[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 242 (Tuesday, December 17, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 76355-76357]
[FR Doc No: 2013-29896]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-71041; File No. SR-BATS-2013-061]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; BATS Exchange, Inc.; Notice of
Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change Related to
Fees for Use of BATS Exchange, Inc.

December 11, 2013.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the ``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given
that on December 2, 2013, BATS Exchange, Inc. (the ``Exchange'' or
``BATS'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I, II
and III below, which Items have been prepared by the Exchange. The
Exchange has designated the proposed rule change as one establishing or
changing a member due, fee, or other charge imposed by the Exchange
under Section 19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act \3\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(2)
thereunder,\4\ which renders the proposed rule change effective upon
filing with the Commission. The Commission is publishing this notice to
solicit comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii).
    \4\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange filed a proposal to amend the fee schedule applicable
to Members \5\ and non-members of the Exchange pursuant to BATS Rules
15.1(a) and (c). Changes to the fee schedule pursuant to this proposal
will be effective upon filing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ A Member is any registered broker or dealer that has been
admitted to membership in the Exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The text of the proposed rule change is available at the Exchange's
Web site at http://www.batstrading.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 parts of such
statements.

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to modify pricing charged by the Exchange's
options platform (``BATS Options'') for orders routed away from the
Exchange and executed at the International Securities Exchange, LLC
(``ISE'') and the NASDAQ OMX PHLX LLC (``PHLX'').
Background
    The Exchange currently charges certain flat rates for routing to
other options exchanges that have been placed into groups based on the
approximate cost of routing to such venues. The grouping of away
options exchanges is based on the cost of transaction fees assessed by
each venue as well as costs to the Exchange for routing (i.e., clearing
fees, connectivity and other infrastructure costs, membership fees,
etc.) (collectively, ``Routing Costs''). To address different fees at
various other options exchanges, the Exchange in most instances
differentiates between either securities subject to the options penny
pilot program (``Penny Pilot Securities'') and non-Penny Pilot
Securities or between ``Make/Take issues'' and ``Classic issues.'' As
set forth on the Exchange's fee schedule, pricing in Make/Take issues
is for executions at the identified exchange under which rebates to
post liquidity (i.e., ``Make'') are credited by that exchange and fees
to take liquidity (i.e., ``Take'') are charged by that exchange;
pricing in Classic issues applies to all other executions at such
exchanges.
ISE Routing Fees
    The Exchange currently charges $0.30 per contract for Customer \6\
orders and $0.57 per contract for Professional,\7\ Firm, and Market
Maker \8\ orders executed at ISE in Make/Take issues. Based on
execution fees charged by ISE, which currently exceed the fee charged
for Customer orders even without taking other Routing Costs into
consideration, the Exchange proposes to increase fees for Customer
orders routed to and executed at ISE in Make/Take issues. Specifically,
the Exchange proposes to charge $0.52 per contract for Customer orders
executed at ISE in Make/Take issues. This is the same fee charged for
executions in Penny Pilot Securities for Customer orders routed to and
executed at the Topaz Exchange, LLC (``ISE Gemini''), the NASDAQ
Options Market (``NOM''), and NYSE Arca, Inc. (``ARCA''). Also, for
consistency with such other markets, because the ISE's pricing model is
now clearly differentiated between Penny Pilot Securities and non-Penny
Pilot

