applicable occupancy expense). Do commenters believe that the
Exchange has provided sufficient detail about how it determined
which costs are most clearly directly associated with providing and
maintaining 10Gb ULL connectivity? The Exchange describes a
``proprietary'' process involving all Exchange department heads,
including the finance department and numerous meetings between the
Exchange's Chief Information Officer, Chief Financial Officer, Head
of Strategic Planning and Operations, Chief Technology Officer,
various members of the Legal Department, and other group leaders,
but do not specify further what principles were applied in making
these determinations or arriving at particular allocations. Do
commenters believe further explanation is necessary? For employee
compensation and benefit costs, for example, the Exchange calculated
an allocation of employee time in several departments, including
Technology, Back Office, Systems Operations, Networking, Business
Strategy Development, Trade Operations, Finance, and Legal, but do
not provide the job titles and salaries of persons whose time was
accounted for, or explain the methodology used to determine how much
of an employee's time is devoted to that specific activity. What are
commenters' views on whether the Exchange has provided sufficient
detail on the identity and nature of services provided by third
parties? Across all of the Exchange's projected costs, what are
commenters' views on whether the Exchange has provided sufficient
detail on the elements that go into connectivity costs, including
how shared costs are allocated and attributed to connectivity
expenses, to permit an independent review and assessment of the
reasonableness of purported cost-based fees and the corresponding
profit margin thereon? Should the Exchange be required to identify
for what services or fees the remaining percentage of un-allocated
expenses are attributable to (e.g., what services or fees are
associated with the 30% of applicable depreciation and amortization
expenses the Exchange does not allocate to the Proposed Access
Fees)? Do commenters believe that the costs projected for 2021 are
generally representative of expected costs going forward (to the
extent commenters consider 2021 to be a typical or atypical year),
or should an exchange present an estimated range of costs with an
explanation of how profit margins could vary along the range of
estimated costs? Should the Exchange use cost projections or actual
costs estimated for 2021 in a filing made in 2022, or make cost
projections for 2022?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \106\ See supra Section II.A.2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    2. Revenue Estimates and Profit Margin Range. The Exchange
provides a single monthly revenue figure as the basis for
calculating the profit margin of 21.3%. Do commenters believe this
is reasonable? If not, why not? The Exchange states that their
proposed fee structure is ``designed to cover its costs with a
limited return in excess of such costs,'' and that ``revenue and
associated profit margin [ ] are not solely intended to cover the
costs associated with providing access services subject to the
Proposed Access Fees,'' and believes that a 21.3% margin is a
limited return over such costs.\107\ The profit margin is also
dependent on the accuracy of the cost projections which, if inflated
(intentionally or unintentionally), may render the projected profit
margin meaningless. The Exchange acknowledges that this margin may
fluctuate from month to month due to changes in the number of
connections purchased, and that costs may increase. They also state
that the number of connections has not materially changed over the
prior months and so the months that the Exchange has used as a
baseline to perform its assessment are representative of reasonably
anticipated costs and expenses.\108\ The Exchange does not account
for the possibility of cost decreases, however. What are commenters'
views on the extent to which actual costs (or revenues) deviate from
projected costs (or revenues)? Do commenters believe that the
Exchange's methodology for estimating the profit margin is
reasonable? Should the Exchange provide a range of profit margins
that they believe are reasonably possible, and the reasons therefor?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \107\ See supra Section II.A.2.
    \108\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    3. Reasonable Rate of Return. Do commenters agree with the
Exchange that its expected 21.3% profit margin would constitute a
reasonable rate of return over cost for 10GB ULL connectivity? If
not, what would commenters consider to be a reasonable rate of
return and/or what methodology would they consider to be appropriate
for determining a reasonable rate of return? What are commenters'
views regarding what factors should be considered in determining
what constitutes a reasonable rate of return for 10Gb ULL
connectivity fees? Do commenters believe it relevant to an
assessment of reasonableness that the Exchange's proposed fees for
10Gb ULL connections, even at the highest tier, are lower than those
of other options exchanges to which the Exchange has compared the
Proposed Access Fees? Should an assessment of reasonable rate of
return include consideration of factors other than costs; and if so,
what factors should be considered, and why?
    4. Periodic Reevaluation. The Exchange has addressed whether it
believes a material deviation from the anticipated profit margin
would warrant the need to make a rule filing pursuant to Section
19(b) of the Act to increase or decrease the fees accordingly,
stating that ``[a]ny requirement that an exchange should conduct a
periodic re-evaluation on a set timeline of its cost justification
and amend its fees accordingly should be established by the
Commission holistically, applied to all exchanges and not just
through pending fee proposals, such as this filing,'' and that
``[i]n order to be fairly applied, such a mandate should be applied
to existing access fees as well.'' \109\ In light of the impact that
the number of subscribers has on connectivity profit margins, and
the potential for costs to decrease (or increase) over time, what
are commenters' views on the need for exchanges to commit to
reevaluate, on an ongoing and periodic basis, their cost-based
connectivity fees to ensure that they stay in line with their stated
profitability target and do not become unreasonable over time, for
example, by failing to adjust for efficiency gains, cost increases
or decreases, and changes in subscribers? How formal should that
process be, how often should that reevaluation occur, and what
metrics and thresholds should be considered? How soon after a new
connectivity fee change is implemented should an exchange assess
whether its subscriber estimates were accurate and at what threshold
should an exchange commit to file a fee change if its estimates were
inaccurate? Should an initial review take place within the first 30
days after a connectivity fee is implemented? 60 days? 90 days? Some
other period?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \109\ See supra Section II.A.2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    5. Tiered Structure for 10Gb ULL Connections. The Exchange
states that the proposed tiered fee structure is designed to
decrease the monthly fees for those firms that connect to the
Exchange as part of their best execution obligations and generally
tend to send the least amount of orders and messages over those
connections, because such firms generally only purchase a limited
number of connections, and also ``generally send fewer orders and
messages over those connections, resulting in less strain on
Exchange resources.'' \110\ According to the Exchange, 80% of firms
have not experienced a fee increase as a result of the tiered
structure.

