qualification requirements for
municipal advisors. See supra note 6. In response, the MSRB received
thirty-five comment letters. One commenter recommended the MSRB make
available a principal-level examination before the representative-
level examination. See Letter from Linda Fan, Managing Partner, Yuba
Group to Ronald Smith, Corporate Secretary, Municipal Securities
Rulemaking Board (April 28, 2014).
    \15\ See supra note 13.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Now that the MSRB has concluded the launch of the Series 50
examination and the one-year grace period has ended \16\ for municipal
advisor representatives and municipal advisor principals to pass the
Series 50 examination while continuing to engage in municipal advisory
activities and the supervision of municipal advisory activities, the
MSRB is in the process of

formalizing the development of a principal-level examination.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ The MSRB proposed a one-year grace period for municipal
advisor representatives and municipal advisor principals to satisfy
the qualification requirements pursuant to Rule G-3 in order to
provide an orderly transition to the new qualification requirements.
See supra note 13.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Proposed Amendments
    The MSRB is proposing to adopt Rule G-3(e)(ii)(A) to establish
additional qualification requirements for municipal advisor principals.
Specifically, the proposed amendments would require those who meet the
definition of a municipal advisor principal, as defined under Rule G-
3(e)(i), (i.e., persons engaged in the management, direction or
supervision of the municipal advisory activities of the municipal
advisor and its associated persons) to pass both the Series 50
examination and Series 54 examination prior to becoming qualified as a
municipal advisor principal. Additionally, the proposed amendments to
Rule G-3(e)(ii) would also prescribe that the passing score shall be
determined by the Board. The establishment of qualification
requirements for municipal advisor principals would assist in ensuring
that such persons have a specified level of competency that is
appropriate in the public interest and for the protection of investors,
and municipal entities and obligated persons. Additionally, the
establishment of the Series 54 examination is consistent with the
intent of the establishment of the Series 50 examination ``to mitigate
problems associated with advice provided by those individuals without
adequate training or qualifications,'' in that municipal advisor
principals should be appropriately qualified to supervise such
activities of municipal advisor representatives.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ See supra note 13.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Proposed Rule G-3(e)(ii)(B) would require any person qualified as a
municipal advisor principal who ceases to be associated with a
municipal advisor for two or more years at any time after having
qualified as a municipal advisor principal to requalify by examination
by passing both the Series 50 examination and Series 54 examination
prior to becoming qualified as a municipal advisor principal, unless a
waiver is granted pursuant to Rule G-3(h)(ii), on waiver of
qualification requirements.\18\ Accordingly, the MSRB is proposing to
amend Rule G-3(h)(ii) and Supplementary Material .02 to provide that
the MSRB will consider waiving the qualification requirements of a
municipal advisor principal in extraordinary cases where the applicant
was previously qualified as a municipal advisor principal by passing
both the Series 50 examination and Series 54 examination and the
person's qualification lapsed. Proposed Rule G-3(e)(ii)(C) would allow
a municipal advisor principal to be designated a municipal advisor
principal and to function in that capacity for a period of 120 calendar
days without having passed the Series 54 examination.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ The Board will review waiver requests on their individual
merits, taking into consideration relevant facts presented by an
applicant.
    \19\ On June 8, 2018, the MSRB filed a proposed rule change with
the SEC for immediate effectiveness, which, in part, extends the
period from 90 calendar days to 120 calendar days for municipal
securities representatives to function in a principal capacity
without passing a principal examination as long as the municipal
securities representative has at least 18 months of experience
within the five-year period immediately preceding the designation as
a principal. The MSRB is not extending this experience requirement
to a municipal advisor representative in order to function as a
municipal advisor principal for 120 calendar days because, given the
typical size of a municipal advisor firm, coupled with the newness
of the qualification classifications and development of professional
qualification requirements for municipal advisor professionals, such
a requirement could pose an undue burden on a municipal advisor's
operational needs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The MSRB is also proposing a technical amendment to Rule G-3(e)(i),
on definitions, to establish as a separate rule provision, and to
clarify, that qualification as a municipal advisor representative is a
prerequisite to obtaining qualification as a municipal advisor
principal. The MSRB is also proposing a technical amendment to renumber
the rule provisions under Rule G-3(e).
    A more detailed summary of the Series 54 examination under
development is outlined below.
Development of the Municipal Advisor Principal Qualification
Examination
    The MSRB believes that professional qualification examinations,
such as the Series 50 examination and Series 54 examination, are
established means for determining the competency of individuals in a
particular qualification classification. The MSRB has, in consultation
with the MSRB's Professional Qualification Advisory Committee,
developed the Series 54 examination to ensure that a person seeking to
qualify as a municipal advisor principal satisfies a specified level of
competency and knowledge by measuring a candidate's ability to apply
the applicable federal securities laws, including MSRB rules to the
municipal advisory activities of a municipal advisor. The MSRB has
adhered to recognized test development standards by performing a job
study to determine the appropriate topics to be covered and weighting
of such topics on the Series 54 examination.\20\ From October 17, 2017
through November 7, 2017, the MSRB conducted a job study of municipal
advisor principals via a web-based survey. The job study was sent to
the primary and optional regulatory contacts at over 500 municipal
advisors, representing every municipal advisor with at least one person
qualified with the Series 50 examination. The MSRB received 212
responses to the job study, representing data from municipal advisor
principals from different-sized municipal advisors in different areas
of the country.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ A job study is an assessment of the essential skills that
are required to complete a particular function and is used as a
basis for defining relevant or suitable content for exam questions
and in preparing exam specifications, which refer to the emphasis or
weight given to topic areas within an examination.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The MSRB will announce the effective date of the permanent Series
54 examination at a later date in an MSRB Notice published on
MSRB.org.\21\ However, in advance of the permanent version of the
Series 54 examination, the MSRB anticipates conducting a pilot of the
Series 54 examination, the results of which will be used to determine
the passing score for the permanent Series 54 examination. Prior to the
launch of the pilot version of the Series 54 examination, the MSRB will
file a content outline with the SEC describing: The topics on the
examination; the percentage of the examination devoted to each topic
area; and the number of questions that will appear on the examination.
The content outline will also contain sample examination questions and
a list of reference materials to assist individuals in preparation for
the examination. To provide persons who function as municipal advisor
principals with sufficient time to satisfy the new qualification
requirement, consistent with the implementation process for the Series
50 examination, the MSRB proposes a one-year grace period from the
effective date of the Series 54 examination for such persons to pass
the examination and become appropriately qualified as municipal advisor
principals. During this one-year grace period, a person functioning as
a municipal advisor principal would be permitted to continue to engage
in the management, direction or supervision of the municipal advisory
activities of the municipal advisor and its associated persons so long
as such person is qualified with the Series 50 examination. This one-
year grace period