Securities, the Exchange proposes to change the references for such
pricing from Make/Take pricing to Penny Pilot Security pricing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ As defined on the Exchange's fee schedule, a ``Customer''
order is any transaction identified by a Member for clearing in the
Customer range at the Options Clearing Corporation (``OCC''), except
for those designated as ``Professional''.
    \7\ The term ``Professional'' is defined in Exchange Rule 16.1
to mean any person or entity that (A) is not a broker or dealer in
securities, and (B) places more than 390 orders in listed options
per day on average during a calendar month for its own beneficial
account(s).
    \8\ As defined on the Exchange's fee schedule, the terms
``Firm'' and ``Market Maker'' apply to any transaction identified by
a member for clearing in the Firm or Market Maker range,
respectively, at the Options Clearing Corporation (``OCC'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange does not propose any change to the fee of $0.57 per
contract for Professional, Firm, and Market Maker orders executed at
ISE other than to re-designate such pricing as applicable to Penny
Pilot Securities rather than Make/Take issues. The Exchange also
proposes to change the references for ISE pricing in Classic issues to
refer to pricing in non-Penny Pilot Securities. The Exchange is not
proposing any changes to the actual pricing for orders executed at ISE
in non-Penny Pilot Securities, which will remain at $0.11 per contract
for Customer orders and $0.57 per contract for Professional, Firm, and
Market Maker orders.
PHLX Routing Fees
    The Exchange currently charges $0.11 per contract for Customer
orders and $0.57 per contract for Professional, Firm, and Market Maker
orders routed to and executed at PHLX in both Classic and Make/Take
issues. Based on changes to pricing at PHLX that will set the fee to
remove liquidity in options overlying the SPDR[supreg] S&P 500[supreg]
exchange-traded fund (``SPY'') for all participants at $0.45 per
contract effective December 2, 2013, the Exchange proposes to increase
its fees for all Customer orders routed to and executed at PHLX from
$0.11 to $0.45 per contract. The Exchange believes that this increase
will allow it to cover applicable Routing Costs for all Customer orders
routed to and executed at PHLX, as further described below. Effective
December 2, 2013, PHLX also adopted increased rates to remove liquidity
in Classic issues to $0.60 per contract. Based on this increase for
Routing Costs for Professional, Firm, and Market Maker orders routed to
and executed at PHLX in Classic issues, the Exchange proposes to
increase the routing rate for all Professional, Firm, and Market Maker
orders from $0.57 to $0.65 per contract. The Exchange believes that
this increase will allow it to cover applicable Routing Costs for all
Professional, Firm, and Market Maker orders routed to and executed at
PHLX.
    The Exchange notes that while the Exchange will be charging
significantly more for certain Customer orders routed to and executed
at PHLX than the PHLX charges directly for such Customer orders, in
other instances the Exchange will be charging less than the total
Routing Costs incurred by the Exchange for routing Customer orders to
PHLX, namely in the most actively traded options contract, SPY. Because
options on SPY account for a significant amount of volume routed to
away markets (as well as executed on the Exchange), the Exchange does
not want to charge less than the actual fee for executions of SPY
options on PHLX. Also, in order to continue to maintain a relatively
simple routing table and fee schedule, the Exchange does not want to
charge a routing fee specific to one underlying security at this time.
Similarly, with respect to Professional, Firm, and Market Maker orders,
the Exchange's proposal to charge $0.65 per contract for all such
orders will allow the Exchange to cover its Routing Costs for such
orders routed to PHLX while also maintaining a simple pricing
structure.
    As it has done before, despite identical fees, the Exchange is
maintaining separate references to Make/Take and Classic pricing for
orders routed to and executed PHLX because it believes that
participants that are accustomed to this distinction will be less
confused if it continues to separately list each category.
    The Exchange currently charges $0.60 per contract for Directed ISOs
routed and executed at away destinations, with the exception of: (i)
Directed ISOs in Mini Options, for which the Exchange charges $0.15 per
contract; and (ii) in the following situations, for which the Exchange
charges $0.95 per contract: (1) Orders in non-Penny Pilot Securities
executed at NOM, ARCA and ISE Gemini; (2) Professional, Firm and Market
Maker orders executed at BX Options in non-Penny Pilot Securities; and
(3) Professional, Firm and Market Maker orders executed at C2. In order
to cover anticipated Routing Costs for such orders taking recent PHLX
pricing changes into account, the Exchange proposes to charge $0.95 per
contract for Professional, Firm, and Market Maker orders if such orders
are Directed ISOs routed to and executed at PHLX.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with the requirements of the Act and the rules and regulations
thereunder that are applicable to a national securities exchange, and,
in particular, with the requirements of Section 6 of the Act.\9\
Specifically, the Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is
consistent with Section 6(b)(4) of the Act,\10\ in that it provides for
the equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees and other charges
among members and other persons using any facility or system which the
Exchange operates or controls. The Exchange notes that it operates in a
highly competitive market in which market participants can readily
direct order flow to competing venues or providers of routing services
if they deem fee levels to be excessive.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78f.
    \10\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As explained above, the Exchange generally attempts to approximate
the cost of routing to other options exchanges, including other
applicable costs to the Exchange for routing. The Exchange believes
that a pricing model based on approximate Routing Costs is a
reasonable, fair and equitable approach to pricing. Specifically, the
Exchange believes that its proposal to modify fees to ISE and PHLX is
fair, equitable and reasonable because the fees are generally an
approximation of the cost to the Exchange for routing orders to such
exchanges. The Exchange believes that its flat fee structure for orders
routed to various venues is a fair and equitable approach to pricing,
as it provides certainty with respect to execution fees at groups of
away options exchanges. Under its flat fee structure, taking all costs
to the Exchange into account, the Exchange may operate at a slight gain
or slight loss for orders routed to and executed at both ISE and PHLX.
As a general matter, the Exchange believes that the proposed fees will
allow it to recoup and cover its costs of providing routing services to
such exchanges. The Exchange also believes that the proposed fee
structure for orders routed to and executed at these away options
exchanges is fair and equitable and not unreasonably discriminatory in
that it applies equally to all Members.
    As explained above, other than Directed ISOs sent to ISE and PHLX
that are Customer orders, for which pricing remains unchanged, the
Exchange has proposed to charge increased fees for Customer orders
routed to ISE and for all orders routed to PHLX. The Exchange believes
that the proposed fee structure for Customer orders routed to and
executed at ISE is fair, equitable and reasonable because the fees are
an approximation of the cost to the Exchange for routing such orders
and will allow the Exchange to recoup and cover the costs of providing
routing services to ISE. The Exchange also believes that the proposed
fee structure for Customer orders routed to and executed at ISE is fair
and equitable and not unreasonably discriminatory in that it applies
equally to all Members. The Exchange also believes that the change of
references for ISE routing pricing from Classic and Make/Take to non-
Penny Pilot Securities and Penny Pilot Securities is consistent with
the Act