However, firms that purchase five or more connections will see a 30%
increase in their fees for each connection above the fourth.
Regarding these firms, the Exchange has not asserted that it is 30%
more costly for the Exchange to offer such connections to these
firms, but instead argues generally that these firms are ``likely''
to result in greater expenditure of Exchange resources and increased
cost to the Exchange and that as the number of connections an entity
has increases, certain other costs incurred by the Exchange that are
correlated to, though not directly affected by, connection costs
(e.g., storage costs, surveillance costs, service expenses) also
increase.\111\ Do commenters believe that the price differences
between the tiers are supported by the Exchange's assertions that it
set the level of its proposed fees in a manner that it is equitable
and not unfairly discriminatory? Do commenters believes the Exchange
should demonstrate how the proposed tiered fee levels correlate with
tiered costs (e.g., by providing cost information broken down by
tier, messaging and order volumes through the additional 10Gb ULL
connections by tier, and/or mid-month add/drop of connection rates
by tier)? Do commenters believe that the Exchange should provide
more detail about the costs that firms purchasing three or more or
five or more 10Gb ULL connections impose on the Exchange, to permit
an assessment of the Exchange's statement that the Proposed Access
Fees ``do not depend on any distinction between Members and non-
Members because they are solely determined by the individual
Members' or non-Members' business needs and its impact on Exchange
resources?'' \112\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \110\ See id.
    \111\ See id.
    \112\ See id.

    Under the Commission's Rules of Practice, the ``burden to
demonstrate that a proposed rule change is consistent with the Exchange
Act and the rules and regulations issued thereunder . . . is on the
[SRO] that proposed the rule change.'' \113\ The description of a
proposed rule change, its purpose and operation, its effect, and a
legal analysis of its consistency with applicable requirements must all
be sufficiently detailed and specific to support an affirmative
Commission finding,\114\ and any failure of an SRO to provide this
information may result in the Commission not having a sufficient basis
to make an affirmative finding that a proposed rule change is
consistent with the Act and the applicable rules and regulations.\115\
Moreover, ``unquestioning reliance'' on an SRO's representations in a
proposed rule change would not be sufficient to justify Commission
approval of a proposed rule change.\116\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \113\ 17 CFR 201.700(b)(3).
    \114\ See id.
    \115\ See id.
    \116\ See Susquehanna Int'l Group, LLP v. Securities and
Exchange Commission, 866 F.3d 442, 446-47 (D.C. Cir. 2017)
(rejecting the Commission's reliance on an SRO's own determinations
without sufficient evidence of the basis for such determinations).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission believes it is appropriate to institute proceedings
to allow for additional consideration and comment on the issues raised
herein, including as to whether the proposal is consistent with the
Act, any potential comments or supplemental information provided by the
Exchange, and any additional independent analysis by the Commission.

V. Commission's Solicitation of Comments

    The Commission requests written views, data, and arguments with
respect to the concerns identified above as well as any other relevant
concerns. In particular, the Commission invites the written views of
interested persons concerning whether the proposal is consistent with
Sections 6(b)(4), 6(b)(5), and 6(b)(8), or any other provision of the
Act, or the rules and regulations thereunder. The Commission asks that
commenters address the sufficiency and merit of the Exchange's
statements in support of the proposal, in addition to any other
comments they may wish to submit about the proposed rule change.
Although there do not appear to be any issues relevant to approval or
disapproval that would be facilitated by an oral presentation of views,
data, and arguments, the Commission will consider, pursuant to Rule
19b-4, any request for an opportunity to make an oral
presentation.\117\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \117\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2). Section 19(b)(2) of the Act grants
the Commission flexibility to determine what type of proceeding--
either oral or notice and opportunity for written comments--is
appropriate for consideration of a particular proposal by an SRO.
See Securities Acts Amendments of 1975, Report of the Senate
Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs to Accompany S. 249,
S. Rep. No. 75, 94th Cong., 1st Sess. 30 (1975).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and
arguments regarding whether the proposal should be approved or
disapproved by March 15, 2022. Any person who wishes to file a rebuttal
to any other person's submission must file that rebuttal by March 29,
2022.
    Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to [email protected]. Please include
File No. SR-PEARL-2022-03 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-PEARL-2022-03. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's internet website (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml).
Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written
statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with
the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed
rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those
that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions
of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for website viewing and printing in
the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC
20549, on official business days between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and
3:00 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available for inspection
and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All comments
received will be posted without change. Persons submitting comments are
cautioned that we do not redact or edit personal identifying
information from comment submissions. You should submit only
information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions
should refer to File Number SR-PEARL-2022-03 and should be submitted on
or before March 15, 2022. Rebuttal comments should be submitted by
March 29, 2022.

VI. Conclusion

    It is therefore ordered, pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(C) of the
Act,\118\ that File Numbers SR-PEARL-2022-03 be, and hereby is,
temporarily suspended. In addition, the Commission is instituting
proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule change should be
approved or disapproved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \118\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(C).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\119\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \119\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12), (57) and (58).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

J. Matthew DeLesDernier,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2022-03653 Filed 2-18-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 18 (Thursday, January 27, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Page 4918]
[FR Doc No: 2011-1755]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2010-N-0357]

Agency Information Collection Activities; Announcement of Office
of Management and Budget Approval; Hazard Analysis and Critical Control
Point Procedures for the Safe and Sanitary Processing and Importing of
Juice

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing that a
collection of information entitled ``Hazard Analysis and Critical
Control Point Procedures for the Safe and Sanitary Processing and
Importing of Juice'' has been approved by the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Denver Presley, Jr., Office of
Information Management, Food and Drug Administration, 1350 Piccard Dr.,
PI50-400B, Rockville, MD 20850,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the Federal Register of September 23,
2010 (75 FR 57962), the Agency announced that the proposed information
collection had been submitted to OMB for review and clearance under 44
U.S.C. 3507. An Agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not
required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays
a currently valid OMB control number. OMB has now approved the
information collection and has assigned OMB control number 0910-0466.
The approval expires on January 31, 2014. A copy of the supporting
statement for this information collection is available on the Internet
at http://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain.