is designed to ensure that those persons functioning as a municipal
advisor principal can prepare for and pass the Series 54 examination
without causing considerable disruption to the business of the
municipal advisor. After the one-year grace period, a municipal advisor
representative would only be permitted to function in the capacity of a
municipal advisor principal, after being so designated, for a period of
120 days without being a qualified municipal advisor principal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ The effective date of the Series 54 examination will be the
date the Series 54 examination becomes permanently available.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Grandfathering
    Consistent with the requirement that all municipal advisor
representatives and municipal advisor principals pass the Series 50
examination, the proposed rule change would require those who meet the
definition of a municipal advisor principal, as defined under Rule G-
3(e), to pass the Series 54 examination regardless of whether such
persons have passed other MSRB or MSRB-recognized examinations (such as
the Series 53 or Series 24). The MSRB does not intend to waive the
principal-level requirement or grandfather individuals who have passed
such other examinations or who have experience in functioning in a
supervisory capacity. The MSRB believes that, as consistent with the
professional qualification standards for the municipal advisor
representative-level examination, each municipal advisor principal
should demonstrate a specified level of competency of the regulatory
requirements and application thereof to the municipal advisory
activities of a municipal advisor by passing a principal-level
examination.
2. Statutory Basis
    The MSRB believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with
Section 15B(b)(2)(A) of the Act,\22\ which authorizes the MSRB to
prescribe ``standards of training, experience, competence, and such
other qualifications as the Board finds necessary or appropriate in the
public interest or for the protection of investors and municipal
entities or obligated persons'' and Sections 15B(b)(2)(A)(i) \23\ and
15B(b)(2)(A)(iii) \24\ of the Act, which provides that the Board may
appropriately classify associated persons of dealers and municipal
advisors and require persons in any such class to pass tests prescribed
by the Board. Professional qualification examinations are an
established means for demonstrating that municipal advisor
professionals possess the specified level of competency necessary to
engage in or supervise municipal advisory activities. The proposed
amendments to Rule G-3(e) to require municipal advisor principals to
pass the Series 54 examination, and the requirement to pass the Series
50 examination as a prerequisite to the Series 54 examination, is in
furtherance of establishing professional qualification standards. The
MSRB's professional qualification examinations are designed to measure
knowledge of the business activities and the regulatory requirements
under the federal securities laws, including MSRB rules, applicable to
a particular qualification classification, which is in furtherance of
this provision of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ 15 U.S.C. 78o-4(b)(2)(A).
    \23\ 15 U.S.C. 78o-4(b)(2)(A)(i).
    \24\ 15 U.S.C. 78o-4(b)(2)(A)(iii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The MSRB also believes the proposed amendments are in accordance
with Section 15B(b)(2)(C) of the Act,\25\ which requires, among other
things, that MSRB 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,
municipal entities, obligated persons, and the public interest . . .''
The MSRB notes that requiring municipal advisor principals to pass the
Series 54 examination will protect investors, municipal entities and
obligated persons by ensuring municipal advisor principals demonstrate
a specified level of competency of the regulatory requirements and
application thereof to the municipal advisor's municipal advisory
activities by passing a principal qualification examination.
Additionally, the proposed rule change furthers the stated objective of
Section 15B(b)(2)(C) of the Act to foster the prevention of fraudulent
practices by enhancing the overall professional qualification standards
of municipal advisor principals--recognizing the important role proper
supervision of a municipal advisor's activities and that of its
associated persons play in the protection of the municipal securities
market.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ 15 U.S.C. 78o-4(b)(2)(C).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Additionally, Section 15B(b)(2)(L)(iv) of the Act, requires that
MSRB rules not impose a regulatory burden on small municipal advisors
that is not necessary or appropriate in the public interest and for the
protection of investors, municipal entities, and obligated persons,
provided that there is robust protection of investors against
fraud.\26\ The MSRB believes that the proposed rule change is
consistent with Section 15B(b)(2)(L)(iv) of the Act in that, while the
proposed rule change would affect all municipal advisors, including
small municipal advisors, the regulatory burden that results is
necessary and appropriate in order to establish the specified level of
competence of those individuals engaged in the management, direction or
supervision of the municipal advisory activities of a municipal advisor
and its associated persons. Furthermore, the MSRB believes that
establishing a specified level of competence is necessary for the
protection of investors, municipal entities, and obligated persons in
that such competence promotes compliance with the rules and regulations
governing the conduct of municipal advisors.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ 15 U.S.C. 78o-4(b)(2)(L)(iv).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    Section 15B(b)(2)(C) of the Act \27\ requires that MSRB rules not
be designed to impose any burden on competition not necessary or
appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. In determining
whether this standard has been met, the MSRB has been guided by the
Board's adopted policy to more formally integrate economic analysis
into the rulemaking process. In accordance with this policy, the Board
has evaluated the potential impacts of the proposed rule change,
including in comparison to reasonable alternative regulatory
approaches.\28\ The MSRB does not believe that the proposed rule change
would impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The MSRB currently requires any
natural person associated with a municipal advisor who intends to
engage in municipal advisory activities on behalf of the municipal
advisor and those who supervise the municipal advisory activities of
the municipal advisor to pass the Series 50 examination prior to being
qualified as a municipal advisor representative and a municipal advisor
principal, respectively.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ 15 U.S.C. 78o-4(b)(2)(C).
    \28\ Policy on the Use of Economic Analysis in MSRB Rulemaking
is available at http://msrb.org/Rules-and-Interpretations/Economic-Analysis-Policy.aspx. In evaluating whether there was a burden on
competition, the Board was guided by its principles that required
the Board to consider costs and benefits of a rule change, its
impact on capital formation and the main reasonable alternative
regulatory approaches.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As previously indicated, once the Series 54 examination is
permanently available, a municipal advisor principal will be required
to pass both the Series 50 examination and Series 54 examination prior
to becoming qualified as a municipal advisor principal. The

Series 54 examination is intended to determine whether a municipal
advisor principal meets a specified level of competency. The main
benefit of the Series 54 examination is to ensure protection of
municipal entities and obligated persons who employ municipal advisors
to engage in municipal advisory activities on their behalf--the
benefits which should accumulate over time. The establishment of the
Series 54 examination as a professional qualification requirement for
municipal advisor principals is in furtherance of the mandate to
protect municipal entities and obligated persons by requiring that
individuals engaged in the management, direction or supervision of the
municipal advisory activities of a municipal advisor and its associated
persons demonstrate a specified level of competence of the rules and
regulations governing such municipal advisory activities. The
establishment of professional qualification standards effectively will
serve to benefit municipal advisors as such standards for municipal
advisor principals are designed to ensure that any person that
supervises, manages or directs the municipal advisory activities of a
municipal advisor and its associated persons understands the
application of the federal securities laws to a municipal advisor's
municipal advisory activities in order to safeguard the municipal
advisor from conduct that would violate the federal securities laws.
    The MSRB recognizes that municipal advisors would incur
programmatic costs associated with the proposed Series 54 examination
requirement, including costs to meet standards of training, experience
and competence.\29\ Currently, the number of municipal advisor
professionals who have passed the Series 50 examination and are
associated persons of municipal advisors is about 3,360. Based on the
number of registered municipal advisors and associated persons
currently qualified with the Series 50 examination to act in the
capacity of a municipal advisor principal, the MSRB estimates that 650
persons will likely take the Series 54 examination. The MSRB also
estimates the total costs incurred for taking the examination should be
no more than $715 per each municipal advisor principal.\30\ Therefore,
the estimated total costs to the industry to implement the proposed
Series 54 examination would be around $465,000.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ As with the Series 50 examination, the costs of preparing
for and taking the proposed Series 54 examination would be incurred
only once for each municipal advisor principal, assuming the
principal passed the examination on the first occasion.
    \30\ This total estimated amount includes $265 to take the
examination and $450 to obtain study materials to prepare for the
examination. Based on MSRB's research, the study material/package
prices for the Series 50 examination currently range from $90 to
$450, depending on the vendors. To be conservative, the MSRB chose
the highest amount for the cost estimate to prepare for and take the
proposed Series 54 examination.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Act provides that MSRB rules may not impose a regulatory burden
on small municipal advisors that is not necessary or appropriate in the
public interest and for the protection of investors, municipal
entities, and obligated persons provided that there is robust
protection of investors against fraud.\31\ The MSRB is sensitive to the
potential impact the regulatory requirements contained in the proposed
rule change may have on small municipal advisors and recognizes that
the cost of complying with the requirements of the proposed rule change
may be proportionally higher for certain small firms as the incremental
cost associated with the qualification examination requirement may
represent a greater percentage of annual revenues for a small firm. To
avoid potential disruption to a municipal advisor's business
activities, which could impact revenue, the proposed rule change would
provide a one-year grace period for persons to prepare for and pass the
Series 54 examination, thus allowing small municipal advisors the
flexibility to plan around existing and ongoing business engagements.
Furthermore, the cost for a small municipal advisor of having an
associated person prepare for and take the Series 54 examination would
be incurred only once for each municipal advisor principal, assuming
such person(s) passed the examination on the first occasion.
Accordingly, the MSRB believes that the proposed rule change is
consistent with the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \31\ 15 U.S.C. 78o-4(b)(2)(L)(iv).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The MSRB has considered whether it is possible that the costs
associated with preparing for and taking the municipal advisor
principal-level qualification examination, could possibly affect the
competitive landscape by leading some municipal advisory firms and
principals to exit the market, curtail their activities or consolidate
with other firms.\32\ However, the market for municipal advisory
services is likely to remain competitive despite the potential exit of
some municipal advisors (including small entity municipal advisors),
consolidation of municipal advisors, or deterrence of new entrants into
the market. A recent study by Bergstresser and Luby (July 2018) on the
landscape of the municipal advisory services in the post Dodd-Frank Act
era found that while the number and types of municipal advisors have
changed over the last few years, the number of municipal advisor
professionals has remained steady.\33\ It appears that municipal
entities and obligated persons are still being serviced by a similar-
sized universe of active municipal advisory professionals even as the
name and location of the firms that they have worked at may have
changed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \32\ For example, some municipal advisors may determine to
consolidate with other municipal advisors in order to benefit from
economies of scale rather than to incur separately the costs
associated with the proposed rule change. Others may exit the
market, rather than incurring the cost of preparing for and taking a
qualification examination.
    \33\ https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/Berg-Luby-2018-20180716.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    Written comments were neither solicited nor received.

