[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 56 (Monday, March 24, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 16099-16101]
[FR Doc No: 2014-06366]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

[Docket No. NHTSA-2013-0109; Notice 1]

Notice of Receipt of Petition for Decision That Nonconforming
2006-2007 Ferrari 599 GTB Passenger Cars Manufactured Before September
1, 2007 Are Eligible for Importation

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), DOT.

ACTION: Receipt of petition.

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

SUMMARY: This document announces receipt by the National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) of a petition for a decision that
nonconforming 2006-2007 Ferrari 599 GTB passenger cars manufactured
before September 1, 2007 that were not originally manufactured to
comply with all applicable Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards
(FMVSS), are eligible for importation into the United States because
they are substantially similar to vehicles that were originally
manufactured for sale in the United States and that were certified by
their manufacturer as complying with the safety standards (the U.S.-
certified version of the 2006-2007 Ferrari 599 GTB manufactured before
September 1, 2007) and they are capable of being readily altered to
conform to the standards.

DATES: The closing date for comments on the petition is April 23, 2014.

ADDRESSES: Comments should refer to the docket and notice numbers above
and be submitted by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting
comments.
     Mail: Docket Management Facility: U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., West Building Ground Floor,
Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
     Hand Delivery or Courier: West Building Ground Floor, Room
W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. ET,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Instructions: Comments must be written in the English language, and
be no greater than 15 pages in length, although there is no limit to
the length of necessary attachments to the comments. If comments are
submitted in hard copy form, please ensure that two copies are
provided. If you wish to receive confirmation that your comments were
received, please enclose a stamped, self-addressed postcard with the
comments. Note that all comments received will be posted without change
to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information
provided. Please see the Privacy Act heading below.
    Privacy Act: Anyone is able to search the electronic form of all
comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual
submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf
of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review DOT's
complete Privacy Act Statement in the Federal Register published on
April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477-78).
    How to Read Comments submitted to the Docket: You may read the
comments received by Docket Management at the address and times given
above. You may also view the documents from the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for accessing the
dockets. The docket ID number and title of this notice are shown at the
heading of this document notice. Please note that even after the
comment closing date, we will continue to file relevant information in
the Docket as it becomes available. Further, some people may submit
late comments. Accordingly, we recommend that you periodically search
the Docket for new material.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: George Stevens, Office of Vehicle
Safety Compliance, NHTSA<PHONE_NUMBER>).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    Under 49 U.S.C. 30141(a)(1)(A), a motor vehicle that was not
originally manufactured to conform to all applicable FMVSS shall be
refused admission into the United States unless NHTSA has decided that
the motor vehicle is substantially similar to a motor vehicle
originally manufactured for importation into and sale in the United
States, certified under 49 U.S.C. 30115, and of the same model year as
the model of the motor vehicle to be compared, and is capable of being
readily altered to conform to all applicable FMVSS.
    Petitions for eligibility decisions may be submitted by either
manufacturers or importers who have registered with NHTSA pursuant to
49 CFR Part 592. As specified in 49 CFR 593.7, NHTSA publishes notice
in the Federal Register of each petition that it receives, and affords
interested persons an opportunity to comment on the petition. At the
close of the comment period, NHTSA decides, on the basis of the
petition and any comments that it has received, whether the vehicle is
eligible for importation. The agency then publishes this decision in
the Federal Register.
    J.K. Technologies, LLC of Baltimore, Maryland (Registered Importer
90-006) has petitioned NHTSA to decide whether nonconforming 2006-2007
Ferrari 599 GTB passenger cars manufactured before September 1, 2007
are eligible for importation into the United States. The vehicles which
J.K. Technologies believes are substantially similar are 2006-2007
Ferrari 599 GTB passenger cars manufactured before September 1, 2007
that were manufactured for sale in the United States and certified by
their manufacturer as conforming to all applicable FMVSS.
    The petitioner claims that it compared the non-U.S. certified 2006-
2007 Ferrari 599 GTB passenger cars manufactured before September 1,
2007 to their U.S.-certified counterparts, and found the vehicles to be
substantially similar with respect to compliance with most FMVSS.
    J.K. Technologies submitted information with its petition intended
to demonstrate that non-U.S. certified 2006-2007 Ferrari 599 GTB
passenger cars manufactured before September 1, 2007, as originally
manufactured, conform to many FMVSS in the same manner as their U.S.
certified counterparts, or are capable of being readily altered to
conform to those standards. Specifically, the petitioner claims that
the non-U.S. certified 2006-2007 Ferrari 599 GTB passenger cars
manufactured before September 1, 2007 are identical to their U.S.
certified counterpart with respect to compliance with Standard Nos. 102
Transmission Shift Lever Sequence, Starter Interlock, and Transmission
Braking Effect, 103 Windshield Defrosting and Defogging Systems, 104
Windshield Wiping and Washing Systems, 106 Brake Hoses, 113 Hood Latch
System, 116 Motor Vehicle Brake Fluids, 124 Accelerator Control
Systems, 126 Electronic Stability Control Systems, 135 Light Vehicle
Brake Systems, 139 New Pneumatic Radial Tires for Light Vehicles, 201
Occupant Protection in Interior Impact, 202 Head Restraints, 204
Steering Control Rearward Displacement, 205 Glazing Materials, 206 Door
Locks and Door Retention Components, 210 Seat Belt Assembly Anchorages,
212 Windshield Mounting, 216 Roof Crush Resistance, 219 Windshield Zone
Intrusion, 225 Child Restraint Anchorage Systems, and 302 Flammability
of Interior Materials.
    The petitioner also contends that the non-U.S. certified vehicles
are capable of being readily altered to meet the following standards,
in the manner indicated:
    Standard No. 101 Controls and Displays: replacement of the
instrument cluster with a U.S.-model component and reprogramming of the
vehicle computer.
    Standard No. 108 Lamps, Reflective Devices and Associated
Equipment: replacement of the headlamps, side marker lamps, and tail
lamps with U.S.-model components and reprogramming

the vehicle computer to activate necessary systems.
    Standard No. 110 Tire Selection and Rims for Motor Vehicles with a
GVWR of 4,536 kilograms (10,000 pounds) or Less: installation of a tire
information placard.
    Standard No. 111 Rearview Mirrors: replacement of the passenger
side rearview mirror with a U.S.-model component or inscription of the
required warning statement on the face of that mirror.
    Standard No. 114 Theft Protection and Rollaway Prevention:
reprogramming the vehicle computer to activate the key warning system.
    Standard No. 118 Power-Operated Window, Partition, and Roof Panel
Systems: reprogramming of the vehicle computer.
    Standard No. 207 Seating Systems: replacement of seating systems
with U.S.-model components to ensure compliance with FMVSS No. 207 as
well as the advanced airbag requirements of FMVSS No. 208.
    Standard No. 208 Occupant Crash Protection: inspection to confirm
that labels, seat belts, airbags, sensors, control units, wiring
harnesses, knee bolsters, and braces bear part numbers of U.S.-model
components. Non-conforming parts will be replaced with U.S.-model
components. Reprograming of the vehicle computer to activate the seat
belt warning system and to assure compliance with all other applicable
requirements of the standard.
    Standard No. 209 Seat Belt Assemblies: inspection of seat belts and
replacement of non-conforming belts with U.S.-model components.
    Standard No. 214 Side Impact Protection: inspection of side impact
airbag systems and replacement of any non-conforming parts with U.S.-
model vehicle components.
    Standard No. 301 Fuel System Integrity: inspection of all vehicles
and replacement of any non U.S.-model fuel system components with U.S.-
model components as necessary to conform to the vehicles to the
requirements of FMVSS No. 301.
    Standard No. 401 Interior Trunk Release: installation of U.S.-model
interior trunk release components.
    The petitioner additionally states that a vehicle identification
plate must be affixed to the vehicles near the left windshield post to
meet the requirements of 49 CFR Part 565.
    Because the subject petition covers nonconforming vehicles that
have been manufactured on or after September 1, 2006, compliance with
the advanced air bag requirements of FMVSS No. 208 is of significant
concern to the agency. NHTSA is therefore particularly interested in
comments regarding the ability of a Registered Importer to readily
alter the subject vehicles to fully meet the driver and front outboard
passenger frontal crash protection and child passenger protection
requirements of FMVSS No. 208. The following is a partial listing of
the components that may be affected:

a. Driver's frontal air bag module
b. Passenger frontal air bag module
c. Passenger frontal air bag cover
d. Knee air bags
e. Knee bolsters
f. Passenger outboard frontal seat belt system
g. Driver and front outboard seat assemblies including seat tracks and
internal seat components
h. Steering wheel components, including the clock spring assembly, the
steering column, and all connecting components
i. Instrument panel
j. Instrument panel support structure (i.e. cross beam)
k. Occupant sensing and classification systems, including sensors and
processors
l. Restraint control modules
m. Passenger air bag status indicator light system, including related
display components and wiring
n. Wiring harnesses between the restraint control module, occupant
classification system and restraint system components
o. Control system computer software and firmware

    All comments received before the close of business on the closing
date indicated above will be considered, and will be available for
examination in the docket at the above addresses both before and after
that date. To the extent possible, comments filed after the closing
date will also be considered. Notice of final action on the petition
will be published in the Federal Register pursuant to the authority
indicated below.