    Dated: January 21, 2011.
Leslie Kux,
Acting Assistant Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2011-1755 Filed 1-26-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4160-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 82 (Thursday, April 28, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 25464-25467]
[FR Doc No: 2016-09896]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-77687; File No. SR-Phlx-2016-48]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NASDAQ PHLX LLC; Notice of Filing
and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Regarding Rule 606

April 22, 2016.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given
that, on April 7, 2016, NASDAQ PHLX LLC (``Phlx'' or ``Exchange'')
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'') the
proposed rule change as described in Items I and II below, which Items
have been prepared by the Exchange. The Commission is publishing this
notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change from interested
persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange is filing with the Commission a proposal to amend Rule
606 (Communications and Equipment). The proposed amendment is described
further below.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ References to rules are, unless otherwise stated, to the
rules of the Exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to amend Rule 606 to: (1) Add language that
would allow the Exchange to limit the use of a communication device
under certain circumstances; (2) Clarify the process for changing
registration of user, and delete obsolete language regarding wattage
and add language regarding Web-based and open microphone (``open mic'')
\4\ communication applications; (3) Clarify [sic] language regarding
call forwarding and open mic; (4) Delete obsolete language regarding
stock execution clerks and in-house phone use; and (5) Add [sic]
language regarding records.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Open mic allows listeners other than the intended party on
the other end of a line (e.g., telephone) to listen to the
conversation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Rule 606, which applies to the use of electronic communication
devices on the options floor of the Exchange (``Options Floor''), has
been around for more than fifty years,\5\ at which time Exchange
options trading was strictly on-floor open outcry through specialists.
Exchange options trading has, since that time, developed into a robust
hybrid

system that is currently largely electronic and off-floor \6\ but
continues to have an on-floor specialist \7\ and an open outcry trading
floor. The Exchange is now updating and modernizing Rule 606 as
discussed below.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Since the inception of Rule 606 in 1964, the rule was
amended about ten times, with the last substantive amendment in
2002. See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 49098 (February 13,
2002), 67 FR 8053 (February 21, 2002) (SR-Phlx-2001-109) (notice of
filing and immediate effectiveness regarding tethered communication
devices). See also Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 49098
(January 16, 2004), 69 FR 3974 (January 27, 2004) (SR-Phlx-2003-73)
(approval order); 54538 (September 28, 2006), 71 FR 59184 (October
6, 2006) (SR-Phlx-2006-43) (approval order); 59924 (May 14, 2009),
74 FR 23759 (May 20, 2009) (Phlx-2009-23) (approval order); and
64338 (April 25, 2011), 76 FR 24069 (April 29, 2011) (SR-Phlx-2011-
13) (approval order) (these last four proposals made non-substantive
technical or conforming changes to Rule 606).
    \6\ Electronic traders include market makers that are SQTs,
RSQTs, and off-floor specialists (``Remote Specialists''). See Rules
1014(b)(ii)(A), 1014(b)(ii)(B), and 1020.
    \7\ Unlike specialists, Remote Specialists do not have a
physical presence on the floor of the Exchange. Rule 1020.
    \8\ While the vast majority of options-related rules are found
in Rule 1000 and higher (with option index rules found in Rule 1000A
and higher), some of the older options-related rules are, as
discussed, numbered below 1000.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    First, currently Rule 606 states in section (d) that the Exchange
may remove any telephonic, electronic, or wireless equipment that
violates subsection (b)(2) from any Exchange facility.\9\ The Exchange
proposes language in section (d) of Rule 606 to indicate when the
Exchange may deny, limit, or revoke the use of any communication device
under certain circumstances.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ Section (b)(2) of Rule 606 states: (2) No member, member
organization or person associated with a member organization shall:
(i) Establish or maintain any telephonic, electronic or wireless
transmitting system or device, including related antennas, on the
Options Floor or (ii) operate any other equipment on the Options
Floor that creates radio frequency (RF) or other interference with
the systems of the Exchange or other members.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Specifically, the Exchange proposes language in section (d) to
state that the Exchange may deny, limit, or revoke the use of any
communication device: [sic] whenever it determines that use of such
communication device: (1) Interferes with normal operation of the
Exchange's own systems or facilities or with the Exchange's regulatory
duties; (2) is inconsistent with the public interest, the protection of
investors or just and equitable principles of trade; or (3) interferes
with the obligations of a member or member organization to fulfill its
duties under, or is used to facilitate any violation of, the Securities
Exchange Act or rules thereunder, or Exchange rules. This gives the
Exchange the opportunity to limit the use of a communication device
that interferes or is inconsistent with three specified crucial areas
as proposed in the rule. The proposed section (d) provision is similar
in relevant part to a provision in the communication rule of another
options Exchange, Chicago Board Options Exchange (``CBOE''),\10\ and is
similar to certain provisions of other Exchange rules.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ Proposed Rule 606(d)(1) states: The Exchange may deny,
limit or revoke the use of any communication device whenever it
determines that use of such communication device: (1) Interferes
with normal operation of the Exchange's own systems or facilities or
with the Exchange's regulatory duties, (2) is inconsistent with the
public interest, the protection of investors or just and equitable
principles of trade, or (3) interferes with the obligations of a
member or member organization to fulfill its duties under, or is
used to facilitate any violation of, the Securities Exchange Act or
rules thereunder, or Exchange rules. CBOE Rule 6.23(b) states: The
Exchange may deny, limit or revoke the use of any communication
device whenever it determines that use of such communication device:
(1) Interferes with the normal operation of the Exchange's own
systems or facilities or with the Exchange's regulatory duties, (2)
is inconsistent with the public interest, the protection of
investors or just and equitable principles of trade, or (3)
interferes with the obligations of a Trading Permit Holder to
fulfill its duties under, or is used to facilitate any violation of,
the Securities Exchange Act or rules thereunder, or Exchange rules.
    \11\ See, e.g., Rule 1005 and Rule 1006 (provisions regarding
advisable in the public interest or for the protection of
investors).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Second, Rule 606 currently states in Section (e)(1) regarding
registration that members and member organizations must register, prior
to use, any new telephone to be used on the Options Floor. Each phone
registered with the Exchange must be registered by category of user;
and if there is a change in the category of any user, the phone must be
re-registered with the Exchange.\12\ The Exchange now proposes to
update the process for changing registration of user. Specifically, the
Exchange proposes to change the requirement in Section (e)(1) that the
phone must be re-registered with the requirement that the member or
member organization must immediately inform the Exchange in writing on
the same day as when the change occurs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ Such users can be, for example, floor broker, specialist,
or registered options trader. The users that have originally
registered and still remain on the Exchange floor have not changed
their category of user.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that the proposed updated procedure is better
because while the rule currently does not indicate a timeline when [a
phone must be re-registered, the proposed rule change requires written
notification to the Exchange on the same day as when the change occurs.
    Rule 606 currently states in Section (e)(2) regarding capacity and
functionality that no wireless telephone used on the Options Floor may
have an output greater than one watt. No person on the Options Floor
may use any device for the purpose of maintaining an open line of
continuous communication whereby a person not located in the trading
crowd may continuously monitor the activities in the trading crowd.
This prohibition covers intercoms, walkie-talkies, and any similar
devices. Speed-dialing features are permitted on any member telephone.
    The Exchange is now proposing to delete obsolete language regarding
wattage and to add new language regarding web-based and open mic
communication applications.\13\ Specifically, the Exchange is proposing
to delete language in in Section (e)(2) that no wireless telephone used
on the Options Floor may have an output greater than one watt. While
the power limitation may have made sense when wireless was just
initiated as a new technology on the Options Floor,\14\ this wattage
limitation provision is obsolete and no longer needed. In light of the
current development of technology, the one watt power limitation
provision is no longer needed to minimize the possibility of radio
frequency or other interference with the systems of the Exchange of
those of other members.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ These can be, for example, instant messaging, chat, or
Skype.
    \14\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 43972 (February 15,
2001), 66 FR 12579 (February 27, 2001) (SR-Phlx-00-48) (approval
order). The order notes that the purpose of the one watt power
limitation was to minimize the possibility of radio frequency or
other interference with the systems of the Exchange of those of
other members.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Rule 606 currently states in Section (e)(2) no person on the
Options Floor may use any device for the purpose of maintaining an open
line of continuous communication whereby a person not located in the
trading crowd may continuously monitor the activities in the trading
crowd; and that this prohibition covers intercoms, walkie-talkies, and
any similar devices.\15\ Because of the advancement of technology and
proliferation of the web, the Exchange is proposing in Section (e)(2)
to also add Web-based, as well as open mic, communication applications.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ For clarity, the Exchange is proposing to state that the
prohibition in Section (e)(2) covers, ``but is not limited to,'' the
noted devices.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Third, Rule 606 currently states in Section (e)(4) regarding
brokers that work on the Options Floor (``Floor Brokers'') \16\ [sic]
may use cellular and cordless telephones, but only to communicate with
persons located on the Options Floor. These telephones may not include
a call forwarding feature.\17\ Because of the availability of call
forwarding and open mic on virtually all wireless phones, the Exchange
is proposing to update this provision. Specifically, the Exchange is
proposing in Section (e)(4) to state that telephones used by Floor
Brokers may not use a call forwarding or open mic