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

    Within 45 days of the date of publication of this notice in the
Federal Register or within such longer period of up to 90 days (i) as
the Commission may designate if it finds such longer period to be
appropriate and publishes its reasons for so finding or (ii) as to
which the self-regulatory organization consents, the Commission will:
    (A) By order approve or disapprove such proposed rule change, or
    (B) institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule
change should be disapproved.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to [email protected]. Please include
File Number SR-MSRB-2018-07 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-MSRB-2018-07. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's internet website (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 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 10:00 a.m. and
3:00 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available for inspection
and copying at the principal office of the MSRB. All comments received
will be posted without change. Persons submitting comments are
cautioned that we do not redact or edit personal identifying
information from comment submissions. You should submit only
information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions
should refer to File Number SR-MSRB-2018-07 and should be submitted on
or before October 30, 2018.

    For the Commission, pursuant to delegated authority.\34\
Eduardo A. Aleman,
Assistant Secretary.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \34\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 2018-21782 Filed 10-5-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 218 (Thursday, November 12, 2015)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 69905-69909]
[FR Doc No: 2015-28779]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

21 CFR Part 101

[Docket No. FDA-2014-N-1207]

Use of the Term ``Natural'' in the Labeling of Human Food
Products; Request for Information and Comments

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notification of request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or we) is announcing the
establishment of a docket to receive information and comments on the
use of the term ``natural'' in the labeling of human food products,
including foods that are genetically engineered or contain ingredients
produced through the use of genetic engineering. We are taking this
action in part because we received three citizen petitions asking that
we define the term ``natural'' for use in food labeling and one citizen
petition asking that we prohibit the term ``natural'' on food labels.
We also note that some Federal courts, as a result of litigation
between private parties, have requested administrative determinations
from FDA regarding whether food products containing ingredients
produced using genetic engineering or foods containing high fructose
corn syrup may be labeled as ``natural.'' We are working with the
United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Agricultural Marketing
Service and Food Safety and Inspection Service to also examine the use
of the term ``natural'' in meat, poultry, and egg products, and are
considering areas for coordination between FDA and USDA. We invite
public comment on the term ``natural'' in the context of food labeling
and on specific questions contained in this document.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before February 10, 2016.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments as follows:

Electronic Submissions

    Submit electronic comments in the following way:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the instructions for submitting comments. Comments submitted
electronically, including attachments, to http://www.regulations.gov
will be posted to the docket unchanged. Because your comment will be
made public, you are solely responsible for ensuring that your comment
does not include any confidential information that you or a third party
may not wish to be posted, such as medical information, your or anyone
else's Social Security number, or confidential business information,
such as a manufacturing process. Please note that if you include your
name, contact information, or other information that identifies you in
the body of your comments, that information will be posted on http://www.regulations.gov.
     If you want to submit a comment with confidential
information that you do not wish to be made available to the public,
submit the comment as a written/paper submission and in the manner
detailed (see ``Written/Paper Submissions'' and ``Instructions'').

Written/Paper Submissions

    Submit written/paper submissions as follows:
     Mail/Hand delivery/Courier (for written/paper
submissions): Division of Dockets Management (HFA-305), Food and Drug
Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.

     For written/paper comments submitted to the Division of
Dockets Management, FDA will post your comment, as well as any
attachments, except for information submitted, marked and identified,
as confidential, if submitted as detailed in ``Instructions.''
    Instructions: All submissions received must include Docket No. FDA-
2014-N-1207 for ``Use of the Term ``Natural'' in the Labeling of Human
Food Products; Request for Information and Comments.'' Received
comments will be placed in the docket and, except for those submitted
as ``Confidential Submissions,'' publicly viewable at http://www.regulations.gov or at the Division of Dockets Management between 9
a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday.
     Confidential Submissions--To submit a comment with
confidential information that you do not wish to be made publicly
available, submit your comments only as a written/paper submission. You
should submit two copies total. One copy will include the information
you claim to be confidential with a heading or cover note that states
``THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION.'' The Agency will
review this copy, including the claimed confidential information, in
its consideration of comments. The second copy, which will have the
claimed confidential information redacted/blacked out, will be
available for public viewing and posted on http://www.regulations.gov.
Submit both copies to the Division of Dockets Management. If you do not
wish your name and contact information to be made publicly available,
you can provide this information on the cover sheet and not in the body
of your comments and you must identify this information as
``confidential.'' Any information marked as ``confidential'' will not
be disclosed except in accordance with 21 CFR 10.20 and other
applicable disclosure law. For more information about FDA's posting of
comments to public dockets, see 80 FR 56469, September 18, 2015, or
access the information at: http://www.fda.gov/regulatoryinformation/dockets/default.htm.
    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or
the electronic and written/paper comments received, go to http://www.regulations.gov and insert the docket number, found in brackets in
the heading of this document, into the ``Search'' box and follow the
prompts and/or go to the Division of Dockets Management, 5630 Fishers
Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Loretta Carey, Center for Food Safety
and Applied Nutrition (HFS-820), Food and Drug Administration, 5100
Paint Branch Pkwy., College Park, MD 20740,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