    Authority:  49 U.S.C. 30141(a)(1)(A), (a)(1)(B), and (b)(1); 49
CFR 593.7; delegation of authority at 49 CFR 1.95 and 501.8.

    Issued on: March 18, 2014.
Jeffrey Giuseppe,
Acting Director, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance.
[FR Doc. 2014-06366 Filed 3-21-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 236 (Thursday, December 8, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 88696-88697]
[FR Doc No: 2016-29379]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-4290-DR; Docket ID FEMA-2016-0001]

Minnesota; Amendment No. 1 to Notice of a Major Disaster
Declaration

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice amends the notice of a major disaster declaration
for the State of Minnesota (FEMA-4290-DR), dated November 2, 2016, and
related determinations.

Effective Dates: November 29, 2016.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dean Webster, Office of Response and
Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW.,
Washington, DC 20472,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The notice of a major disaster declaration
for the State of Minnesota is hereby amended to include the Individual
Assistance program for the following areas among those areas determined
to have been adversely affected by the event declared a major disaster
by the President in his declaration of November 2, 2016.

    Hennepin County for Individual Assistance.
    Blue Earth, Freeborn, Le Sueur, Rice, Steele, and Waseca
Counties for Individual Assistance (already designated for Public
Assistance.)

The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers (CFDA)
are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030, Community
Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis Counseling;
97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster Unemployment
Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance Grant; 97.048,
Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and Households In
Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049, Presidentially
Declared Disaster Assistance--Disaster Housing Operations for
Individuals and Households; 97.050 Presidentially Declared Disaster
Assistance to Individuals and Households--Other Needs; 97.036,
Disaster Grants--Public Assistance (Presidentially Declared
Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant.

W. Craig Fugate,
Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2016-29379 Filed 12-7-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 9111-23-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 18 (Tuesday, January 28, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 5065-5066]
[FR Doc No: 2020-01435]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

[Docket No: FAA-2020-0047]

Deadline for Notification of Intent To Use the Airport
Improvement Program Primary, Cargo, and Nonprimary Entitlement Funds
Available to Date for Fiscal Year 2020

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This action announces April 1, 2020, as the deadline for each
airport sponsor to notify the FAA if it will use its Fiscal Year (FY)
2020 entitlement funds (also referred to as apportioned funds) to
accomplish Airport Improvement Program (AIP) eligible projects. Each
sponsor has previously identified to the FAA such projects through the
Airports Capital Improvement Plan process. This action further
announces May 18, 2020, as the deadline for an airport sponsor to
submit a final grant application to use FY 2020 entitlement funds.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dave Cushing, Manager, Airports
Financial Assistance Division, APP-500, at<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Title 49 U.S.C. 47105(f) provides that the
sponsor of an airport for which entitlement funds are apportioned shall
notify the Secretary, by such time and in a form as prescribed by the
Secretary, of the airport sponsor's intent to submit a grant
application for its available

entitlement funds. Therefore, the FAA is hereby notifying such airport
sponsors of the steps required to ensure that the FAA has sufficient
time to carry over and convert remaining entitlement funds.
    The AIP grant program is operating under the requirements of Public
Law 115-254, the ``FAA Reauthorization Act of 2018,'' enacted on
October 5, 2018, which authorizes the FAA through September 30, 2023,
and Public Law 116-94, the ``Further Continuing Appropriations Act,
2020,'' which appropriates FY 2020 funds for the AIP through September
30, 2020. In accordance with legislation enacted as of the date of this
notice, the AIP has approximately $2.4 billion of entitlement funds
available through September 30, 2020.
    This notice applies only to those airports that have entitlement
funds apportioned to them, except those nonprimary airports located in
designated Block Grant States.
    Under 49 U.S.C. 47114(d)(3)(C), an airport listed as having an
unclassified status under the most recent National Plan of Integrated
Airport Systems, shall accrue entitlement funds in FY 2020. The amount
apportioned will only be available to the airport during the same
fiscal year and may not be transferred to another airport.
    An airport sponsor intending to apply for any of its available
entitlement funds, including those unused from prior years, must notify
the FAA of its intent to submit a grant application by 12:00 p.m.
prevailing local time on Wednesday, April 1, 2020.
    This notice must be in writing and address all entitlement funds
available to date for FY 2020, including those entitlement funds not
obligated from prior years. These notifications are critical to ensure
efficient planning and administration of the AIP. The final grant
application deadline is Monday, May 18, 2020. The final grant
application funding requests are to be based on bids, not estimates.
    An airport sponsor must provide its notification and grant
applications to its designated FAA Airports District Office (or
Regional Office in regions without Airports District Offices). Absent
notification of the intent to submit a grant application, or submission
of a grant application by the relevant deadlines noted above, the FAA
will carry over the remainder of available entitlement funds on Monday,
June 1, 2020. These funds will not be available again until at least
the beginning of FY 2021. Dates are subject to possible adjustment
based on future legislation. As of the publication of this notice,
appropriations for the FAA expire on September 30, 2020, and
authorization legislation for the FAA expires on September 30, 2023.
    The FAA has determined this process and deadline will expedite and
facilitate the FY 2020 grant-making process.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on January 23, 2020.
Robert John Craven,
Director, Office of Airport Planning and Programming.
[FR Doc. 2020-01435 Filed 1-27-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 110 (Thursday, June 8, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Pages 37533-37534]
[FR Doc No: 2023-12239]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 2589-095]

Marquette Board of Light and Power; Notice of Application
Accepted for Filing and Soliciting Comments, Motions To Intervene, and
Protests