feature on the Options Floor; and that if a call forwarding or open mic
feature is available on the phone then such feature must be disengaged
at all times when the phone is on the Options Floor.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ A ``Floor Broker'' is defined in Rule 1060 as ``[a]n
individual who is registered with the Exchange for the purpose,
while on the Options Floor, of accepting and handling options
orders.''
    \17\ Headsets are permitted for Floor Brokers, but if the
Exchange determines that a Floor Broker is maintaining a continuous
open line through the use of a headset, the Floor Broker will be
prohibited from future use of any headset for a length of time to be
determined by the Exchange. Rule 606(e)(4)(a).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Fourth, Rule 606 currently discusses in Section (e)(5) phone use by
stock execution clerks; and in Section (e)(6) the use of general access
in-house phones. Stock execution clerks and general access in-house
phones no longer exist and these terms are obsolete. Therefore, the
Exchange specifically proposes to delete reference [sic] to these
obsolete terms from Sections (e)(5) and (e)(6).
    Fifth, Rule 606 currently discusses in Section (e)(7) that members
must maintain their cellular or cordless telephone records, including
logs of calls placed, for a period of not less than one year. The
Exchange reserves the right to inspect and/or examine such telephone
records. The Exchange proposes to modernize this requirement.
    Specifically, the Exchange proposes in Section (e)(7) to state that
members must maintain their logs of calls and chats, including cellular
or cordless telephone records and logs of calls placed, for a period of
not less than three years, the first two years in an easily accessible
place. The Exchange believes that this proposed change will help with
the Exchange's surveillance function. The proposed section (e)(7)
provision is similar in relevant part to a provision in the
communication rule of another options exchange, CBOE,\18\ and to other
Exchange record-keeping rules.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ Proposed Rule 606(e)(7) states: Members must maintain logs
of calls and chats, including their cellular or cordless telephone
records and logs of calls placed, for a period of not less than
three years, the first two years in an easily accessible place. The
Exchange reserves the right to inspect and/or examine such telephone
records. CBOE Rule 6.23(g) states: Trading Permit Holders must
maintain records of the use of communication devices, including, but
not limited to, logs of calls placed; emails; and chats, for a
period of not less than three years, the first two years in an
easily accessible place. The Exchange reserves the right to inspect
such records pursuant to CBOE Rule 17.2.
    \19\ See Rule 616 (electronic filing requirements for uniform
forms) and Rule 605 (advertisements, market letters, research
reports and sales literature). See also Rule 1049 (communications to
customers).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, in terms of housekeeping changes in Rule 606(e)(4)(b) the
Exchange is proposing to substitute the word ``orders'' for ``others''
so that the section reads properly.
    The Exchange believes that the proposed changes to Rules 606 will
make it clearer and better.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section
6(b) of the Act,\20\ in general, and furthers the objectives of Section
6(b)(5) of the Act,\21\ in particular, in that it is designed to
promote just and equitable principles of trade and to protect investors
and the public interest by proposing to make several changes in Rule
606.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \21\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that the rule change will promote just and
equitable principles of trade by making the rules clearer and easier to
use. The Exchange is proposing in Rule 606(d) to add language that
would allow the Exchange to limit the use of a communication device
when such device interferes with normal operation of the Exchange's own
systems or facilities or with the Exchange's regulatory duties, is
inconsistent with the public interest, the protection of investors or
just and equitable principles of trade, or interferes with the
obligations of a member or member organization to fulfill its duties
under, or is used to facilitate any violation of, the Securities
Exchange Act or rules thereunder, or Exchange rules. The proposed
section (d) provision is, as discussed, practically verbatim like a
provision in the communication rule of another options Exchange, CBOE.
    The Exchange is proposing in Rule 606(e)(2) to delete language
regarding wattage that is obsolete and no longer needed.
    The Exchange is also proposing in Rule 606(e)(5) to delete obsolete
language regarding stock execution clerks and in-house phone use, as
these are not present on the Options Floor. The Exchange believes that
the rule change will serve to protect investors and the public by
making the rule tighter and better for surveillance regarding
communication devices.
    The Exchange is proposing language in Rule 606(e)(1) to clarify the
process for changing registration of user so that, instead or having to
re-register when user status changes, the member or member organization
must immediately inform the Exchange in writing on the same day as when
the change occurs.
    The Exchange is proposing in Rule 606(e)(2) to add language
regarding web-based and open mic communication applications because of
the considerable advancement of technology and proliferation of the web
and the absence of such language in the rule.
    The Exchange is proposing in Rule 606(e)(4) to state, instead of
telephones may not include a call forwarding feature, that Floor
Brokers may not use a call forwarding or open mic feature on the
Options Floor and that the call forwarding or open mic feature must be
disengaged at all times when the phone is on the Options Floor.
    The Exchange is also proposing in Rule 606(e)(7) to modernize the
records retention requirement for telephone records so that, similar in
relevant part to the requirement of another exchange, CBOE, and to
other Exchange rules, and also to help with the Exchange's surveillance
function, members must maintain logs of calls and chats for a period of
not less than three years, the first two years in an easily accessible
place.
    The Exchange believes that the proposed changes to Rules 606 will
make it clearer and better and therefore beneficial to market
participants. The Exchange believes also that the changes proposed to
Rule 606 will protect investors and the public interest. As the
Exchange has noted, the changes remove references to obsolete and
unused concepts that are no longer needed, strengthen features and add
features of the rule to make it more current, and strengthen the record
retention requirements. Such proposed changes are in the public
interest, and continue to serve to protect investors.