A. What has been FDA's position regarding the use of the term
``natural?''

    Under section 403(a)(1) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act
(the FD&C Act) (21 U.S.C. 343(a)(1)), a food shall be deemed to be
misbranded if its labeling is false or misleading in any particular.
Section 201(f) of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 321(f)) defines the term
``food'' to mean articles used for food or drink for man or other
animals, chewing gum, and articles used for components of any such
article. Subject to certain exceptions, dietary supplements are
generally considered to be foods under the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C.
321(ff)). Section 201(n) of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 321(n)) provides
that labeling is misleading if, among other things, it fails to reveal
facts that are material in light of representations made or suggested
in the labeling, or material with respect to consequences that may
result from the use of the food to which the labeling relates under the
conditions of use prescribed in the labeling, or under such conditions
of use as are customary or usual. Section 201(m) of the FD&C Act
defines ``labeling'' as all labels and other written, printed, or
graphic matter upon any article or any of its containers or wrappers or
accompanying such article.
    We have a longstanding policy for the use of the term ``natural''
on the labels of human food. We previously considered establishing a
definition for the term ``natural'' when used in food labeling. In the
preamble of a proposed rule we published in the Federal Register (56 FR
60421, November 27, 1991), we stated that the word ``natural'' is often
used to convey that a food is composed only of substances that are not
manmade and is, therefore, somehow more wholesome. We also said that we
have not attempted to restrict use of the term ``natural'' except for
added color, synthetic substances, and flavors under Sec.  101.22 (21
CFR 101.22) (56 FR 60421 at 60466). Further, we said that we have
considered ``natural'' to mean that nothing artificial or synthetic
(including colors regardless of source) is included in, or has been
added to, the product that would not normally be expected to be there
(56 FR 60421 at 60466).
    We also noted that the term ``natural'' is used on a variety of
products to mean a variety of things. Because of its widespread use,
and the evidence that consumers regard many uses of this term as non-
informative, we said, back in 1991, that we were considering
establishing a definition for this term (56 FR 60421 at 60466). We said
that we believed that defining the term ``natural'' could remove some
ambiguity surrounding use of the term that results in misleading claims
(56 FR 60421 at 60466).
    We invited comments on several questions, including whether we
should establish a meaningful definition for ``natural'' so that this
term would have a common consumer understanding, and whether it should
prohibit ``natural'' claims entirely on the grounds that they are false
or misleading (56 FR 60421 at 60467). In the preamble to the subsequent
final rule, we noted that we had received many comments on the subject,
but that ``[n]one of the comments provided FDA with a specific
direction to follow for developing a definition regarding the use of
the term `natural.' '' (58 FR 2302 at 2407, January 6, 1993). We stated
that at that time we would not be engaging in rulemaking to define
``natural,'' but that we would maintain our policy not to restrict the
use of the term ``natural'' except for added color, synthetic
substances, and flavors. We further stated that we would maintain our
policy to interpret the term ``natural'' as meaning that ``nothing
artificial or synthetic (including all color additives regardless of
source) has been included in, or has been added to, a food that would
not normally be expected to be in the food'' (58 FR 2302 at 2407).
    When we established our policy concerning the use of the term
``natural,'' as described previously in this document, it was not
intended to address food production methods, such as the use of genetic
engineering or other forms of genetic modification, the use of
pesticides, or the use of specific animal husbandry practices, nor did
it explicitly address food processing or manufacturing methods, such as
thermal technologies, pasteurization, or irradiation. Furthermore, we
did not consider whether the term ``natural'' should describe any
nutritional or other health benefit.

B. What recent events prompted FDA to request comment?

    In a citizen petition (now filed under docket number FDA-2014-P-
0312) dated March 14, 2014, the Grocery Manufacturers Association (GMA)
requests that we ``issue a regulation

authorizing statements such as `natural' on foods that are or contain
foods derived from biotechnology'' (see Citizen Petition from the
Grocery Manufacturers Association to the Food and Drug Administration
(``Petition'') at page 1). Specifically, GMA requests that we issue a
regulation ``that it is neither false nor misleading to label a food as
`natural' or similar terms solely because the food is or contains a
food derived from biotechnology'' (Petition at page 3). GMA requests
that FDA issue a regulation establishing that the term(s) ``natural,''
``all natural,'' ``100% natural,'' ``from nature,'' ``naturally
grown,'' or ``naturally sourced'' may accompany the common or usual
name of a food, or the name of a standardized food, or appear elsewhere
on the label or in labeling of such foods, and that such a food shall
not be deemed to be misbranded solely because the food contains a food
derived from biotechnology (Petition at page 3).
    Alternatively, GMA requests that we amend Sec.  101.4 (Food;
designation of ingredients.) by adding a new paragraph stating that: A
food bearing a claim that its ingredient or ingredients are
``natural,'' ``all natural,'' ``100% natural,'' ``from nature,''
``naturally grown,'' or ``naturally sourced'' shall not be deemed
misbranded solely because the ingredient or ingredients are derived
from biotechnology (Petition at page 3, footnote 2). The GMA citizen
petition also describes, in the petitioner's view, the legal and
factual basis for a regulation and why rulemaking is in the public
interest (see Petition at pages 5 through 15).
    The GMA citizen petition follows earlier communications to FDA
regarding the use of the term ``natural'' on the labels of food
containing ingredients produced using genetic engineering. For example,
three Federal district courts referred to us, for an administrative
determination under 21 CFR 10.25(c), the question of whether food
products containing ingredients produced using bioengineering may be
labeled as ``Natural,'' ``All Natural,'' and/or ``100% Natural.'' See
Letter from Leslie Kux, Assistant Commissioner for Policy, to the
Honorable Yvonne Gonzales Rogers, U.S. District Court, Northern
District of California, the Honorable Jeffrey S. White, U.S. District
Court, Northern District of California, and the Honorable Kevin
McNulty, U.S. District Court, District of New Jersey (January 6, 2014)
(``Courts Letter''); see also Letter from Karin F. R. Moore, Vice
President and General Counsel, Grocery Manufacturers Association, to
Elizabeth H. Dickinson, Esq., Chief Counsel, FDA (December 5, 2013)
(mentioning the district courts' referrals to FDA and stating that FDA
has authority to issue a regulation authorizing foods containing
ingredients derived from biotechnology to be labeled ``natural'').
Although we declined to make a determination for the courts regarding
whether and under what circumstances food products containing
ingredients produced using genetic engineering may or may not be
labeled ``natural,'' we informed the courts that, if we were inclined
to revoke, amend, or revise our policy regarding use of the term
``natural,'' we would likely engage in a public process and work with
other Federal entities, such as the U.S. Department of Agriculture
(USDA) (see Courts Letter at page 2). We issued a similar response to a
Federal district court, in 2010, when it asked whether high fructose
corn syrup qualified as a ``natural'' ingredient. See Letter from
Michael M. Landa, Acting Director, Center for Food Safety and Applied
Nutrition, to the Honorable Jerome B. Simandle, U.S. District Court
Judge, District of New Jersey (September 16, 2010).
    On October 3, 2014, we received a citizen petition from Consumers
Union (see FDA-2014-P-1650) requesting that we prohibit use of the term
``natural'' on food labels altogether. The Consumers Union citizen
petition asserts that there is a ``drastic'' difference between FDA's
current policy for use of the term ``natural'' and ``what people think
the `natural' label should mean'' (Citizen Petition from the Consumers
Union to FDA (``Petition'') at page 1). More specifically, Consumers
Union requests that FDA issue the following interpretive rule
prohibiting use of the term ``natural'' in food labeling: ``The term
`natural,' or any derivation of the term, such as `naturally grown,'
`naturally sourced' or `from nature,' is vague and misleading and
should not be used'' [emphasis in the original] (see Petition at page
3).
    The Consumers Union citizen petition relies on Consumer Reports
National Research Center survey data to support its position that
consumers are misled by the term ``natural.'' \1\ According to the
petition, the survey suggests that nearly two-thirds of U.S. consumers
are currently misled by use of the term ``natural'' on certain food
labels and nearly 90 percent expect it to ``mean much more than it
does'' (see Petition at page 2 and pages 4 through 9). For example,
according to the petition, ``Sixty-six percent of consumers think
`natural' processed food products mean no toxic pesticides were used,
66% think no artificial ingredients or colors were used, 65% think no
chemicals were used during processing and 64% think no GMOs were used''
(see Petition at page 2). Also, according to the petition, when
consumers were asked what they thought the term natural should mean,
``87% believe no artificial materials or chemicals should be used
during processing, 86% believe no artificial ingredients or colors
should be used, 86% believe no toxic pesticides should be used, and 85%
believe no GMOs should be used'' (see Petition at page 2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Consumer Reports National Research Center Survey Research
Report re Citizen Petition from Consumers Union, FDA-2014-P-1650-
0002. According to Consumers Union, the survey was a nationally
representative phone survey of over 1000 adult U.S. residents.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Consumers Union asserts that it has observed a push from industry
to allow the use of the term ``natural'' on food labels that do not
represent what their survey indicates consumers believe the term
natural should mean (see Petition at page 3). Consumers Union further
states that ``consumers demand far more from the `natural' label, in
line with what they expect from the `organic' label'' such that the
term ``natural'' in food labeling ``should be banned altogether'' (see
Petition at page 3).
    We also have received two other citizen petitions concerning the
use of the term ``natural'' on food labels. One citizen petition, from
the Sara Lee Corp. (see FDA-2007-P-0007), asks that we work with USDA's
Food Safety Inspection Service (FSIS) to devise and adopt a unified
policy, as a statement of policy, governing use of the term ``natural''
such that use of the term ``natural'' may be used to describe a food or
food ingredient that does not contain any artificial flavor or
flavoring, coloring ingredient (regardless of source), or any
artificial or synthetic ingredient that is included within or not
normally expected in the product (see Petition at page 2). Further, the
Sara Lee Corp. asserts that the degree of processing necessary to
produce the food or food ingredient should be considered in determining
consumer expectation.
    Another citizen petition, submitted by The Sugar Association (see
FDA-2006-P-0206), asks that we engage in rulemaking to define the term
``natural'' with respect to food and beverages. The citizen petition
asks for consistency across Federal Agencies with respect to such
definition and requests that we define the term ``natural'' based on
FSIS's definition in its Food Standards and Labeling Policy Book for
``natural'' claims for meat products and poultry products (see Petition
at page 1).