    Take notice that the following hydroelectric application has been
filed with the Commission and is available for public inspection.
    a. Type of Application: Request for a Temporary Variance of Flow
and Reservoir Elevation Requirements.
    b. Project No.: 2589-095.
    c. Dates Filed: May 26, 2023.
    d. Applicant: Marquette Board of Light and Power (licensee).
    e. Name of Project: Marquette Hydroelectric Project.
    f. Location: The project is located on the Dead River, near the
City of Marquette, in Marquette County, Michigan. The project does not
occupy federal lands.
    g. Filed Pursuant to: Federal Power Act, 16 U.S.C. 791(a)-825(r).
    h. Applicant Contact: Thomas J. Skewis, Environmental Compliance,
Marquette Board of Light and Power, 2200 Wright Street, Marquette, MI
49855,<PHONE_NUMBER>, [email protected]
    i. FERC Contact: Aneela Mousam,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
[email protected].
    j. Deadline for filing comments, motions to intervene, and protests
is 30 days from the issuance of this notice by the Commission. The
Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please file comments,
motions to intervene, and protests using the Commission's eFiling
system at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling.asp. Commenters can
submit brief comments up to 6,000 characters, without prior
registration, using the eComment system at http://www.ferc.gov/doc-sfiling/ecomment.asp. You must include your name and contact
information at the end of your comments. For assistance, please contact
FERC Online Support at [email protected],<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll
free), or<PHONE_NUMBER> (TTY). In lieu of electronic filing, you may
submit a paper copy. Submissions sent via the U.S. Postal Service must
be addressed to: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission, 888 First Street NE, Room 1A, Washington, DC 20426.
Submissions sent via any other carrier must be addressed to: Kimberly
D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 12225 Wilkins
Avenue, Rockville, MD 20852. The first page of any filing should
include docket number P-2589-095.
    The Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure require all
intervenors filing documents with the Commission to serve a copy of
that document on each person on the official service list for the
project. Further, if an intervenor files comments or documents with the
Commission relating to the merits of an issue that may affect the
responsibilities of a particular resource agency, they must also serve
a copy of the document on that resource agency.
    k. Description of Request: The licensee requests Commission
approval for a temporary variance of the minimum powerhouse flow and
reservoir elevation requirements outlined in license articles 403 and
404. The purpose of the variance request is to accommodate controls
upgrade and minor maintenance at the Forestville powerhouse (No. 2
Development), scheduled to take place for a duration of 6-10 weeks in
June-July 2023. To facilitate the controls upgrade, the licensee plans
to take both hydro units offline. Prior to taking the hydro units
offline, the licensee would gradually reduce the powerhouse flows \1\
to allow the reservoir elevation to exceed the maximum allowable limit
(771.0 feet), and overflow the spillway \2\ to prevent areas within the
river channel from drying up before suspending the powerhouse flows.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 40 cubic feet per second.
    \2\ The overflow spillway has a crest elevation of 771.4 feet.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For the duration of the planned upgrades, the licensee would
provide flows \3\ from the spillway to the river by allowing the
reservoir elevation to exceed the spillway crest elevation of 771.4
feet. Once the project upgrades are complete, the licensee would place
the hydro units online and lower the reservoir level to meet the
license requirements. The licensee would work closely with the relevant
resource agencies to prevent any adverse environmental effects from
occurring prior to, during, and after the temporary variance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The flows would be run of the river.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    l. In addition to publishing the full text of this document in the
Federal Register, the Commission provides all interested persons an
opportunity to view and/or print the contents of this document via the
internet through the Commission's Home Page (http://ferc.gov) using the
``eLibrary'' link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three
digits in the docket number field to access the document. For
assistance, contact FERC at [email protected] or call toll-
free,<PHONE_NUMBER> or TYY,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    m. Individuals desiring to be included on the Commission's mailing
list should so indicate by writing to the Secretary of the Commission.
    n. Comments, Motions to Intervene, or Protests: Anyone may submit
comments, a motion to intervene, or a protest in accordance with the
requirements of Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.210, .211,
.214. In determining the appropriate action to take, the Commission
will consider all protests or other comments filed, but only those who
file a motion to intervene in accordance with the Commission's Rules
may become a party to the proceeding. Any comments, motions to
intervene, or protests must be received on or before the specified
comment date for the particular application.
    o. Filing and Service of Responsive Documents: Any filing must (1)
bear in all capital letters the title ``COMMENTS'', ``MOTION TO
INTERVENE'', or ``PROTEST'' as applicable; (2) set forth in the heading
the name of the applicant and the project number(s) of the application
to which the filing responds; (3) furnish the name, address, and
telephone number of the person intervening or protesting; and (4)
otherwise comply with the requirements of 18 CFR 385.2001 through
385.2005. All comments, motions to intervene, or protests must set
forth their evidentiary basis. A copy of all other filings in reference
to this application must be accompanied by proof of service on all
persons listed in the service list prepared by the Commission in this
proceeding, in accordance with 18 CFR 385.2010.
    p. The Commission's Office of Public Participation (OPP) supports
meaningful public engagement and participation in Commission
proceedings. OPP can help members of the public, including landowners,
environmental justice communities, Tribal members and others, access
publicly available

information and navigate Commission processes. For public inquiries and
assistance with making filings such as interventions, comments, or
requests for rehearing, the public is encouraged to contact OPP at
(202) 502-6595 or [email protected].

    Dated: June 2, 2023.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2023-12239 Filed 6-7-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 152 (Tuesday, August 7, 2012)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 46994]
[FR Doc No: 2012-19140]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 272

[EPA-R06-RCRA-2012-0471; FRL9701-6]

Oklahoma: Incorporation by Reference of State Hazardous Waste
Management Program

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The EPA proposes to codify in the regulations entitled
``Approved State Hazardous Waste Management Programs'', Oklahoma's
authorized hazardous waste program. The EPA will incorporate by
reference into the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) those provisions
of the State regulations that are authorized and that the EPA will
enforce under the Solid Waste Disposal Act, commonly referred to as the
Resource Conversation and Recovery Act (RCRA).

DATES: Send written comments by September 6, 2012.

ADDRESSES: Send written comments to Alima Patterson, Region 6 Regional
Authorization Coordinator, or Julia Banks, Codification Coordinator,
State/Tribal Oversight Section (6PD-O), Multimedia Planning and
Permitting Division at the address shown below. You can examine copies
of the materials that form the basis for this authorization and
incorporation by reference during normal business hours at the
following location: EPA Region 6, 1445 Ross Avenue, Dallas, Texas
75202-2733, phone number<PHONE_NUMBER> or<PHONE_NUMBER>. You may also
submit comments electronically or through hand delivery/courier; please
follow the detailed instructions in the ADDRESSES section of the direct
final rule which is located in the Rules section of this Federal
Register.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Alima Patterson<PHONE_NUMBER> or
Julia Banks<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the ``Rules and Regulations'' section of
this Federal Register, the EPA is codifying and incorporating by
reference the State's hazardous waste program as a direct final rule.
The EPA did not make a proposal prior to the direct final rule because
we believe these actions are not controversial and do not expect
comments that oppose them. We have explained the reasons for this
codification and incorporation by reference in the preamble to the
direct final rule. Unless we get written comments which oppose this
incorporation by reference during the comment period, the direct final
rule will become effective on the date it establishes, and we will not
take further action on this proposal. If we get comments that oppose
these actions, we will withdraw the direct final rule and it will not
take effect. We will then respond to public comments in a later final
rule based on this proposal. You may not have another opportunity for
comment. If you want to comment on this action, you must do so at this
time. For additional information, please see the direct final rule
published in the ``Rules and Regulations'' section of this Federal
Register.

    Authority: This action is issued under the authority of sections
2002(a), 3006, and 7004(b) of the Solid Waste Disposal Act, as
amended, 42 U.S.C. 6912(a), 6926, and 6974(b).

    Dated: July 5, 2012.
Samuel Coleman,
Acting Regional Administrator, EPA Region 6.
[FR Doc. 2012-19140 Filed 8-6-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 94 (Thursday, May 14, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 28950-28951]
[FR Doc No: 2020-10367]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2020-N-1117]

Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al.; Withdrawal of Approval of
16 New Drug Applications

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or Agency) is
withdrawing approval of 16 new drug applications (NDAs) from multiple
applicants. The applicants notified the Agency in writing that the drug
products were no longer marketed and requested that the approval of the
applications be withdrawn.