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
result in any burden on competition that is not necessary or
appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act, as amended.
While the Exchange does not believe that the proposed non-controversial
change is a burden on competition, or is competitive in nature, the
Exchange believes that clearer, updated rules that do not refer to
obsolete language and are in line with other rule concepts are always
beneficial to market participants.

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

    No written comments were either solicited or received.

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

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

of the Act \22\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Phlx has requested that the Commission waive the 30-day operative
delay so that it can expeditiously eliminate references to obsolete
concepts and modernize Rule 606 to take into account current
technology. The Commission believes that waiving the 30-day operative
delay is consistent with the protection of investors and the public.
The Commission notes that, among other things, the proposed rule change
will require Phlx members to maintain logs of calls and chats,
including their cellular or cordless telephone records and logs of
calls placed, for a period of not less than three years, the first two
years in an easily accessible place. The waiver of the operative delay
will allow Phlx to implement its maintenance and use of records rules,
along with the above-discussed requirements regarding communication
equipment, without undue delay. Therefore, the Commission designates
the proposal operative upon filing.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ For purposes only of waiving the 30-day operative delay,
the Commission has considered the proposed rule's impact on
efficiency, competition, and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C.
78c(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of this proposed rule
change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule
change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or
appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or
otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission
takes such action, the Commission will institute proceedings to
determine whether the proposed rule change should be approved or
disapproved.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-Phlx-2016-48 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-Phlx-2016-48. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of
10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available
for inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All
comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does
not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should
submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All
submissions should refer to File Number SR-Phlx-2016-48 and should be
submitted on or before May 19, 2016.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12) and (59).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Brent J. Fields,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2016-09896 Filed 4-27-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: August 31, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 169)]
[Notice]
[Page 50367-50368]
[DOCID:fr31au07-100]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 1494-321]

Grand River Dam Authority (GRDA); Notice of Application for Non-
Project Use of Project Lands and Waters and Soliciting Comments,
Motions To Intervene, and Protests

August 24, 2007.
    Take notice that the following application has been filed with the
Commission and is available for public inspection:
    a. Application Type: Project Use of Project Lands and Waters.
    b. Project No: 1494-321.
    c. Date Filed: August 9, 2007.
    d. Applicant: Grand River Dam Authority.
    e. Name of Project: The Pensacola Project.
    f. Location: The Grand (Neosho) River in Craig, Delaware, Mayes,
and Ottawa Counties, Oklahoma. The proposed use is located in Scotty's
Cove near the Stoneridge residential development.
    g. Filed Pursuant to: Federal Power Act, 16 U.S.C. 791 (a) 825(r)
and 799 and 801.
    h. Applicant Contact: Ms. Tamara Jahnke, Assistant General Counsel,
Grand River Dam Authority, P.O. Box 409, Vinita, OK 74301, (918) 256-
5545.
    i. FERC Contact: Any questions on this notice should be addressed
to Lesley Kordella at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or by e-mail:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    j. Deadline for filing comments and/or motions: September 24, 2007.
    All documents (original and eight copies) should be filed with: The
Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE.,
Washington DC 20426. 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 whose name appears 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. A
copy of any motion to intervene must also be served upon each
representative of the Applicant specified in the particular
application. The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings.
    k. Description of Proposal: The licensee requests approval of 29
slips and 12 wave runners to accommodate the Stoneridge residential
development. The application states that 27 slips and 12 wave runners
were approved by the licensee's Board of Directors on March 19, 2003,
but were not filed with the Commission for prior approval and have
therefore already been constructed. The current application requests
approval for the existing docking structures as well as the two
additional slips.
    l. Location of the Applications: This filing is available for
review at the Commission or may be viewed on the Commission's Web site
at http://www.ferc.gov, using the ``eLibrary'' link. Enter the docket
number (P-1494) excluding the last three digits in the docket number
field to access the document. You may also register online at http://
www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp to be notified via e-mail of
new filings and issuances related to this or other pending projects.
For assistance, contact FERC Online Support at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or toll-free at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or for TTY,
contact<PHONE_NUMBER>. A copy is also available for inspection and
reproduction at the address in item (h) above.
    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, Protests, or Motions to Intervene--Anyone may submit
comments, a protest, or a motion to intervene in accordance with the
requirements of Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.210,
385.211, 385.214. 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,
protests, or motions to intervene must be received on or before the
specified

comment date for the particular application.
    o. Any filings must bear in all capital letters the title
``COMMENTS'', ``PROTEST'', or ``MOTION TO INTERVENE'', as applicable,
and the Project Number of the particular application to which the
filing refers.
    p. Agency Comments--Federal, state, and local agencies are invited
to file comments on the described applications. A copy of the
applications may be obtained by agencies directly from the Applicant.
If an agency does not file comments within the time specified for
filing comments, it will be presumed to have no comments. One copy of
an agency's comments must also be sent to the Applicant's
representatives.
    q. Comments, protests and interventions may be filed electronically
via the Internet in lieu of paper. See, 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and
the instructions on the Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov
under the ``e-Filing'' link.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E7-17269 Filed 8-30-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 21 (Tuesday, February 2, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 5434-5435]
[FR Doc No: 2016-01808]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ER16-750-000]