    The definition of ``natural claims'' in the FSIS's Food Standards
and Labeling Policy Book, in relevant part, states that the term
``natural'' may be used on labeling for meat products and poultry
products if the applicant for such labeling demonstrates that: (1) The
product does not contain any artificial flavor or flavoring, coloring
ingredient, chemical preservative (as defined in Sec.  101.22), or any
other artificial or synthetic ingredient and (2) the product and its
ingredients are not more than minimally processed. The FSIS Food
Standards and Labeling Policy Book further explains that minimal
processing may include traditional processes used to make food edible
or to preserve it or to make it safe for human consumption, e.g.,
smoking, roasting, freezing, drying, and fermenting or physical
processes which do not fundamentally alter the raw product and/or which
only separate a whole, intact food into component parts, e.g., grinding
meat, separating eggs into albumen and yolk, and pressing fruits to
produce juices. The FSIS Food Standards and Labeling Policy Book also
states that relatively severe processes, such as solvent extraction,
acid hydrolysis, and chemical bleaching, would be considered more than
minimal processing, so the use of a natural flavor or flavoring in
compliance with Sec.  101.22 that has undergone more than minimal
processing would place a product in which it is used outside the scope
of the FSIS guidelines. However, the FSIS Food Standards and Labeling
Policy Book states that the presence of an ingredient that has been
more than minimally processed would not necessarily preclude the
product from being promoted as natural, and that exceptions may be
granted on a case-by-case basis if it can be demonstrated that the use
of such an ingredient would not significantly change the character of
the product to the point that it could no longer be considered a
natural product. In such cases, the natural claim is to be qualified to
clearly and conspicuously identify the ingredient, e.g., ``all natural
or all natural ingredients except dextrose, modified food starch,
etc.''
    The FSIS Food Standards and Labeling Policy Book also states that
all products claiming to be natural or a natural food should be
accompanied by a brief statement that explains what is meant by the
term natural, i.e., that the product is a natural food because it
contains no artificial ingredients and is only minimally processed. The
statement is to appear directly beneath or beside all natural claims
or, if elsewhere on the principal display panel, an asterisk should be
used to tie the explanation to the claim.
    Moreover, the FSIS Food Standards and Labeling Policy Book
specifies that FSIS's decision to approve or deny use of a natural
claim may be affected by the specific context in which the claim is
made. The FSIS Food Standards and Labeling Policy Book contains an
example showing that claims indicating that a product is natural food,
e.g., ``Natural chili'' or ``chili--a natural product'' would be
unacceptable for a product containing beet powder, which artificially
colors the finished product, but states that a claim such as ``all
natural ingredients'' might be an acceptable claim for such a product
(see Food Standards and Labeling Policy Book, FSIS, at 116, August
2005).
    Both the Sara Lee Corp. and The Sugar Association citizen petitions
also state that defining or establishing a policy on ``natural'' would
provide consistency for consumers and food manufacturers.

II. Request for Comments and Information

    We invite interested persons to comment on the use of the term
``natural'' in the labeling of human food products, including when, if
ever, the use of the term is false or misleading (FDA-2014-N-1207). We
are particularly interested in responses to the following questions:
     Should we define, through rulemaking, the term
``natural?'' Why or why not?
     Should we prohibit the term ``natural'' in food labeling?
Why or why not?
     If we define the term ``natural,'' what types of food
should be allowed to bear the term ``natural?''
     Should only raw agricultural commodities be able to bear
the term? Why or why not? Section 201(r) of the FD&C Act defines the
term ``raw agricultural commodity'' as ``any food in its raw or natural
state, including all fruits that are washed, colored, or otherwise
treated in their unpeeled natural form prior to marketing.''
     Should only single ingredient foods, e.g., bottled water
or bagged spinach, be able to bear the term? Why or why not?
     If multi-ingredient foods should be able to bear the term,
what type(s) of ingredients would disqualify the food from bearing the
term? Please explain why such disqualification would be warranted.
     We are interested in any data or other information to
suggest that consumers associate, confuse, or compare the term
``natural'' with ``organic'' (the USDA Agricultural Marketing Service
administers the National Organic Program, which enforces laws and
regulations regarding certified organic foods). We are interested in
data and other information about consumers' understanding of foods
labeled ``natural'' versus ``organic.'' Is the term ``natural'' on food
labels perceived by consumers the same way as ``organic?'' Or is
``natural'' perceived by consumers to be ``better'' (or not as good as)
``organic?'' Please provide consumer research or other evidence to
support your comment.
     If we were to revise our policy regarding the use of the
term ``natural'' or engage in rulemaking to establish a regulatory
definition for ``natural,'' should certain production practices used in
agriculture, for example, genetic engineering, mutagenesis,
hybridization, the use of pesticides, or animal husbandry practices, be
a factor in defining ``natural?'' Why or why not?
     We are interested in any data or other information to
suggest that consumers associate, confuse, or compare the term
``natural'' with ``healthy.'' We have a regulation that defines the
term ``healthy'' when used as an implied nutrient content claim with
specific conditions related to the food's nutrient profile that must be
met in order to use the term on the label or in labeling of a food (see
Sec.  101.65(d)). We are interested in data and other information about
consumers' understanding of foods labeled ``natural'' versus
``healthy.'' Is the term ``natural'' on food labels perceived by
consumers the same way as ``healthy?'' Or is ``natural'' perceived by
consumers to be ``better'' (or not as good as) ``healthy?'' Do
consumers view ``natural'' and ``healthy'' as synonymous terms? Please
provide consumer research or other evidence to support your comment.
     Should manufacturing processes be considered in
determining when a food can bear the term ``natural?'' For example,
should food manufacturing processes, such as drying, salting,
marinating, curing, freezing, canning, fermenting, pasteurizing,
irradiating, or hydrolysis, be a factor in defining ``natural?''
     Should the term ``natural'' only apply to ``unprocessed''
foods? If so, how should ``unprocessed'' and ``processed'' be defined
for purposes of bearing the claim? If the term natural should include
some processing methods, what should those methods be? In making
determinations related to processing, should one look at the process to
make a single ingredient of a