DATES: Approval is withdrawn as of June 15, 2020.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kimberly Lehrfeld, Center for Drug
Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New
Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 51, Rm. 6226, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 301-
796-3137.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The applicants listed in the table have
informed FDA that these drug products are no longer marketed and have
requested that FDA withdraw approval of the applications under the
process in Sec.  314.150(c) (21 CFR 314.150(c)). The applicants have
also, by their requests, waived their opportunity for a hearing.
Withdrawal of approval of an application or abbreviated application
under Sec.  314.150(c) is without prejudice to refiling.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
     Application No.                Drug                 Applicant
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NDA 011529...............  Parafon Forte DSC       Janssen
                            (chlorzoxazone),        Pharmaceuticals,
                            Caplets, 500            Inc., 1000 Route 202
                            milligrams (mg).        South, P.O. Box 300,
                                                    Raritan, NJ 08869.
NDA 018029...............  Ritalin-SR              Novartis
                            (methylphenidate        Pharmaceuticals
                            hydrochloride (HCl))    Corp., 1 Health
                            Extended-Release        Plaza, East Hanover,
                            Tablets, 20 mg.         NJ 07936.
NDA 018082...............  Depakene (valproic      AbbVie Inc., 1 North
                            acid) Oral Solution,    Waukegan Rd., North
                            250 mg/5 milliliter     Chicago, IL 60064.
                            (mL).
NDA 019579...............  Terazol 7               Janssen
                            (terconazole) Vaginal   Pharmaceuticals,
                            Cream, 0.4%.            Inc., 1125 Trenton-
                                                    Harbourton Rd.,
                                                    Titusville, NJ
                                                    08560.
NDA 020119...............  Vumon (teniposide)      HQ Specialty Pharma,
                            Injection, 10 mg/mL.    120 Route 17 North,
                                                    Paramus, NJ 07652.
NDA 020388...............  Navelbine (vinorelbine  Pierre Fabre
                            tartrate) Injection,    Medicament c/o
                            Equivalent to (EQ) 10   Pierre Fabre
                            mg/mL base.             Pharmaceuticals,
                                                    Inc., 8 Campus Dr.,
                                                    Suite 202,
                                                    Parsippany, NJ
                                                    07054.
NDA 020741...............  Prandin (repaglinide)   Gemini Laboratories,
                            Tablets, 0.5 mg, 1.0    LLC, 400 Crossing
                            mg, and 2.0 mg.         Blvd., 5th Floor,
                                                    Bridgewater, NJ
                                                    08807.
NDA 020920...............  Natrecor (nesiritide)   Scios, LLC, 1125
                            Injection, 1.5 mg/      Trenton-Harbourton
                            vial.                   Rd., Titusville, NJ
                                                    08560.
NDA 021001...............  Axert (almotriptan      Janssen
                            malate) Tablets, EQ     Pharmaceuticals,
                            6.25 mg base and EQ     Inc.
                            12.5 mg base.
NDA 021203...............  Tricor (fenofibrate)    AbbVie Inc.
                            Tablets, 54 mg and
                            160 mg.
NDA 021543...............  Striant (testosterone   Auxilium
                            buccal system)          Pharmaceuticals,
                            Extended-Release        Inc., 1400 Atwater
                            Tablets, 30 mg.         Dr., Malvern, PA
                                                    19355.
NDA 021604...............  Children's ElixSure IB  Moberg Pharma North
                            (ibuprofen) Oral        America LLC, 7 East
                            Suspension, 100mg/5     Frederick Place,
                            mL.                     Suite 100, Cedar
                                                    Knolls, NJ 07927.

NDA 021611...............  Opana (oxymorphone      Endo Pharmaceuticals,
                            HCl) Tablets, 5mg and   Inc., 1400 Atwater
                            10mg.                   Dr., Malvern, PA
                                                    19355.
NDA 022321...............  Embeda (morphine        Alpharma
                            sulfate and             Pharmaceuticals,
                            naltrexone HCl)         LLC, 235 East 42nd
                            Extended-Release        St., New York, NY
                            Capsules, 20 mg/0.8     10017.
                            mg, 30 mg/1.2 mg, 50
                            mg/2 mg, 60 mg/2.4
                            mg, 80 mg/3.2 mg, and
                            100 mg/4 mg.
NDA 022510...............  Abstral (fentanyl)      Sentynl Therapeutics,
                            Sublingual              Inc., 420 Stevens
                            Tablets,100             Ave., Suite 200,
                            micrograms (mcg), 200   Solana Beach, CA
                            mcg, 300 mcg, 400       92075.
                            mcg, 600 mcg, and 800
                            mcg.
NDA 050641...............  Monodox (doxycycline    Aqua Pharmaceuticals,
                            monohydrate)            LLC, 707 Eagleview
                            Capsules, EQ 50mg       Blvd., Suite 200,
                            base, EQ 75mg base,     Exton, PA 19341.
                            and EQ 100mg base.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Therefore, approval of the applications listed in the table, and
all amendments and supplements thereto, is hereby withdrawn as of June
15, 2020. Approval of each entire application is withdrawn, including
any strengths and dosage forms inadvertently missing from the table.
Introduction or delivery for introduction into interstate commerce of
products without approved new drug applications violates section 301(a)
and (d) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 331(a)
and (d)). Drug products that are listed in the table that are in
inventory on June 15, 2020 may continue to be dispensed until the
inventories have been depleted or the drug products have reached their
expiration dates or otherwise become violative, whichever occurs first.

    Dated: May 11, 2020.
Lowell J. Schiller,
Principal Associate Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2020-10367 Filed 5-13-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4164-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 73 (Tuesday, April 18, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 18341-18342]
[FR Doc No: 2017-07799]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Railroad Administration

[Docket No. FRA-2017-0002-N-13]

Proposed Agency Information Collection Activities; Comment
Request

AGENCY: Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), U.S. Department of
Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Notice and request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) and its
implementing regulations, FRA seeks approval of the proposed
information collection activity below. Before submitting this
information collection request (ICR) to the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB) for approval, FRA is soliciting public comment on specific
aspects of the activities identified below.

DATES: Comments must be received no later than June 19, 2017.

ADDRESSES: Submit written comments on the information collection
activities by mail to: Ms. Kim Toone, Information Collection Clearance
Officer, Office of Information Technology, RAD-20, Federal Railroad
Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Mail Stop 35, Washington,
DC 20590. Commenters requesting FRA to acknowledge receipt of their
respective comments must include a self-addressed stamped postcard
stating, ``Comments on OMB Control Number 2130-XXXX,'' and should also
include the title of the ICR. Alternatively, comments may be faxed to
(202) 493-6216 or<PHONE_NUMBER>, or emailed to Ms. Toone at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please refer to the assigned OMB control number in
any correspondence submitted. FRA will summarize comments received in
response to this notice in a subsequent notice and include them in its
information collection submission to OMB for approval.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Kim Toone, Information Collection
Clearance Officer, Office of Information Technology, RAD-20, Federal
Railroad Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Mail Stop 35,
Washington, DC 20590 (telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>). (This telephone
number is not toll free.)

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The PRA, 44 U.S.C. 3501-3520, and its
implementing regulations, 5 CFR part 1320, require Federal agencies to
provide 60-days' notice to the public to allow comment on information
collection activities before seeking OMB approval of the activities.
See 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A); 5 CFR 1320.8(d)(1), 1320.10(e)(1),
1320.12(a). Specifically, FRA invites interested parties to comment on
the following summary of the proposed information collection activity
regarding: (1) Whether the information collection activity is necessary
for FRA to properly execute its functions, including whether the
activity will have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of FRA's
estimates of the burden of the information collection activity,
including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used to
determine the estimates; (3) ways for FRA to enhance the quality,
utility, and clarity of the information being collected; and (4) ways
for FRA to minimize the burden of the information collection activity
on the public by automated, electronic, mechanical, or other
technological collection techniques and other forms of information
technology (e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses). See
44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A); 5 CFR 1320.8(d)(1).
    FRA believes that soliciting public comment will promote its
efforts to reduce the administrative and paperwork burdens associated
with the collection of information that Federal regulations mandate. In
summary, FRA reasons that comments received will advance three
objectives: (1) Reduce reporting burdens; (2) ensure that it organizes
information collection requirements in a ``user-friendly'' format to
improve the use of such information; and (3) accurately assess the
resources expended to retrieve and produce information requested. See
44 U.S.C. 3501.
    Below is a brief summary of the information collection activity FRA
will submit for OMB clearance:
    Title: Information and Communications Technology Needs Assessment.
    OMB Control Number: 2130-XXXX.
    Abstract: The purpose of this information collection is to conduct
a needs assessment that will provide information about how the
railroading worker population uses information and communications
technology (ICT). FRA periodically conducts such context assessments of
the social, legal, and policy barriers related to its mission. For
purposes of this study, ICT is defined as technology and tools that
people use to share, distribute, and gather information, and to
communicate with one another, one on one, or in groups. FRA uses ICT to
disseminate research findings and to increase awareness of safety
education programs and other FRA sponsored innovation projects. The
data gathered in this study will help FRA and DOT attain the strategic
goal of improving safety in transportation by providing information
that will improve and inform strategic communication dissemination
efforts to reach the railroading population more efficiently and
successfully.
    The proposed study is a needs assessment designed to understand the
current state of railroading industry use and application of ICT. As
such, this study asks broad questions about ICT. The information will
be useful to FRA's efforts to design how FRA uses ICT. The main
objectives in this study are to: (1) Determine how Transportation,
Yard, and Engineer railroaders use ICT; (2) identify ways to reach this
population with future ICT based education and communication efforts;
and (3) develop baseline awareness data for FRA's research, development
and technology programs.
    Form Number(s): FRA F 6180.169.
    Affected Public: Railroad Union Members.
    Frequency of Submission: One time.
    Reporting Burden:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                Total
                                                  Time per      annual
         Maximum number of respondents            response    burden in
                                                 (minutes)      hours
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1,533.........................................          20          511
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Total Estimated Annual Responses: 1,533.
    Total Estimated Annual Burden: 511 hours.
    Under 44 U.S.C. 3507(a) and 5 CFR 1320.5(b), 1320.8(b)(3)(vi), FRA
informs all interested parties that it may not conduct or sponsor, and
a respondent is not required to respond to, a collection of information
unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.