because this change is consistent with the current ISE pricing
structure.
    Consistent with the Exchange's general approach to routing fees, as
described above, the Exchange believes that maintaining a simple
routing table with respect to orders routed to PHLX despite recent
changes by PHLX that will increase overall Routing Costs to the
Exchange is also a fair and equitable approach to pricing. While the
Exchange has proposed to maintain reference to both Classic and Make/
Take pricing with respect to PHLX routing fees, the Exchange's proposal
will actually maintain a single routing fee for all Customer orders
executed at PHLX and a single routing fee for all Professional, Firm,
and Market Maker orders executed at PHLX. The Exchange believes that
this simple routing structure is fair, equitable and reasonable for the
reasons describe above, including the certainty it provides market
participants that choose to utilize the Exchange's routing services.
The Exchange also believes that the proposed fee structure for orders
routed to and executed at PHLX is fair and equitable and not
unreasonably discriminatory in that it applies equally to all Members.
    The Exchange has also proposed an increased fee for Directed ISOs
routed to and executed at PHLX to the extent such orders are
Professional, Firm, or Market Maker orders. This increase is proposed
because without adjustment, the Routing Costs incurred by the Exchange
for Directed ISOs in certain securities sent on behalf of Professional,
Firm, and Market Maker participants to PHLX would exceed the fee
charged by the Exchange for Directed ISOs. The Exchange believes that
the proposed fee structure for Directed ISOs routed to and executed at
PHLX is fair, equitable and reasonable because the fees are an
approximation of the cost to the Exchange for routing such orders and
will allow the Exchange to recoup and cover the costs of providing
routing services to PHLX. The Exchange also believes that the proposed
fee structure for Directed ISOs routed to and executed at PHLX is fair
and equitable and not unreasonably discriminatory in that it applies
equally to all Members.
    The Exchange reiterates that it operates in a highly competitive
market in which market participants can readily direct order flow to
competing venues if they deem fee levels to be excessive or providers
of routing services if they deem fee levels to be excessive. Finally,
the Exchange notes that it constantly evaluates its routing fees,
including profit and loss attributable to routing, as applicable, in
connection with the operation of a flat fee routing service, and would
consider future adjustments to the proposed pricing structure to the
extent it was recouping a significant profit or loss from routing to
either ISE or PHLX.