Bethel Wind Farm LLC; Supplemental Notice That Initial Market-
Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204
Authorization

    This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding of
Bethel Wind Farm LLC's application for market-based rate authority,
with an accompanying rate tariff, noting that such application includes
a request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future
issuances of securities and assumptions of liability.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington,
DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's
Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Anyone
filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that
document on the Applicant.
    Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with
regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18
CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of
liability, is February 10, 2016.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with Internet
access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an
intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the
eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the
intervention or protests.
    Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and
5 copies of the intervention or protest to the

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington,
DC 20426.
    The filings in the above-referenced proceeding are accessible in
the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in
the above list. They are also available for electronic review in the
Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an
eSubscription link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive
email notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s).
For assistance with any FERC Online service, please email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For
TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: January 21, 2016.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2016-01808 Filed 2-1-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 134 (Friday, July 14, 2023)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 45060-45061]
[FR Doc No: 2023-14931]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 97

[Docket No. 31497; Amdt. No. 4070]

Standard Instrument Approach Procedures, and Takeoff Minimums and
Obstacle Departure Procedures; Miscellaneous Amendments

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This rule amends, suspends, or removes Standard Instrument
Approach Procedures (SIAPs) and associated Takeoff Minimums and
Obstacle Departure Procedures for operations at certain airports. These
regulatory actions are needed because of the adoption of new or revised
criteria, or because of changes occurring in the National Airspace
System, such as the commissioning of new navigational facilities,
adding new obstacles, or changing air traffic requirements. These
changes are designed to provide for the safe and efficient use of the
navigable airspace and to promote safe flight operations under
instrument flight rules at the affected airports.

DATES: This rule is effective July 14, 2023. The compliance date for
each SIAP, associated Takeoff Minimums, and ODP is specified in the
amendatory provisions.
    The incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in
the regulations is approved by the Director of the Federal Register as
of July 14, 2023.

ADDRESSES: Availability of matter incorporated by reference in the
amendment is as follows:

For Examination

    1. U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Ops-M30, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE, West Bldg., Ground Floor, Washington, DC 20590-0001;
    2. The FAA Air Traffic Organization Service Area in which the
affected airport is located;
    3. The office of Aeronautical Information Services, 6500 South
MacArthur Blvd., Oklahoma City, OK 73169 or,
    4. The National Archives and Records Administration (NARA).
    For information on the availability of this material at NARA, email
[email protected] or go to: https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

Availability

    All SIAPs and Takeoff Minimums and ODPs are available online free
of charge. Visit the National Flight Data Center online at nfdc.faa.gov
to register. Additionally, individual SIAP and Takeoff Minimums and ODP
copies may be obtained from the FAA Air Traffic Organization Service
Area in which the affected airport is located.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Thomas J. Nichols, Flight Procedures
and Airspace Group, Flight Technologies and Procedures Division, Flight
Standards Service, Federal Aviation Administration. Mailing Address:
FAA Mike Monroney Aeronautical Center, Flight Procedures and Airspace
Group, 6500 South MacArthur Blvd., STB Annex, Bldg 26, Room 217,
Oklahoma City, OK 73099. Telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This rule amends 14 CFR part 97 by amending
the referenced SIAPs. The complete regulatory description of each SIAP
is listed on the appropriate FAA Form 8260, as modified by the National
Flight Data Center (NFDC)/Permanent Notice to Airmen (P-NOTAM), and is
incorporated by reference under 5 U.S.C. 552(a), 1 CFR part 51, and 14
CFR 97.20. The large number of SIAPs, their complex nature, and the
need for a special format make their verbatim publication in the
Federal Register expensive and impractical. Further, airmen do not use
the regulatory text of the SIAPs, but refer to their graphic depiction
on charts printed by publishers of aeronautical materials. Thus, the
advantages of incorporation by reference are realized and publication
of the complete description of each SIAP contained on FAA form
documents is unnecessary. This amendment provides the affected CFR
sections, and specifies the SIAPs and Takeoff Minimums and ODPs with
their applicable effective dates. This amendment also identifies the
airport and its location, the procedure and the amendment number.

Availability and Summary of Material Incorporated by Reference

    The material incorporated by reference is publicly available as
listed in the ADDRESSES section.
    The material incorporated by reference describes SIAPs, Takeoff
Minimums and ODPs as identified in the amendatory language for part 97
of this final rule.

The Rule

    This amendment to 14 CFR part 97 is effective upon publication of
each separate SIAP and Takeoff Minimums and ODP as amended in the
transmittal. For safety and timeliness of change considerations, this
amendment incorporates only specific changes contained for each SIAP
and Takeoff Minimums and ODP as modified by FDC permanent NOTAMs.
    The SIAPs and Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, as modified by FDC
permanent NOTAM, and contained in this amendment are based on criteria
contained in the U.S. Standard for Terminal Instrument Procedures
(TERPS). In developing these changes to SIAPs and Takeoff Minimums and
ODPs, the TERPS criteria were applied only to specific conditions
existing at the affected airports. All SIAP amendments in this rule
have been

previously issued by the FAA in a FDC NOTAM as an emergency action of
immediate flight safety relating directly to published aeronautical
charts.
    The circumstances that created the need for these SIAP and Takeoff
Minimums and ODP amendments require making them effective in less than
30 days.
    Because of the close and immediate relationship between these
SIAPs, Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, and safety in air commerce, I find
that notice and public procedure under 5 U.S.C. 553(b) are
impracticable and contrary to the public interest and, where
applicable, under 5 U.S.C. 553(d), good cause exists for making these
SIAPs effective in less than 30 days.
    The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an
established body of technical regulations for which frequent and
routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current.
It, therefore--(1) is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under
Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a ``significant rule'' under DOT
regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979);
and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the
anticipated impact is so minimal. For the same reason, the FAA
certifies that this amendment will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of
the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 97

    Air traffic control, Airports, Incorporation by reference,
Navigation (air).

    Issued in Washington, DC, on July 7, 2023.
Thomas J. Nichols,
Manager, Aviation Safety, Flight Standards Service Standards Section,
Flight Procedures & Airspace Group Flight Technologies & Procedures
Division.