    Authority: 44 U.S.C. 3501-3520.

Sarah L. Inderbitzin,
Acting Chief Counsel.
[FR Doc. 2017-07799 Filed 4-17-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-06-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 87 (Thursday, May 5, 2022)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 26707]
[FR Doc No: 2022-09609]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

21 CFR Part 172

[Docket No. FDA-1986-F-0425 (formerly Docket No. 1986F-0208)]

Ranks, Hovis, McDougall Research, Ltd.; Withdrawal of Food
Additive Petition

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notification; withdrawal of petition.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or we) is announcing the
withdrawal, without prejudice to a future filing, of a food additive
petition (FAP 6A3930) proposing that the food additive regulations be
amended to provide for the safe use of mycoprotein, derived from
Fusarium graminearum (taxonomically reclassified as Fusarium
venenatum), as a source of protein in certain foods.

DATES: The food additive petition was withdrawn on February 28, 2022.

ADDRESSES: For access to the docket to read background documents or
comments received, go to https://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 Dockets
Management Staff, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Paulette M. Gaynor, Center for Food
Safety and Applied Nutrition, Food and Drug Administration, 5001 Campus
Dr., College Park, MD 20740,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In a notice published in the Federal
Register of May 30, 1986 (51 FR 19610),\1\ we announced that we had
filed a food additive petition (FAP 6A3930), submitted by Ranks, Hovis,
McDougall Research, Ltd., c/o 2550 M St. NW, Washington, DC 20037.
Responsibility for the petition subsequently transferred to Marlow
Foods Ltd. (currently Marlow Foods Ltd. dba Quorn Foods (Marlow) c/o
1401 Eye St. NW, Suite 800, Washington, DC 20005). The petition
proposed to amend the food additive regulations in 21 CFR part 172 to
provide for the safe use of mycoprotein, derived from Fusarium
graminearum (taxonomically reclassified as Fusarium venenatum), as a
direct source of protein in certain foods. Marlow has now withdrawn the
petition without prejudice to a future filing (21 CFR 171.7).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Although the filing notice refers to the subject as ``myco-
protein,'' we are using a nonhyphenated name (i.e., ``mycoprotein'')
in this withdrawal notification.

    Dated: April 29, 2022.
Lauren K. Roth,
Associate Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2022-09609 Filed 5-4-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4164-01-P


[Federal Register: March 26, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 59)]
[Notices]
[Page 16086-16087]
[DOCID:fr26mr08-134]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-57535; File No. SR-OCC-2008-01]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; The Options Clearing Corporation;
Order Granting Approval of a Proposed Rule Change Relating to its
Facilities Management Agreements

March 20, 2008.

I. Introduction

    On January 9, 2008, The Options Clearing Corporation (``OCC'')
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'') a
proposed rule change pursuant to section 19(b)(1) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (``Act'').\1\ Notice of the proposal was published
in the Federal Register on February 19, 2008.\2\ No comment letters
were received. This

order approves the proposed rule change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ Securities Exchange Act Release No. 57304 (February 11,
2008), 73 FR 9155.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Description

    The purpose of the proposed rule change is to provide an expedited
process for reviewing a facilities management agreement proposed to be
entered into by an operationally capable clearing member that desires
to become a managed clearing member. A managed clearing member is one
that outsources certain of its obligations as a clearing member to
another clearing member (``managing clearing member'').
    Currently, Rule 309 prohibits a clearing member that proposes to
enter into an outsourcing agreement with a managing clearing member
from implementing the agreement without the prior approval of the
Membership/Risk Committee (``Committee'').\3\ In 2006 and 2007, the
Committee reviewed three requests to approve such outsourcing
arrangements. However, none of the three clearing member's desired time
frame for implementing its facilities management arrangement coincided
with a regularly scheduled meeting of the Committee, and each firm was
required to defer executing its outsourcing plans until after a meeting
occurred.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Rule 309(f). See also Securities Exchange Act Release No.
55686 (May 1, 2007), 72 FR 26191 (May 8, 2007) [SR-OCC-2006-21].
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To provide for a more timely review of certain outsourcing
agreements, OCC is modifying Rule 309. As amended, Rule 309 will
provide that a managed clearing member is permitted to request an
expedited review of its outsourcing agreement, and if OCC consents to
an expedited review, the Chairman, the Management Vice Chairman, or the
President will be authorized to determine whether the agreement meets
applicable requirements and to approve or disapprove the agreement. At
the next regularly scheduled Committee meeting, the Committee would
independently review the outsourcing agreement and would determine de
novo whether to approve or disapprove it. In the event the Committee's
decision would result in a modification or a reversal of the action
taken by the Chairman, the Management Vice Chairman, or President, no
actions previously taken by OCC or the clearing member prior to the
modification or reversal would be invalidated and no rights of any
person arising out of such previous actions would be affected. In the
unlikely event that the Committee disapproved an agreement previously
approved by OCC, the clearing member would be given a reasonable time
either to enter into an appropriately revised outsourcing agreement or
to cease to be a Managed Clearing Member.
    This process is comparable to the process used when clearing
members request expedited approval to clear a new type or kind of
transaction.\4\ OCC believes that the proposed expedited review process
strikes a reasonable balance between meeting the business requirements
of clearing members and continuing to ensure appropriate review of the
operational and financial aspects of outsourcing arrangements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Article V, Section 1, Interpretation & Policy .03e. See also
Securities Exchange Act Release No. 30169 (January 8, 1992) 57 FR
1776 [SR-OCC-91-06].
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The expedited review process is set forth in Interpretation &
Policy .01 under Rule 309. The existing Interpretation and Policy .01,
which required managing clearing members as of October 1, 2003, to meet
revised capital requirements by October 1, 2004, is no longer
applicable and is therefore being deleted. In addition, a technical
change is being made to paragraph (f) of Rule 309 so that the language
more closely parallels the language used in a cross-referenced By-law
provision.

III. Discussion

    Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act requires, among other things, that
the rules of a clearing agency be designed to assure the safeguarding
of securities and funds which are in its custody or control or for
which it is responsible.\5\ The Commission finds the proposed rule
change to be consistent with this requirement because the actions of
senior management to approve an outsourcing agreement prior to a
scheduled Committee meeting are subject to the Committee's subsequent
review and approval.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1(b)(3)(F).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Conclusion

    On the basis of the foregoing, the Commission finds that the
proposed rule change is consistent with the requirements of the Act and
in particular section 17A of the Act and the rules and regulations
thereunder.
    It is therefore ordered, pursuant to section 19(b)(2) of the Act,
that the proposed rule change (File No. SR-OCC-2008-01) be and hereby
is approved.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ In approving the proposed rule change, the Commission
considered the proposal's impact on efficiency, competition, and
capital formation. 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).

    For the Commission by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E8-6128 Filed 3-25-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: March 22, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 54)]
[Notices]
[Page 13632-13636]
[DOCID:fr22mr10-126]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-61706; File No. SR-FINRA-2009-047]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Financial Industry Regulatory
Authority, Inc.; Notice of Filing of Amendment No. 1 and Order Granting
Accelerated Approval of a Proposed Rule Change, as Modified by
Amendment No. 1, To Adopt FINRA Rule 3160 (Networking Arrangements
Between Members and Financial Institutions) in the Consolidated FINRA
Rulebook

March 15, 2010.