(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 proposed changes will
assist the Exchange in recouping costs for routing orders to other
options exchanges on behalf of its participants in a manner that is a
better approximation of actual costs than is currently in place and
that reflects recent pricing changes by such options exchanges. The
Exchange also notes that Members may choose to mark their orders as
ineligible for routing to avoid incurring routing fees.\11\ As stated
above, the Exchange notes that it operates in a highly competitive
market in which market participants can readily direct order flow to
competing venues if they deem fee levels to be excessive or providers
of routing services if they deem fee levels to be excessive.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See BATS Rule 21.1(d)(8) (describing ``BATS Only'' orders
for BATS Options) and BATS Rule 21.9(a)(1) (describing the BATS
Options routing process, which requires orders to be designated as
available for routing).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

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

    The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \12\ and paragraph (f) of Rule 19b-4
thereunder.\13\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \13\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Solicitation of Comments

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views and
arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposal 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 No. SR-BATS-2013-061 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File No. SR-BATS-2013-061. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of
10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of such filing will also 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 No. SR-BATS-2013-061 and should be
submitted on or before January 7, 2014.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\14\
Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 2013-29896 Filed 12-16-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


Jeff Herzog 04/ 09/ 2004 08: 54 AM To: BBrown@ ColPipe. com, MELeister@ MAPLLC. com, Andrea. Grant@ piperrudnick. com, mjoy@ aopl. com cc: Subject: Potential Adjustment to Southern Boundary of Draft Exclusion Area Under NR Final Rule Gentlefolk, At the meeting in Washington D. C. on April 5, 2004, Buster Brown of Colonial Pipeline questioned whether the proximity of fuel distribution terminals in Charlotte North Carolina to the North Carolina South Carolina boundary of the exclusion area suggested that we might consider adjusting the Southern boundary of the exclusion area. I re evaluated the fuel distribution pathways, and patterns of heating oil use in the Southern end of the current draft exclusion area ( Virginia, and North Carolina) and in the adjacent states ( Tennessee, and South Carolina). Based on this re evaluation, I continue to think that it is most appropriate to draw the Southern boundary of the exclusion area on the North Carolina  South Carolina border. The decision to draw the boundary there was primarily based on the sharp drop off in heating oil use in moving South from North Carolina ( 113, 584, 000 gal/ yr) to South Carolina ( 15,585,000 gal/ year). I tried looking at heating oil use by county in North Carolina ( I received from data from the North Carolina Petroleum Marketers Association), but this didn't necessarily suggest there is a more appropriate place to draw the boundary ( let me know if you would like to see this data). I talked to Buster on April 6th, and he also come to the conclusion that the North Carolina  South Carolina border is as good a place as any to draw the Southern boundary of the exclusion area. Unless, I hear back from you all, I'll consider this issue closed and that there isn't substantial room for improvement on the current draft boundary of the exclusion area.

Best Regards,

Jeffrey A. Herzog, Mechanical Engineer United States Environmental Protection Agency National Vehicle and Fuel Emissions Laboratory Assessment and Standards Division 2000 Traverwood Drive Ann Arbor, Michigan, 48105 Phone: ( 734) 214 4227 Fax: ( 734) 214 4816 E Mail: herzog. jeff@ epa. gov


[Federal Register: September 1, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 168)]
[Notices]
[Page 45260-45261]
[DOCID:fr01se09-109]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Proposed Collection; Comment Request

Upon Written Request, Copies Available From: Securities and Exchange
Commission, Office of Investor Education and Advocacy, Washington, DC
20549-0213.

Extension:
    Rule 154, SEC File No. 270-438, OMB Control No. 3235-0495.

    Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction
Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), the Securities and Exchange
Commission (``Commission'') is soliciting comments on the collection of
information summarized below. The Commission plans to submit this
existing collection of information to the Office of Management and
Budget for extension and approval.
    The Federal securities laws generally prohibit an issuer,
underwriter, or dealer from delivering a security for sale unless a
prospectus meeting certain requirements accompanies or precedes the
security. Rule 154 (17 CFR 230.154) under the Securities Act of 1933
(15 U.S.C. 77a) (the ``Securities Act'') permits, under certain
circumstances, delivery of a single prospectus to investors who
purchase securities from the same issuer and share the same address
(``householding'') to satisfy the applicable prospectus delivery
requirements.\1\ The purpose of rule 154 is to reduce the amount of
duplicative prospectuses delivered to investors sharing the same
address.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The Securities Act requires the delivery of prospectuses to
investors who buy securities from an issuer or from underwriters or
dealers who participate in a registered distribution of securities.
See Securities Act sections 2(a)(10), 4(1), 4(3), 5(b) [15 U.S.C.
77b(a)(10), 77d(1), 77d(3), 77e(b); see also rule 174 under the
Securities Act (17 CFR 230.174) (regarding the prospectus delivery
obligation of dealers); rule 15c2-8 under the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 (17 CFR 240.15c2-8) (prospectus delivery obligations of
brokers and dealers).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Under rule 154, a prospectus is considered delivered to all
investors at a shared address, for purposes of the Federal securities
laws, if the person relying on the rule delivers the prospectus to the
shared address and the investors consent to the delivery of a single
prospectus. The rule applies to prospectuses and prospectus
supplements. Currently, the rule permits householding of all
prospectuses by an issuer, underwriter, or dealer relying on the rule
if, in addition to the other conditions set forth in the rule, the
issuer, underwriter, or dealer has obtained from each investor written
or implied consent to householding.\2\ The rule requires issuers,
underwriters, or dealers that wish to household prospectuses with
implied consent to send a notice to each investor stating that the
investors in the household will receive one prospectus in the future
unless the investors provide contrary instructions. In addition, at
least once a year, issuers, underwriters, or dealers relying on rule
154 for the householding of prospectuses relating to open-end
management investment companies that are registered under the
Investment Company Act of 1940 (``mutual funds'') must explain to
investors who have provided written or implied consent how they can
revoke their consent. Preparing and sending the notice and the annual
explanation of the right to revoke are collections of information.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Rule 154 permits the householding of prospectuses that are
delivered electronically to investors only if delivery is made to a
shared electronic address and the investors give written consent to
householding. Implied consent is not permitted in such a situation.
See rule 154(b)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The rule allows issuers, underwriters, or dealers to household
prospectuses if certain conditions are met. Among the conditions with
which a person relying on the rule must comply are providing notice to
each investor that only one prospectus will be sent to the household
and, in the case of issuers that are mutual funds, providing to each
investor who consents to householding an annual explanation of the
right to revoke consent to the delivery of a single prospectus to
multiple investors sharing an address. The purpose of the notice and
annual explanation requirements of the rule is to ensure that investors
who wish to receive individual copies of prospectuses are able to do
so.
    Although rule 154 is not limited to mutual funds, the Commission
believes that it is used mainly by mutual funds and by broker-dealers
that deliver prospectuses for mutual funds. The Commission is unable to
estimate the number of issuers other than mutual funds that rely on the
rule.
    The Commission estimates that, as of December 2008, there are
approximately 1,960 mutual funds, approximately 150 of which engage in
direct marketing and therefore deliver their own prospectuses. The
Commission estimates that each direct-marketed mutual fund will spend
an average of 20 hours per year complying with the notice requirement
of the rule, for a total of 3,000 hours. The Commission estimates that
each direct-marketed fund will also spend 1 hour complying with the
explanation of the right to revoke requirement of the rule, for a total
of 150 hours. The Commission estimates that there are approximately 320
broker-dealers that carry customer accounts and, therefore, may be
required to deliver mutual fund prospectuses. The Commission estimates
that each affected broker-

dealer will spend, on average, approximately 20 hours complying with
the notice requirement of the rule, for a total of 6,400 hours. Each
broker-dealer will also spend 1 hour complying with the annual
explanation of the right to revoke requirement, for a total of 320
hours. Therefore, the total number of respondents for rule 154 is 470
(150 mutual funds plus 320 broker-dealers), and the estimated total
hour burden is 9,870 hours (3,150 hours for mutual funds plus 6,720
hours for broker-dealers).
    The estimate of average burden hours is made solely for the
purposes of the Paperwork Reduction Act, and is not derived from a
comprehensive or even a representative survey or study of the costs of
Commission rules and forms.
    Written comments are invited on: (a) Whether the collections of
information are necessary for the proper performance of the functions
of the Commission, including whether the information has practical
utility; (b) the accuracy of the Commission's estimate of the burden of
the collections of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality,
utility, and clarity of the information collected; and (d) ways to
minimize the burden of the collections of information on respondents,
including through the use of automated collection techniques or other
forms of information technology. Consideration will be given to
comments and suggestions submitted in writing within 60 days of this
publication.
    Please direct your written comments to Charles Boucher, Director/
Chief Information Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission, C/O
Shirley Martinson, 6432 General Green Way, Alexandria, VA, 22312; or
send an e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
    Dated: August 26, 2009.
Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. E9-21004 Filed 8-31-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 152 (Wednesday, August 7, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Page 38634]
[FR Doc No: 2019-16877]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2019-N-2832]