food, or does one evaluate the process done to the formulated finished
food product (or both)?
     The current policy regarding use of the term ``natural''
hinges in part on the presence or absence of synthetic ingredients. For
example, under the current policy synthetic forms of Vitamin D would
not be used in a food claiming to be ``natural,'' whereas naturally
sourced Vitamin D (e.g., from salmon or egg yolks) could be. Should the
manner in which an ingredient is produced or sourced affect whether a
food containing that ingredient may be labeled as ``natural?'' Please
explain your reasoning.
     What can be done to ensure that consumers have a
consistent and accurate understanding of the term ``natural'' in food
labeling to ensure that it is not misleading?
     What are the public health benefits, if any, of defining
the term ``natural'' in food labeling? Please provide supporting data
and other information to support your comment.
     Should ``natural'' have some nutritional benefit
associated with it? If so, what should be the benefit? What nutrients
should be considered? What data are available to support the
association between ``natural'' and a given nutritional benefit, and/or
between ``natural'' and certain nutrients?
     How might we determine whether foods labeled ``natural''
comply with any criteria for bearing the claim?

    Dated: November 6, 2015.
Leslie Kux,
Associate Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2015-28779 Filed 11-10-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4164-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 49 (Wednesday, March 15, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Page 13807]
[FR Doc No: 2017-05128]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings

    Take notice that the Commission has received the following Natural
Gas Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings:

Filings Instituting Proceedings

    Docket Numbers: RP17-451-001.
    Applicants: Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Company,
    Description: Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Company, LLC submits
tariff filing per 154.205(b): Transco Annual Fuel Tracker--Amendment to
be effective 4/1/2017.
    Filed Date: 03/03/2017.
    Accession Number: 20170303-5080.
    Comment Date: 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, March 15, 2017.

    Docket Numbers: RP17-495-001.
    Applicants: Cameron Interstate Pipeline, LLC.
    Description: Cameron Interstate Pipeline, LLC submits tariff filing
per 154.203: Cameron Interstate Pipeline, LLC Compliance Filing--
Corrected Tariff Record to be effective 4/1/2017 Type: 580.
    Filed Date: 03/03/2017.
    Accession Number: 20170303-5094.
    Comment Date: 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, March 15, 2017.

    Docket Numbers: RP17-498-001.
    Applicants: Cameron Interstate Pipeline, LLC.
    Description: Cameron Interstate Pipeline, LLC submits tariff filing
per 154.205(b): Cameron Interstate Pipeline Limited Section 4 Rate
Change--Corrected Tariff Rec to be effective 4/1/2017.
    Filed Date: 03/03/2017.
    Accession Number: 20170303-5098.
    Comment Date: 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, March 15, 2017.

    Docket Numbers: RP17-518-000.
    Applicants: Natural Gas Pipeline Company of America.
    Description: Natural Gas Pipeline Company of America LLC submits
tariff filing per 154.204: Elgin Energy Center Negotiated Rate to be
effective 4/1/2017.
    Filed Date: 03/03/2017.
    Accession Number: 20170303-5029.
    Comment Date: 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, March 15, 2017.

    Docket Numbers: RP17-519-000.
    Applicants: Texas Eastern Transmission, LP.
    Description: Offer of Stipulation and Agreement by Texas Eastern
Transmission, LP.
    Filed Date: 03/03/2017.
    Accession Number: 20170303-5206.
    Comment Date: 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, March 15, 2017.

    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by
clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
    Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above
proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00
p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be
considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the
proceeding.
    eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing
requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying
facilities filings can be found at: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For other information, call<PHONE_NUMBER>
(toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated; March 7, 2017.
 Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
 Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2017-05128 Filed 3-14-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 218 (Monday, November 14, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 68151-68152]
[FR Doc No: 2022-24684]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-ORD-2022-0833; FRL-10361-01-ORD]

Availability of the IRIS Assessment Plan and Protocol for
Assessing Cancer Risk From Inhalation Exposure to Cobalt and Cobalt
Compounds

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of public comment period.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is announcing a 30-
day public comment period associated with release of the Integrated
Risk Information System (IRIS) Assessment Plan and Systematic Review
Protocol for Inhalation Exposure to Cobalt and Compounds (Cancer). This
document communicates information on the scoping needs identified by
EPA program and regional offices and the IRIS Program's initial problem
formulation activities. Specifically, the assessment plan outlines the
objectives for the IRIS assessment and the type of evidence considered
most pertinent to address the scoping needs. The systematic review
protocol describes the methodology of how the assessment will be
conducted, including dose-response considerations. EPA is releasing
this IRIS assessment plan and systematic review protocol for a 30-day
public comment period in advance of a public science webinar planned
for November 30, 2022. The Agency encourages the public to comment on
all aspects of the assessment plan and the systematic review protocol,
including key science issues and identification of any new or missing
studies.

DATES: The 30-day public comment period begins November 14, 2022 and
ends December 14, 2022. Comments must be received on or before December
14, 2022.

ADDRESSES: The IRIS Assessment Plan and Systematic Review Protocol for
Inhalation Exposure to Cobalt and Compounds (Cancer) will be available
via the internet on the IRIS website at https://www.epa.gov/iris/iris-recent-additions and in the public docket at http://www.regulations.gov, Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-ORD-2022-0833.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For information on the public comment
period, contact the ORD Docket at the EPA Headquarters Docket Center;
telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; facsimile:<PHONE_NUMBER>; or email:
[email protected].
    For technical information on the IRIS Assessment Plan and
Systematic Review Protocol for Inhalation Exposure to Cobalt and
Compounds (Cancer), contact Garland Waleko, CPHEA; email:
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Information About IRIS Assessment Plans and Systematic Review
Protocols

    EPA's IRIS Program is a human health assessment program that
evaluates quantitative and qualitative information on the health
effects that may result from exposure to chemicals found in the
environment. Through the IRIS Program, EPA provides high quality
science-based human health assessments to support the Agency's
regulatory activities and decisions to protect public health. As part
of scoping and initial problem formulation activities prior to the
development of an assessment, the IRIS Program carries out a broad,
preliminary literature survey to assist in identifying health effects
that have been studied in relation to the chemical or substance of
interest, as well as science issues that may need to be considered when
evaluating toxicity. This information, in conjunction with scoping
needs identified by EPA program and regional offices, is used to inform
the development of an IRIS assessment plan (IAP).
    The IAP communicates the plan for developing each individual
chemical assessment to the public and includes summary information on
the IRIS Program's scoping and initial problem formulation activities,
objectives and specific aims for the assessment, and a

PECO (Populations, Exposures, Comparators, and Outcomes) for the
systematic review. The PECO provides the framework for developing
detailed literature search strategies and inclusion/exclusion criteria,
particularly with respect to evidence stream (e.g., human, animal,
mechanistic), exposure measures, and outcome measures. EPA also
presents a methods document, referred to as the systematic review
protocol, for conducting a chemical-specific systematic review of the
available scientific literature. Systematic review protocols describe
screening criteria to identify relevant literature, outline the
approach for evaluating study quality, and describe the dose-response
methods.