Adoption of the Amendment

    Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, Title 14,
CFR part 97, (is amended by amending Standard Instrument Approach
Procedures and Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, effective at 0901 UTC on the
dates specified, as follows:

PART 97--STANDARD INSTRUMENT APPROACH PROCEDURES

0
1. The authority citation for part 97 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g), 40103, 40106, 40113,
40114, 40120, 44502, 44514, 44701, 44719, 44721-44722.

0
2. Part 97 is amended to read as follows:
    By amending: Sec.  97.23 VOR, VOR/DME, VOR or TACAN, and VOR/DME or
TACAN; Sec.  97.25 LOC, LOC/DME, LDA, LDA/DME, SDF, SDF/DME; Sec.
97.27 NDB, NDB/DME; Sec.  97.29 ILS, ILS/DME, MLS, MLS/DME, MLS/RNAV;
Sec.  97.31 RADAR SIAPs; Sec.  97.33 RNAV SIAPs; and Sec.  97.35 COPTER
SIAPs, Identified as follows:

* * * Effective Upon Publication

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      AIRAC date           State              City              Airport name        FDC No.      FDC date                  Procedure name
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
10-Aug-23............  TX             Palacios............  Palacios Muni.......       3/0360      6/14/23  VOR RWY 13, Amdt 10G.
10-Aug-23............  WA             Spokane.............  Spokane Intl........       3/1404      6/22/23  RNAV (GPS) Y RWY 8, Amdt 2E.
10-Aug-23............  CO             Delta...............  Blake Fld...........       3/3492      6/22/23  Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP, Orig-A.
10-Aug-23............  AR             Texarkana...........  Texarkana Rgnl-Webb        3/6537      6/26/23  VOR RWY 13, Amdt 16B.
                                                             Fld.
10-Aug-23............  NC             Williamston.........  Martin County.......       3/9090      6/21/23  Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP, Orig.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 2023-14931 Filed 7-13-23; 8:45 a.m.]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 248 (Monday, December 29, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 78092-78093]
[FR Doc No: 2014-30308]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2014-N-2214]

Next Generation Sequencing Diagnostic Tests; Public Workshop;
Request for Comments

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice of public workshop; request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing the
following public workshop entitled ``Optimizing FDA's Regulatory
Oversight of Next Generation Sequencing Diagnostic Tests.'' The purpose
of this workshop is to discuss and receive feedback from the community
on the questions in the discussion paper on diagnostic tests for human
genetics or genomics using next generation sequencing (NGS) technology.

DATES:  The public workshop will be held on February 20, 2015, from
8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m.

ADDRESSES:  The public workshop will be held at the Natcher Center at
the National Institutes of Health Campus, 9000 Rockville Pike, Bldg. 45
Auditorium, Bethesda, MD 20814. For parking and security information,
please refer to http://www.nih.gov/about/visitor/.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:  David Litwack, Office of In Vitro
Diagnostics and Radiological Health, Center for Devices and
Radiological Health, Food and Drug Administration, Bldg. 66, Rm. 5544,
10903 New Hampshire Ave., Silver Spring, MD 20993,<PHONE_NUMBER>, email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    Registration: Registration is free and available on a first-come,
first-served basis. Persons interested in attending this public
workshop must register online by 4 p.m. February 12, 2015. Early
registration is recommended because facilities are limited and,
therefore, FDA may limit the number of participants from each
organization. If time and space permits, onsite registration on the day
of the public workshop will be provided beginning at 7:30 a.m.
    If you need special accommodations due to a disability, please
contact Susan Monahan,<PHONE_NUMBER>, email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>no later than February 6, 2015.
    To register for the public workshop, please visit FDA's Medical
Devices News & Events--Workshops & Conferences calendar at http://www.fda.gov/MedicalDevices/NewsEvents/WorkshopsConferences/default.htm.
(Select this public workshop from the posted events list.) Please
provide complete contact information for each attendee, including name,
title, affiliation, address, email, and telephone number. If you are
unable to register online, please contact Susan Monahan (see
Registration.) Registrants will receive confirmation after they have
been accepted. You will be notified if you are on a waiting list.
    Streaming Webcast of the Public Workshop: This public workshop will
also be Webcast. Persons interested in viewing the Webcast must
register online by February 12, 2015. Early registration is recommended
because Webcast connections are limited. Organizations are requested to
register all participants, but to view using one connection per
location. Webcast participants will be sent technical system
requirements after registration and will be sent connection access
information after February 13, 2015. If you have never attended a
Connect Pro

event before, test your connection at https://collaboration.fda.gov/common/help/en/support/meeting_test.htm. To get a quick overview of the
Connect Pro program, visit http://www.adobe.com/go/connectpro_overview.
(FDA has verified the Web site addresses in this document, but FDA is
not responsible for any subsequent changes to the Web sites after this
document publishes in the Federal Register.)
    Comments: FDA is holding this public workshop to obtain feedback
from the community on the questions in the discussion paper. In order
to permit the widest possible opportunity to obtain public comment, FDA
is soliciting either electronic or written comments on all aspects of
the public workshop topics. The deadline for submitting comments
related to this public workshop is March 20, 2015.
    Regardless of attendance at the public workshop, interested persons
may submit either electronic comments regarding this document to http://www.regulations.gov or written comments to the Division of Dockets
Management (HFA-305), Food and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane,
Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852. It is only necessary to send one set of
comments. Identify comments with the docket number found in brackets in
the heading of this document. In addition, when responding to specific
questions as outlined in section II, please identify the question you
are addressing. Received comments may be seen in the Division of
Dockets Management between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday,
and will be posted to the docket at http://www.regulations.gov.
    Transcripts: Please be advised that as soon as a transcript is
available, it will be accessible at http://www.regulations.gov. It may
be viewed at the Division of Dockets Management (see Comments). A
transcript will also be available in either hardcopy or on CD-ROM,
after submission of a Freedom of Information request. Written requests
are to be sent to the Division of Freedom of Information (ELEM-1029),
Food and Drug Administration, 12420 Parklawn Dr., Element Bldg.,
Rockville, MD 20857. A link to the transcripts will also be available
approximately 45 days after the public workshop on the Internet at
http://www.fda.gov/MedicalDevices/NewsEvents/WorkshopsConferences/default.htm. (Select this public workshop from the posted events list).