I. Introduction

    On July 21, 2009, Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc.
(``FINRA'') (f/k/a National Association of Securities Dealers, Inc.
(``NASD'')) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``SEC''
or ``Commission''), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (``Exchange Act'' or ``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4
thereunder,\2\ a proposed rule change to adopt NASD Rule 2350 (Broker/
Dealer Conduct on the Premises of Financial Institutions) as FINRA Rule
3160 in the consolidated FINRA rulebook, subject to certain amendments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The proposed rule change was published for comment in the Federal
Register on August 11, 2009.\3\ The Commission received five comments
on the proposed rule change.\4\ On February 5, 2010, FINRA responded to
the comments.\5\ Also on February 5, 2010, FINRA filed Amendment No. 1
to the proposed rule change.\6\ The Commission is publishing this
notice and order to solicit comments on Amendment No. 1 and to approve
the proposed rule change, as modified by Amendment No. 1, on an
accelerated basis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 60475 (August 11,
2009), 74 FR 41774 (August 18, 2009).
    \4\ See letter from Frederick T. Greene, Woodforest Financial
Services, Inc., to Elizabeth M. Murphy, Secretary, Commission, dated
September 4, 2009 (``Woodforest Letter''); letter from William A.
Jacobson and Eric D. Johnson, Cornell Securities Law Clinic, to
Elizabeth M. Murphy, Secretary, Commission, dated September 8, 2009
(``Cornell Letter''); letter from Dale E. Brown, Financial Services
Institute, Inc., to Elizabeth M. Murphy, Secretary, Commission,
dated September 8, 2009 (``FSI Letter''); letter from Jill I. Gross
and Ed Pekarek, Pace University School of Law Investor Rights
Clinic, operating through John Jay Legal Services, Inc., to
Elizabeth M. Murphy, Secretary, Commission, dated September 8, 2009
(``PIRC Letter''); letter from Ronald C. Long, Wells Fargo Advisors,
to Elizabeth M. Murphy, Secretary, Commission, dated September 18,
2009 (``WFA Letter'').
    \5\ See letter from Gary L. Goldsholle, FINRA, to Elizabeth M.
Murphy, Secretary, Commission, dated February 5, 2010 (``FINRA
Response'').
    \6\ Amendment No. 1 made minor edits to the rule text and the
description of the proposal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Description of Proposed Rule Change

    As part of the process of developing a new consolidated rulebook
(``Consolidated FINRA Rulebook''),\7\ FINRA proposed to adopt NASD Rule
2350 (Broker/Dealer Conduct on the Premises of Financial Institutions),
subject to certain amendments, as FINRA Rule 3160 (Networking
Arrangements Between Members and Financial Institutions). The details
of the proposed rule change are described below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ The current FINRA rulebook consists of (1) FINRA Rules; (2)
NASD Rules; and (3) rules incorporated from NYSE (``Incorporated
NYSE Rules'') (together, the NASD Rules and Incorporated NYSE Rules
are referred to as the ``Transitional Rulebook''). While the NASD
Rules generally apply to all FINRA members, the Incorporated NYSE
Rules apply only to those members of FINRA that are also members of
the NYSE (``Dual Members''). The FINRA Rules apply to all FINRA
members, unless such rules have a more limited application by their
terms. For more information about the rulebook consolidation
process, see FINRA Information Notice, March 12, 2008 (Rulebook
Consolidation Process).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

NASD Rule 2350

    NASD Rule 2350 governs the activities of broker-dealers on the
premises of financial institutions.\8\ Also known as the ``bank broker-
dealer rule,'' Rule 2350 generally requires broker-dealers that conduct
business on the premises of a financial institution where retail
deposits are taken to: (1) Enter into a written agreement with the
financial institution specifying each party's responsibilities and the
terms of compensation (networking agreement); (2) segregate the
securities activities conducted on the premises of the financial
institution from the retail deposit-taking area; (3) allow access for
inspection and examination by the SEC and FINRA; (4) ensure that
communications with customers clearly identify that the broker-dealer
services are provided by the member; (5) disclose to customers that the
securities

products offered by the broker-dealer are not insured like other
banking products; and (6) make reasonable efforts at account opening to
obtain a customer's written acknowledgement of the receipt of such
disclosure. Rule 2350 applies only when broker-dealer services are
conducted either in person, over the telephone, or through any other
electronic medium, on the premises of a financial institution where
retail deposits are taken, by a broker-dealer that has a physical
presence on those premises.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ Under the rule, the term ``financial institution'' includes
federal and state-chartered banks, savings and loan associations,
savings banks, credit unions, and the service corporations of such
institutions required by law.
    \9\ See Notice to Members 97-89 (December 1997).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NASD Rule 2350 was adopted to reduce potential customer confusion
in dealing with broker-dealers that conduct business on the premises of
financial institutions, and to clarify the relationship between a
broker-dealer and a financial institution entering into a networking
agreement.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 39294 (November 4,
1997), 62 FR 60542, 60547 (November 10, 1997) (Approval Order).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Gramm-Leach Bliley Act and Regulation R

    In 2007, the SEC and the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve
jointly adopted rules, known as Regulation R,\11\ that implement the
bank broker provisions of the Gramm-Leach Bliley Act of 1999
(``GLB'').\12\ These provisions replaced what had been a blanket
exception for banks from the definition of ``broker'' under the
Exchange Act with eleven exceptions from the definition of ``broker''
that are codified in Exchange Act Section 3(a)(4)(B).\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See 17 CFR 247.700-781.
    \12\ Pub. L. 106-102, 113 Stat. 1338 (1999).
    \13\ See 15 U.S.C. 78c(a)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Exchange Act Section 3(a)(4)(B)(i) provides an exception from the
definition of ``broker'' for banks that enter into third-party
brokerage (or networking) arrangements with a broker-dealer (the
networking exception). Under this exception, a bank is not considered
to be a broker if it enters into a contractual or other written
arrangement with a registered broker-dealer under which the broker-
dealer offers brokerage services on or off bank premises, subject to
certain conditions (this differs from NASD Rule 2350, which only
applies to broker-dealers offering brokerage services on a financial
institution's premises).\14\ Although this exception generally provides
that a bank may not pay its unregistered employees incentive
compensation for referring a customer to a broker-dealer, it does
permit a bank employee to receive a ``nominal one-time cash fee of a
fixed dollar amount'' that is not contingent on whether the referral
results in a transaction with the broker-dealer.\15\ Further, Rule 701
of Regulation R provides an exemption for referrals of certain
institutional and high net worth clients that may result in the payment
of a higher referral fee (i.e., incentive compensation of more than a
nominal amount) to bank employees and may be contingent on the
occurrence of a securities transaction, subject to certain additional
requirements.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ The exceptions in Section 3(a)(4)(B) of the Exchange Act
apply to ``banks'' as defined in Exchange Act Section 3(a)(6). NASD
Rule 2350 addresses ``financial institutions.'' See supra note 8.
    \15\ See 17 CFR 247.700 for definitions of the terms ``nominal
one-time cash fee of a fixed dollar amount,'' ``referral,''
``contingent on whether the referral results in a transaction'' and
``incentive compensation.''
    \16\ See 17 CFR 247.701.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Proposed FINRA Rule 3160

    FINRA proposed to adopt NASD Rule 2350 into the Consolidated FINRA
Rulebook as FINRA Rule 3160, subject to certain amendments to
streamline the rule and to reflect applicable provisions of GLB and
Regulation R.
    First, the proposed rule change would amend the scope of the rule
to conform to the networking exception in GLB. NASD Rule 2350 applies
only to broker-dealer conduct on the premises of a financial
institution where retail deposits are taken. However, the networking
exception in GLB applies to networking arrangements in which a broker
or dealer offers brokerage services on or off the premises of a
bank.\17\ Accordingly, with the exception of those requirements
addressing the physical setting, proposed FINRA Rule 3160 would apply
to a member that is a party to a networking arrangement with a
financial institution under which the member offers broker-dealer
services, regardless of whether the member is conducting broker-dealer
services on or off the premises of a financial institution.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ See 15 U.S.C. 78c(a)(4)(B)(i).
    \18\ The title of the rule would be changed from ``Broker/Dealer
Conduct on the Premises of Financial Institutions'' to ``Networking
Arrangements Between Members and Financial Institutions.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Second, the proposed rule change would make certain minor changes
to the provisions addressing setting, as set forth in NASD Rule
2350(c)(1) (Setting). The setting provision establishes the
requirements regarding a member's presence on the premises of a
financial institution. To better align the rule text with the language
in the networking exception in GLB and its associated rules in
Regulation R, proposed FINRA Rule 3160 would provide that a member
conducting broker-dealer services on the premises of a financial
institution: (1) Be clearly identified as the person performing broker-
dealer services and distinguish its broker-dealer services from the
services of the financial institution; (2) conduct its broker-dealer
services in an area that displays clearly the member's name; and (3) to
the extent practicable, maintain its broker-dealer services in a
location physically separate from the routine retail deposit-taking
activities of the financial institution.
    Third, the proposed rule change would amend the provisions
addressing networking agreements, in NASD Rule 2350(c)(2) (Networking
and Brokerage Affiliate Agreements), to reference certain requirements
in GLB and Regulation R regarding written agreements between banks and
broker-dealers. As noted above, Rule 701 of Regulation R allows a bank
employee to receive a contingent referral fee not subject to the
``nominal amount'' restriction, so long as the client referred to the
broker-dealer by the bank employee is an ``institutional'' or ``high
net worth'' customer, as defined in Rule 701, and the other conditions
of the rule are satisfied.
    Rule 701 requires that the written agreement between a bank relying
on the exception from the definition of ``broker'' under Exchange Act
Section (3)(a)(4)(B)(i) and the exemption under Rule 701 for
institutional and high net worth customers and its networking broker-
dealer include terms that obligate the broker-dealer to take certain
actions.\19\ In particular, the written agreement between the bank and
broker-dealer must require that the broker-dealer:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ See 17 CFR 247.701(a)(3). See also Securities Exchange Act
Release No. 56501, 72 FR 56514, 56523 (October 3, 2007) (Definitions
of Terms and Exemptions Relating to the ``Broker'' Exceptions for
Banks) (``Banks and broker-dealers are expected to comply with the
terms of their written networking arrangements. If a bank or broker-
dealer does not comply with the terms of the agreement, however, the
bank would not become a `broker' under Section 3(a)(4) of the
Exchange Act or lose its ability to operate under the proposed
exemption.'').