II. Public Webinar Information

    To allow for public input, EPA is convening a public webinar to
discuss the IRIS Assessment Plan and Systematic Review Protocol for
Inhalation Exposure to Cobalt and Compounds (Cancer) on November 30,
2022. Specific teleconference and webinar information regarding this
public meeting will be provided through the IRIS website (https://www.epa.gov/iris) and via EPA's IRIS listserv. To register for the IRIS
listserv, visit the IRIS website (https://www.epa.gov/iris) or visit
https://www.epa.gov/iris/forms/staying-connected-integrated-risk-information-system#connect.

III. How To Submit Technical Comments to the Docket at https://www.regulations.gov

    Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-ORD-2022-
0833 for IRIS Assessment Plan and Systematic Review Protocol for
Inhalation Exposure to Cobalt and Compounds (Cancer), by one of the
following methods:
     www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions for
submitting comments.
     Email: [email protected].
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA Docket
Center (ORD Docket), Mail Code: 28221T, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW,
Washington, DC 20460. The phone number is<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-ORD-
2022-0833. Please ensure that your comments are submitted within the
specified comment period. Comments received after the closing date will
be marked ``late,'' and may only be considered if time permits. It is
EPA's policy to include all comments it receives in the public docket
without change and to make the comments available online at
www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided,
unless a comment includes information claimed to be Confidential
Business Information (CBI) or other information for which disclosure is
restricted by statute. Do not submit information through
www.regulations.gov or email that you consider to be CBI or otherwise
protected. The www.regulations.gov website is an ``anonymous access''
system, which means EPA will not know your identity or contact
information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you
send an email comment directly to EPA without going through
www.regulations.gov, your email address will be automatically captured
and included as part of the comment that is placed in the public docket
and made available on the internet. If you submit an electronic
comment, EPA recommends that you include your name and other contact
information in the body of your comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you
submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties
and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to
consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid the use of special
characters, any form of encryption, and be free of any defects or
viruses. For additional information about EPA's public docket visit the
EPA Docket Center homepage at www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm.
    Docket: Documents in the docket are listed in the
www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other materials,
such as copyrighted material, are publicly available only in hard copy.
Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically
in www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the ORD Docket in the EPA
Headquarters Docket Center.

Wayne Cascio,
Director, Center for Public Health & Environmental Assessment.
[FR Doc. 2022-24684 Filed 11-10-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 185 (Tuesday, September 24, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Page 50089]
[FR Doc No: 2019-20750]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Sunshine Act Meetings

TIME AND DATE: 1:00 p.m. on Thursday, September 26, 2019.

PLACE: The meeting will be held at the Commission's headquarters, 100 F
Street NE, Washington, DC 20549.

STATUS: This meeting will be closed to the public.

MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED: Commissioners, Counsel to the Commissioners,
the Secretary to the Commission, and recording secretaries will attend
the closed meeting. Certain staff members who have an interest in the
matters also may be present.
    In the event that the time, date, or location of this meeting
changes, an announcement of the change, along with the new time, date,
and/or place of the meeting will be posted on the Commission's website
at https://www.sec.gov.
    The General Counsel of the Commission, or his designee, has
certified that, in his opinion, one or more of the exemptions set forth
in 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(3), (5), (6), (7), (8), 9(B) and (10) and 17 CFR
200.402(a)(3), (a)(5), (a)(6), (a)(7), (a)(8), (a)(9)(ii) and (a)(10),
permit consideration of the scheduled matters at the closed meeting.
    The subject matters of the closed meeting will consist of the
following topics:
    Institution and settlement of injunctive actions;
    Institution and settlement of administrative proceedings;
    Resolution of litigation claims; and
    Other matters relating to enforcement proceedings.
    At times, changes in Commission priorities require alterations in
the scheduling of meeting agenda items that may consist of
adjudicatory, examination, litigation, or regulatory matters.

CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION:  For further information; please
contact Vanessa A. Countryman from the Office of the Secretary at (202)
551-5400.

    Dated: September 19, 2019.
Vanessa A. Countryman,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2019-20750 Filed 9-20-19; 11:15 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 134 (Wednesday, July 13, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 45334-45336]
[FR Doc No: 2016-16491]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-78249; File No. SR-BX-2016-038]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NASDAQ BX, Inc.; Notice of Filing
and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Extend PRISM
Pilot Program Through January 18, 2017

July 7, 2016.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that
on June 29, 2016, NASDAQ BX, Inc. (``BX'' or ``Exchange'') filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission (``SEC'' or ``Commission'') the
proposed rule change as described in Items I and II below, which Items
have been prepared by the Exchange. The Commission is publishing this
notice to solicit