I. Background

    In vitro diagnostic devices, including laboratory-developed tests
that utilize NGS technology to generate information on an individual's
genome, are rapidly transforming healthcare. Because NGS tests generate
large amounts of data and consequently may have relatively broad or
undefined intended uses or indications, these tests pose certain
challenges during review of premarket submissions. At the same time,
this large amount of data provides opportunities for novel approaches
to assure the analytical and clinical validity of NGS tests. FDA is
committed to providing efficient and effective oversight for NGS tests
to assure their safety and effectiveness. By doing so, FDA will promote
innovation and advance precision medicine. The Agency is therefore
requesting public input on the regulatory strategy for NGS tests that
produce results on variation in the human genome. Further details of
current and new approaches that may be considered in the workshop are
outlined in the discussion paper entitled ``Optimizing FDA's Regulatory
Oversight of Next Generation Sequencing Diagnostic Tests'' available at
http://www.fda.gov/MedicalDevices/NewsEvents/WorkshopsConferences/default.htm. (Select this public workshop from the posted events list).

II. Topics for Discussion at the Public Workshop

    The workshop discussion will focus on regulatory strategies to
assure the analytical and clinical validity of NGS tests. Specific
topics to be discussed at the workshop are outlined in the discussion
paper entitled ``Optimizing FDA's Regulatory Oversight of Next
Generation Sequencing Diagnostic Tests'' available at http://www.fda.gov/MedicalDevices/NewsEvents/WorkshopsConferences/default.htm.
(Select this public workshop from the posted events list). A detailed
agenda will be posted on this Web site in advance of the workshop.

    Dated: December 22, 2014.
Leslie Kux,
Associate Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2014-30308 Filed 12-22-14; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 4164-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 223 (Tuesday, November 19, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 69496-69497]
[FR Doc No: 2013-27624]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-70858; File No. SR-BOX-2013-52]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; BOX Options Exchange LLC; Notice
of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To
Amend the BOX Fee Schedule To Specify the Frequency With Which the
Exchange May Change the Options Regulatory Fee

November 13, 2013.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) under the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 (the ``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby
given that on October 31, 2013, BOX Options Exchange LLC (the
``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the
``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I, II
and III below, which Items have been prepared by the Exchange. The
Exchange filed the proposed rule change pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act,\3\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(2) thereunder,\4\
which renders the proposal 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 is filing with the Commission a proposed rule change
to amend the Fee Schedule to specify the frequency with which the
Exchange may change the Options Regulatory Fee (``ORF'') on the BOX
Market LLC (``BOX'') options facility. While changes to the fee
schedule pursuant to this proposal will be effective upon filing, the
changes will become operative on November 1, 2013. The text of the
proposed rule change is available from the principal office of the
Exchange, at the Commission's Public Reference Room and also on the
Exchange's Internet Web site at http://boxexchange.com.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to amend the Fee Schedule for trading on BOX
to specify the frequency with which the Exchange may change the ORF.
The Exchange proposes to implement the change effective November 1,
2013.
    The ORF is assessed by the Exchange on each BOX Options Participant
for all options transactions executed or cleared by the BOX Options
Participant that are cleared by The Options Clearing Corporation
(``OCC'') in the customer range (i.e., transactions that clear in the
customer account of the BOX Options Participant's clearing firm at OCC)
regardless of the exchange on which the transaction occurs. The fee is
collected indirectly from BOX Options Participants through their
clearing firms by OCC on behalf of the Exchange. The dues and fees paid
by BOX Options Participants go into the general funds of the Exchange,
a portion of which is used to help pay the costs of regulation.
    In response to feedback from participants requesting greater
certainty as to when ORF changes may occur, the Exchange proposes to
specify in the Fee Schedule that the Exchange may only increase or
decrease the ORF semi-annually, and any such fee change will be
effective on the first business day of February or August. The Exchange
has previously committed to monitor the amount of revenue collected
from the ORF so that it, in combination with its other regulatory fees
and fines, does not exceed regulatory costs. In addition to submitting
a proposed rule change to the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') as required by the Act to increase or decrease the
ORF, the Exchange will notify Participants via an Informational
Circular of any anticipated change in the amount of the fee at least 30
calendar days prior to the effective date of the change. The Exchange
believes that by providing guidance on the timing of any changes to the
ORF, the Exchange would make it easier for participants to ensure their
systems are configured to properly account for the ORF.
    The proposed change is not intended to address any other issues,
and the Exchange is not aware of any problems that BOX Options
Participants would have in complying with the proposed change.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposal is consistent with the
requirements of Section 6(b) of the Act, in general, and Section
6(b)(4) and 6(b)(5) of the Act,\5\ in particular, in that it provides
for the equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees, and other
charges among BOX Participants and other persons using its facilities
and does not unfairly discriminate between customers, issuers, brokers
or dealers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange believes that the proposed change to limit changes to
the ORF to twice a year on specific dates with advance notice is
reasonable because it will give participants certainty on the timing of
changes, if any, and better enable them to properly account for ORF
charges among their customers. The Exchange believes that the proposed
change is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because it will
apply in the same manner to all BOX Options Participants that are
subject to the ORF and provide them

with additional advance notice of changes to that fee.

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 change is not
intended to address a competitive issue but rather to provide BOX
Options Participants with better notice of any change that the Exchange
may make to the ORF. In any event, because competitors are free to
modify their own fees and credits in response, and because market
participants may readily adjust their trading practices, the Exchange
believes that the degree to which fee or credit changes in this market
may impose any burden on competition is extremely limited. As a result
of all of these considerations, the Exchange does not believe that the
proposed change will impair the ability of BOX Options Participants, or
competing order execution venues to maintain their competitive standing
in the financial markets.

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

    No written comments were either solicited or received.

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

    The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Exchange Act \6\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(2)
thereunder,\7\ because it establishes or changes a due, or fee.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii).
    \7\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule
change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend the rule
change if it appears to the Commission that the action is necessary or
appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or
would otherwise further the purposes of the Act. If the Commission
takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings to
determine whether the proposed rule should be approved or disapproved.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please
include File Number SR-BOX-2013-52 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-BOX-2013-52. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of
10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available
for inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All
comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does
not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should
submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All
submissions should refer to File Number SR-BOX-2013-52 and should be
submitted on or before December 10, 2013.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\8\
Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2013-27624 Filed 11-18-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P