    (1) Determine that a bank employee is not subject to a statutory
disqualification under Section 3(a)(39) of the Exchange Act, have a
reasonable basis to believe that the customer is a ``high net worth
customer'' or an ``institutional customer'' and conduct a
suitability or sophistication analysis for customers and securities
transactions by customers; \20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ See 17 CFR 247.701(a)(3)(ii)-(iii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (2) promptly inform the bank if the broker-dealer determines
that the customer referred to the broker-dealer is not a ``high net
worth customer'' or an ``institutional customer,'' as applicable, or
the bank employee receiving

the referral fee is subject to a statutory disqualification under
Section 3(a)(39) of the Exchange Act; \21\ and
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ See 17 CFR 247.701(a)(3)(v).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (3) inform the customer if the customer or the securities
transaction(s) to be conducted by the customer does not meet the
applicable standard set forth in the suitability or sophistication
determination in Rule 701; \22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ See 17 CFR 247.701(a)(3)(iv). See Securities Exchange Act
Release No. 56501 (October 3, 2007) (re: Suitability or
Sophistication Analysis by Broker-Dealer). The ``sophistication''
analysis is based on the elements of NASD IM-2310-3 (Suitability
Obligations to Institutional Customers). FINRA is seeking comment on
a proposal regarding a consolidated FINRA rule addressing
suitability obligations. See Regulatory Notice 09-25 (May 2009).

    In addition, the broker-dealer may be contractually obligated to
provide certain disclosures to a referred customer.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ See 17 CFR 247.701(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Proposed FINRA Rule 3160 would clarify that networking agreements
must include all broker-dealer obligations, as applicable, in Rule 701,
and that independent of their contractual obligations, members must
comply with all such broker-dealer obligations. In this regard, the
release adopting Regulation R specifically contemplated that FINRA
might adopt a rule to require that broker-dealers comply with the
requirements of Rule 701.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 56501, 72 FR 56514,
56528 n.135 (October 3, 2007) (``As stated in the proposal, the
Commission anticipates that it may be necessary for either FINRA or
the Commission to propose a rule that would require broker-dealers
to comply with the written agreements entered into pursuant to Rule
701.'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Next, the proposed rule change would modify the provisions
addressing customer disclosure and acknowledgements, in NASD Rule
2350(c)(3) (Customer Disclosure and Written Acknowledgement), which
require members to make certain disclosures to customers regarding
securities products, at or prior to account opening, and to make
reasonable efforts to obtain a customer's written acknowledgement of
the receipt of such disclosures at account opening. Such disclosures
include that the securities products are: (1) Not insured by the
Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (``FDIC''); (2) not deposits or
other obligations of the financial institution and not guaranteed by
the financial institution; and (3) subject to investment risk,
including possible loss of the principal invested.
    The proposal would not incorporate the written acknowledgement
requirement into proposed FINRA Rule 3160, in light of the application
of the rule to networking arrangements regardless of whether the member
is conducting broker-dealer services on or off the premises of a
financial institution and the obligation that members provide the
requisite disclosures orally and in writing. In this context, FINRA
believes that oral and written disclosure to customers regarding
securities products is sufficient and that requiring a written
acknowledgement of receipt from customers is unnecessary.
    Lastly, the proposed rule change would amend the provisions
addressing communications with the public in NASD Rule 2350(c)(4)
(Communications with the Public), consistent with the extension of
proposed FINRA Rule 3160 to networking arrangements where the member
conducts broker-dealer services on or off the premises of a financial
institution. NASD Rule 2350(c)(4) requires a member to make the same
disclosures regarding securities products discussed above on
advertisements and sales literature that announce the location of a
financial institution where broker-dealer services are provided by the
member or that are distributed by the member on the premises of a
financial institution. To further reduce potential customer confusion,
proposed FINRA Rule 3160 would extend this requirement to include all
of the member's advertisements and sales literature that promote the
name or services of the financial institution or that are distributed
by the member at any other location where the financial institution is
present or represented.

III. Summary of Comments and Amendment No. 1

    The Commission received five comments in response to the rule
proposal. Four of the commenters generally supported the proposed rule
change,\25\ and one opposed it, stating that the proposal did not go
far enough to distinguish between banking and investment
activities.\26\ The comments also raised specific issues, discussed
below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ See Cornell Letter, FSI Letter, WFA Letter and Woodforest
Letter.
    \26\ See PIRC Letter.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Networking Arrangements on and off the Premises of Financial
Institutions

    One commenter \27\stated that the application of proposed FINRA
Rule 3160 to broker-dealer services off the premises of a financial
institution would unreasonably expand the requirements of NASD Rule
2350 to provide certain disclosures orally and in writing to customers
beyond bank brokerage clients to include all other customers of the
broker-dealer, including institutional clients, on-line brokerage
clients and off-shore clients. In its response, FINRA stated that it
believes that extending proposed FINRA Rule 3160 to apply to member
conduct pursuant to a networking arrangement, regardless of where such
activities take place, will enhance investor protection. However, in
light of comments received regarding the application of the proposed
rule to customer accounts that are not opened as a result of a member's
networking arrangement with a financial institution, FINRA amended the
proposal to require that oral disclosures only be provided at or prior
to the time that a customer account is opened on the premises of a
financial institution by a member that is a party to a networking
arrangement with the financial institution. Written disclosures that
the broker-dealer services are being provided by the member and not by
the financial institution, and that the securities products purchased
or sold in a transaction with the member are not insured by the FDIC,
not obligations of or guaranteed by the financial institution, and are
subject to investment risks, including possible loss of principal,
would still be required as set forth in the original proposal. FINRA
notes that a written acknowledgement is not required under GLB or
Regulation R. FINRA believes that this change will retain the benefits
of applying the rule to member conduct on or off the premises of a
financial institution without imposing potentially unnecessary oral
disclosures to customers whose account openings may be wholly unrelated
to the networking arrangement.\28\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ See WFA Letter.
    \28\ See FINRA Response.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    One commenter \29\ suggested that if a member's networking
agreement with a financial institution does not explicitly address off
premises brokerage services to be provided by the member, then the
member should not have to comply with the proposed rule in its
application to off premises activities. In its response, FINRA
disagreed with this interpretation of the proposed rule. Proposed FINRA
Rule 3160 would apply to a member conducting broker-dealer services
under a networking arrangement off the premises of a financial
institution, regardless of the specific contractual agreements between
the parties. FINRA stated that the proposed rule is intended to impose
certain requirements on members in networking arrangements that apply

notwithstanding any contractual obligations of the parties.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ See WFA Letter.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    One commenter \30\ opposed proposed FINRA Rule 3160 stating that it
appears designed to maintain the status quo. The commenter stated that
the proposed rule is insufficient and does not adequately protect
investors, and specifically noted that senior citizens are often
confused regarding the role of financial institutions with respect to
securities activities through networking arrangements. In its response,
FINRA stated that it does not believe that the proposed rule maintains
the status quo, and noted that the proposed rule change expands
existing requirements to encompass activities of a broker-dealer
operating under a networking agreement with a financial institution
occurring off the premises of a financial institution. Moreover, FINRA
stated that its examination and enforcement mechanisms will continue to
bolster the application of FINRA's requirements governing members'
networking arrangements with financial institutions.\31\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \30\ See PIRC Letter.
    \31\ See FINRA Response.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Written Acknowledgement of Receipt of Disclosures