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

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

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

    The Exchange proposes to amend BX rules at Chapter VI, Section 9,
concerning a price-improvement mechanism, ``PRISM'' to extend, through
January 18, 2017, a pilot program (the ``pilot'') concerning (i) the
early conclusion of the PRISM Auction (as described below); (ii) an
unrelated market or marketable limit order (against the BX BBO) on the
opposite side of the market from the PRISM Order received during the
Auction will not cause the Auction to end early and will execute
against interest outside of the Auction; and (iii) no minimum size
requirement of orders. The current pilot is scheduled to expire July
18, 2016.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See Securities Exchange Release No. 76301 (October 29,
2015), 80 FR 68347 (November 4, 2015) (SR-BX-2015-032).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's
Web site at http://nasdaqbx.cchwallstreet.com/, at the principal office
of the Exchange, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    The purpose of this proposed rule change is to extend certain
pilots within Chapter VI, Section 9, entitled ``Price Improvement
Auction (``PRISM''), through January 18, 2017.
Background
    The Exchange adopted PRISM in November 2015 as a price-improvement
mechanism on the Exchange.\4\ This mechanism permits a Participant (an
``Initiating Participant'') to electronically submit for execution an
order it represents as agent on behalf of a Public Customer,\5\
Professional customer, broker dealer, or any other entity (``PRISM
Order'') against principal interest or against any other order it
represents as agent (an ``Initiating Order''), provided it submits the
PRISM Order for electronic execution into the PRISM Auction
(``Auction'') pursuant to the Chapter VI, Section 9.\6\ All options
traded on the Exchange are eligible for PRISM.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Id.
    \5\ A Public Customer order does not include a Professional
order, and therefore a Professional would not be entitled to Public
Customer priority as described herein. A Public Customer means a
person that is not a broker or dealer in securities. See BX Options
Rules at Chapter I, Section 1(a)(50). A Public Customer order does
not include a Professional order for purposes of BX Rule at Chapter
VI, Section 10(1)(C)(1)(a), which governs allocation priority. A
``Professional'' means any person or entity that (i) is not a broker
or dealer in securities, and (ii) places more than 390 orders in
listed options per day on average during a calendar month for its
own beneficial account(s). A Participant or a Public Customer may,
without limitation, be a Professional. All Professional orders shall
be appropriately marked by Participants. See BX Rules at Chapter I,
Section 1(a)(49).
    \6\ BX will only conduct an auction for Simple Orders.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Pilot Program
    Three components of PRISM were approved by the Commission on a
pilot basis: (1) The early conclusion of the PRISM Auction; \7\ (2) an
unrelated market or marketable limit order (against the BX BBO) on the
opposite side of the market from the PRISM Order received during the
Auction will not cause the Auction to end early and will execute
against interest outside of the Auction; \8\ and (3) no minimum size
requirement of orders. The Exchange has provided the following
additional information on a monthly basis.\9\ The pilots were approved
for a pilot period expiring on July 18, 2016.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See Chapter VI, Section 9(ii)(B)(4).
    \8\ See Chapter VI, Section 9(ii)(D).
    \9\ See Chapter VI, Section 9(vii).
    \10\ See note 3 above.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange notes that during the pilot period it has been
required to submit, and has been submitting, certain data periodically
as required by the Commission, to provide supporting evidence that,
among other things, there is meaningful competition for all size orders
and that there is an active and liquid market functioning on the
Exchange outside of the Auction mechanism. Specifically, the Exchange
has submitted the following data as specified in its approval order:
\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (1) The number of contracts (of orders of 50 contracts or greater)
entered into the PRISM;
    (2) The number of contracts (of orders of fewer than 50 contracts)
entered into the PRISM;
    (3) The number of orders of 50 contracts or greater entered into
the PRISM; and
    (4) The number of orders of fewer than 50 contracts entered into
the PRISM.
    The Exchange will continue to provide such data. The Exchange
believes that, because the pilot has been operating for a relatively
short amount of time, the proposed extension should afford the
Commission additional time to evaluate the pilot. The Exchange proposes
to extend the pilot through January 18, 2017.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with the provisions of Section 6 of the Act,\12\ in general and with
Section 6(b)(5) of the Act,\13\ in that it is designed to promote just
and equitable principles of trade, to foster cooperation and
coordination with persons engaged in regulating, clearing, settling,
processing information with respect to, and facilitating transactions
in securities, to remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a
free and open market and a national market system, and, in general, to
protect investors and the public interest; and is not designed to
permit unfair discrimination between customers, issuers, brokers, or
dealers, or to regulate by virtue of any authority conferred by the Act
matters not related to the purposes of the Act or the administration of
the Exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ 15 U.S.C. 78f.
    \13\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is also
consistent with Section 6(b)(8) of the Act \14\ in that it does not
impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(8).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Specifically, the Exchange believes that PRISM, including the rules
to which the pilot applies, results in increased liquidity available at
improved prices, with competitive final pricing out of the Initiating
Participant's complete control. The Exchange believes that PRISM
promotes and fosters competition and affords the opportunity for price
improvement to more options contracts. The extension proposal allows
additional time for the Commission to evaluate the pilot.

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The proposal extends existing
pilots that apply to all Exchange members, and enables the Exchange to
be competitive in respect of other option exchanges that have similar
programs.

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

    No written comments were either solicited or received.

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

    Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not: (i)
Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public
interest; (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii)
become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or
such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become
effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \15\ and
subparagraph (f)(6) of Rule 19b-4 thereunder.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(a).
    \16\ 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 Exchange has satisfied this requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A proposed rule change filed under Rule 19b-4(f)(6) \17\ normally
does not become operative for 30 days after the date of filing.
However, pursuant to Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii),\18\ the Commission may
designate a shorter time if such action is consistent with the
protection of investors and the public interest. The Exchange requested
that the Commission waive the 30-day operative delay. The Exchange
stated that the proposed rule change does not involve any substantive
changes to the Exchange's Rules and only seeks to extend the previously
approved PRISM pilot. The Exchange also stated that the extension will
ensure fair competition among exchanges by allowing the Exchange to
continue with this pilot similar to other options exchanges that
operate auctions. Finally, the Exchange stated that the waiver is
consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest
because it will permit the PRISM pilot to continue without interruption
and will allow the Exchange to gather more information in connection
with the pilot.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
    \18\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission believes that waiving the 30-day operative delay is
consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest, as
it will allow the PRISM pilot to continue uninterrupted, thereby
avoiding any potential investor confusion that could result from a
temporary interruption in the pilot. Therefore, the Commission
designates the proposed rule change to be operative on July 18,
2016.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ For purposes only of waiving the operative delay, the
Commission has considered the proposed rule's impact on efficiency,
competition, and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule
change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule
change if it appears to the Commission that such action is 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 email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-BX-2016-038 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-BX-2016-038. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of
10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available
for inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All
comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does
not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should
submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All
submissions should refer to File Number SR-BX-2016-038 and should be
submitted on or before August 3, 2016.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Brent J. Fields,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2016-16491 Filed 7-12-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 232 (Monday, December 3, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 71588-71589]
[FR Doc No: 2012-29084]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket Nos. EL13-24-000, et al.]

 Alaska Electric Light and Power Company, et al.; Notice of
Petition for Declaratory Order

Alaska Electric Light and Power Company.......  Docket Nos. EL13-24-000;
                                                Project No. 2307-063
Alaska Energy Authority.......................  Project No. 14241-003
City and Borough of Sitka, Alaska.............  Project No. 2818-024
Public Utility District No. 1 of Chelan         Project No. 2145-115
 County, Washington.
Public Utility District No. 1 of Snohomish      Project No. 2157-209
 County, Washington.
Public Utility District No. 2 of Grant County,  Project No. 2114-256
 Washington.
Sabine River Authority of Texas and Sabine      Project No. 2305-040
 River Authority, State of Louisiana.
Southeast Alaska Power Agency.................  Project Nos. 2911-036, 3015-013

    Take notice that on November 21, 2012, pursuant to section
207(a)(2) of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's (Commission)
Rules of Practice and Procedure 18 CFR 385.207(a)(2), Alaska Electric
Light and Power Company, Project No. 2307; Alaska Energy Authority,
Project No. 14241; City and Borough of Sitka, Alaska, Project No. 2818;
Public Utility District No. 1 of Chelan County, Washington, Project No.
2145; Public Utility District No. 1 of Snohomish County, Washington,
Project No. 2157; Public Utility District No. 2 of Grant County,
Washington, Project No. 2114; Sabine River Authority of Texas and
Sabine River Authority, State of Louisiana, Project No. 2305; and
Southeast Alaska Power Agency, Project Nos. 2911 and 3015
(collectively, Power Site Reservation Fees Group or Petitioners) filed
a petition for declaratory order requesting the Commission find that
collection of annual charges under section 10(e)(1) of the Federal
Power Act (FPA), 16 U.S.C. 803(e)(1), for hydropower licensees' use and
occupancy of lands that they own but that are subject to a power site
reservation under FPA section 24, 16 U.S.C. 818, is inconsistent with
the language, structure, and purpose of FPA Part I, including section
10(e)(1).
    Any person desiring to intervene in or to file a protest or
comments regarding this filing must file in accordance with Rules 211
and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR
385.211, 385.214). Protests and comments will be considered by the
Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will
not serve to make filers parties to the proceeding. Any person wishing
to become a party must file a notice of intervention or motion to
intervene, as appropriate. Such notices, motions, protests or comments
must be filed on or before the comment date. On or before the comment
date, it is not necessary to serve motions to intervene, protests, or
comments on persons other than the Applicant.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of comments,
protests, and interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link
at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should
submit an original and 14 copies of the comment, protest, or
intervention to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First
Street NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the
``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription''
link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive email
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For
assistance with any FERC Online service, please email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For
TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Comment Date: 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on December 21, 2012.

    Dated: November 26, 2012.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-29084 Filed 11-30-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P