Request for Nominations From Industry Organizations Interested in
Participating in the Selection Process for Nonvoting Industry
Representatives and Request for Nomination for Nonvoting Industry
Representatives on the Vaccines and Related Biological Products
Advisory Committee

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or Agency) is requesting
that any industry organizations interested in participating in the
selection of a nonvoting industry representative to serve on the
Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee (VRBPAC)
for the Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research (CBER) notify FDA
in writing. FDA is also requesting nominations for a nonvoting industry
representative(s) to serve on the VRBPAC. A nominee may either be self-
nominated or nominated by an organization to serve as a nonvoting
industry representative. Nominations will be accepted for current
vacancies effective with this notice.

DATES: Any industry organization interested in participating in the
selection of an appropriate nonvoting member to represent industry
interests must send a letter stating that interest to FDA by September
6, 2019, (see sections I and II of this document for further details).
Concurrently, nomination materials for prospective candidates should be
sent to FDA by September 6, 2019.

ADDRESSES: All statements of interest from industry organizations
interested in participating in the selection process of nonvoting
industry representative nomination should be sent to Serina Hunter-
Thomas (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT). All nominations for
nonvoting industry representatives may be submitted electronically by
accessing the FDA Advisory Committee Membership Nomination Portal:
https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/FACTRSPortal/FACTRS/index.cfm.
Information about becoming a member of an FDA advisory committee can
also be obtained by visiting FDA's website: https://www.fda.gov/AdvisoryCommittees/default.htm.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Serina Hunter-Thomas, Division of
Scientific Advisors and Consultants, Center for Biologics Evaluation
and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave.,
Bldg. 71, Rm. 6338, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002,<PHONE_NUMBER>, Fax:
301-595-1307<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Agency intends to add a nonvoting
industry representative(s) to the following advisory committee:

I. CBER Advisory Committee

Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee

    The committee reviews and evaluates data concerning the safety,
effectiveness, and appropriate use of vaccines and related biological
products which are intended for use in the prevention, treatment, or
diagnosis of human diseases, and, as required, any other products for
which FDA has regulatory responsibility. The committee also considers
the quality and relevance of FDA's research program which provides
scientific support for the regulation of these products and makes
appropriate recommendations to the Commissioner of Food and Drugs
(Commissioner).

II. Selection Procedure

    Any industry organization interested in participating in the
selection of an appropriate nonvoting member to represent industry
interests should send a letter stating that interest to the FDA contact
(see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT) within 30 days of publication of
this document (see DATES). Within the subsequent 30 days, FDA will send
a letter to each organization that has expressed an interest, attaching
a complete list of all such organizations, as well as a list of all
nominees along with their current resumes. The letter will also state
that it is the responsibility of the interested organizations to confer
with one another and to select a candidate, within 60 days after the
receipt of the FDA letter, to serve as the nonvoting member to
represent industry interests for the committee. The interested
organizations are not bound by the list of nominees in selecting a
candidate. However, if no individual is selected within 60 days, the
Commissioner will select the nonvoting member to represent industry
interests.

III. Application Procedure

    Individuals may self-nominate, and/or an organization may nominate
one or more individuals to serve as a nonvoting industry
representative. Contact information, a current curriculum vitae, and
the name of the committee of interest should be sent to the FDA
Advisory Committee Membership Nomination Portal (see ADDRESSES) within
30 days of publication of this document (see DATES). FDA will forward
all nominations to the organizations expressing interest in
participating in the selection process for the committee. (Persons who
nominate themselves as nonvoting industry representatives will not
participate in the selection process).
    FDA seeks to include the views of women, men, members of all racial
and ethnic groups, and individuals with and without disabilities on its
advisory committees and therefore encourages nominations of
appropriately qualified candidates from these groups.
    This notice is issued under the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5
U.S.C. app. 2) and 21 CFR part 14, relating to advisory committees.

    Dated: July 31, 2019.
Lowell J. Schiller,
Principal Associate Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2019-16877 Filed 8-6-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4164-01-P