    Certain commenters \32\ suggested that FINRA maintain in proposed
FINRA Rule 3160 a requirement that a member make a reasonable effort to
obtain from each customer during the account opening process a written
acknowledgement of receipt of the disclosures required under the rule.
One commenter \33\ noted that, if this requirement was eliminated,
members would have less incentive to ensure that associated persons are
making the required disclosures. Another commenter \34\ viewed FINRA's
reasons for removing the acknowledgement requirement as unpersuasive.
This commenter suggested that members have the technology to obtain
adequate written acknowledgement from customers, and any administrative
burden imposed upon members by a written acknowledgment requirement
would be greatly outweighed by the benefit of reducing customer
confusion. One commenter \35\ asserted that notwithstanding the current
requirement to obtain written acknowledgment from customers, many
investors do not know that they are acquiring a securities product as
opposed to a bank product. Additionally, one commenter \36\ noted that
FINRA's proposal may conflict with the Interagency Statement on Retail
Sales of Nondeposit Investment Products,\37\ which requires firms to
obtain written acknowledgement for the receipt of nondepository product
disclosures. While the commenter did not oppose FINRA's proposal in
this respect, it views the proposal as an opportunity for regulatory
harmonization in this area. In its response, FINRA stated that it
continues to believe that retaining a written acknowledgement in its
rule is unnecessary. Moreover, FINRA opined that its proposal would not
conflict with a firm's obligations under the Interagency Statement, and
a written acknowledgement is not required under GLB or Regulation R.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \32\ See Woodforest Letter, Cornell Letter and PIRC Letter.
    \33\ See PIRC Letter.
    \34\ See Cornell Letter.
    \35\ See PIRC Letter.
    \36\ See WFA Letter.
    \37\ Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, Office of
the Comptroller of the Currency, Federal Deposit Insurance
Corporation, Office of Thrift Supervision, ``Interagency Statement
on Retail Sale of Nondeposit Investment Products,'' Feb. 15, 1994,
as supplemented by Joint Interpretations of the Interagency
Statement on Retail Sales of Nondeposit Investment Products, Sept.
12, 1995 (the ``Interagency Statement'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Setting Provision

    One commenter \38\ expressed the view that it is common industry
practice for a registered representative to use conference rooms at a
bank location to meet with customers because many representatives'
``offices'' are cubicles within the operations area of the financial
institution. The commenter \39\ suggested that FINRA eliminate proposed
FINRA Rule 3160(a)(1)(B), which would require members to conduct
broker-dealer activities in an area that clearly displays the member's
name so that the use of shared conference rooms may continue. Another
commenter \40\ added that the ``to the extent practicable'' language in
the setting provision is problematic because it invites a subjective
and self-serving interpretation of this provision by the financial
institution and the member. One commenter \41\ read proposed FINRA Rule
3160 as excluding electronic broker-dealer activities and noted that
the setting provision ignores that bank deposits are often done
electronically.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \38\ See Woodforest Letter.
    \39\ See id.
    \40\ See PIRC Letter.
    \41\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In its response, FINRA stated that it does not believe that the
proposed rule prevents a registered person from using a conference room
at a financial institution inasmuch as each of the elements of
paragraph (a)(1) of the proposed rule, including the signage
requirement in subparagraph (B), can be satisfied. FINRA also noted
that the language ``to the extent practicable'' exists in current NASD
Rule 2350 and was not amended under the proposal. Additionally, GLB
includes identical language in a corresponding provision.\42\ Finally,
although the provisions of proposed FINRA Rule 3160(a)(1) provide
specific guidance for physical separation on the premises of a
financial institution, other provisions in the proposed rule (i.e.,
paragraphs (a)(3) and (a)(4)) address potential customer confusion for
electronic or otherwise off-premises broker-dealer conduct. With
respect to electronic deposits made on the premises of a financial
institution, FINRA noted that the ``retail deposit-taking area'' would
include areas that have ATMs where electronic deposits are made.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \42\ See Exchange Act Section 3(a)(4)(B)(i)(II).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Disclosures on Advertisements and Sales Literature

    One commenter \43\ suggested clarifying proposed FINRA Rule
3160(a)(4)(B), stating that the rule appears to require financial
institutions to include disclosures on advertisements that do not refer
to the broker-dealer or its services. In its response, FINRA noted that
proposed FINRA Rule 3160 would apply to the conduct and communications
of a FINRA member in a networking arrangement, and not to the
activities or communications of a financial institution that are
unrelated to the networking arrangement. As such, FINRA declined to
amend the proposal in response to this comment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \43\ See FSI Letter.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Proposed FINRA Rule 3160(a)(4)(C) would provide a list of certain
advertisements and sales literature that do not have to include the
disclosures required under the proposed rule. One commenter \44\
recommended adding business cards of a registered representative that
are printed on a standard size 2'' x 3'' card to this list, stating
that it would be difficult to fit the disclosures on such
communications. In its response, FINRA stated that it does not intend
to amend proposed FINRA Rule 3160(a)(4)(C) to exclude business cards
from the required disclosures. FINRA explained that, to the extent
business cards are sales literature, disclosures should be provided to
assist customers in recognizing the distinctions between the brokerage
services offered by the member and the banking services

offered by the financial institution.\45\ FINRA also noted that, where
necessary, members may use the short form legend as provided in
proposed FINRA Rule 3160(a)(4)(B) on business cards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \44\ See Woodforest Letter.
    \45\ See FINRA Interpretive Letter to Tamara K. Salmon,
Investment Company Institute (September 6, 2007).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Discussion and Finding

    After careful review, the Commission finds that the proposed rule
change is consistent with the requirements of the Act and the rules and
regulations thereunder applicable to a national securities
association.\46\ The Commission believes that the proposed rule change,
as amended, is consistent with the provisions of Section 15A(b)(6) of
the Act, which requires, among other things, that FINRA rules must be
designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to
promote just and equitable principles of trade, and, in general, to
protect investors and the public interest.\47\ In particular, the
proposed rule change, as amended, will clarify and streamline the FINRA
requirements for broker-dealer networking arrangements and better align
FINRA requirements with GLB and Regulation R. This, in turn, should
promote member firm's compliance efforts.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \46\ In approving the proposed rule change, the Commission has
considered the rule change's impact on efficiency, competition, and
capital formation. 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).
    \47\ See 15 U.S.C. 78o-3(b)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

V. Accelerated Approval

    The Commission finds good cause, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of
the Act,\48\ for approving the proposed rule change, as amended by
Amendment No. 1 thereto, prior to the 30th day after the date of
publication in the Federal Register. The changes proposed in Amendment
No. 1 are minor, and do not raise novel regulatory concerns. Moreover,
accelerating approval of this proposal should benefit FINRA member
firms and investors by more closing aligning, without undue delay,
FINRA requirements with both GLB and Regulation R.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \48\ 15 U.S.C. 78o-3(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

VI. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://
www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-FINRA-2009-047 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-FINRA-2009-047. This
file number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used.
To help the Commission process and review your comments more
efficiently, please use only one method. The Commission will post all
comments on the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/
rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments,
all written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that
are filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating
to the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person,
other than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance
with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for inspection
and copying in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street,
NE., Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours
of 10 a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of such filing also will be available for
inspection and copying at the principal office of FINRA. 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-FINRA-2009-047 and should be
submitted on or before April 12, 2010.

VII. Conclusion

    It is therefore ordered, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the
Act,\49\ that the proposed rule change (SR-FINRA-2009-047), as amended,
be, and hereby is, approved on an accelerated basis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \49\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\50\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \50\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-6214 Filed 3-19-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P