[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 196 (Tuesday, October 11, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Page 70105]
[FR Doc No: 2016-24470]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 9088-050]

Lower Village Hydroelectric Associates, L.P., Sugar River Power
LLC; Notice of Application for Transfer of License and Soliciting
Comments, Motions To Intervene, and Protests

    On September 15, 2016, Lower Village Hydroelectric Associates, L.P.
(transferor) and Sugar River Power LLC (transferee) filed an
application for the transfer of license of the Lower Village Project
No. 9088. The project is located on the Sugar River in Sullivan County,
New Hampshire.
    The applicants seek Commission approval to transfer the license for
the Lower Village Project from Lower Village Hydroelectric Associates,
L.P. to Sugar River Power LLC.
    Applicants Contact: For transferor: Mr. John Webster, General
Partner, Lower Village Hydroelectric Associates, L.P., P.O. Box 178,
South Berwick, ME 03908, Email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>For transferee: Mr.
Robert King, Manager, Sugar River Power LLC, 42 Hurricane Road, Keene,
NH 03431, Phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>, Email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>and Ms.
Elizabeth W. Whittle, Nixon Peabody, LLP, 799 Ninth Street NW., Suite
500, Washington, DC 20004, Phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>, Email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    FERC Contact: Patricia W. Gillis,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    Deadline for filing comments, motions to intervene, and protests:
30 days from the date that the Commission issues this notice. 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/docs-filing/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_ADDRESS>(866) 208-3676 (toll free), or
(202) 502-8659 (TTY). In lieu of electronic filing, please send a paper
copy to: Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First
Street NE., Washington, DC 20426. The first page of any filing should
include docket number P-9088-050.

    Dated: October 4, 2016.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2016-24470 Filed 10-7-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 234 (Wednesday, December 7, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 75063-75064]
[FR Doc No: 2022-26530]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-4672-DR; Docket ID FEMA-2022-0001]

Alaska; Amendment No. 2 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 Alaska (FEMA-4672-DR), dated September 23, 2022, and
related determinations.

DATES: This amendment was issued November 21, 2022.

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 Alaska is hereby amended to include 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 September 23, 2022.

    Pribilof Islands REAA for Public Assistance.

    Bering Strait REAA, Kashunamiut REAA, Lower Kuskokwim REAA, and
Lower Yukon REAA for debris removal [Category A] and permanent work
[Categories C-G] (already designated for Individual Assistance and
emergency protective measures [Category B] under the Public
Assistance program).

    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.

Deanne Criswell,
Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2022-26530 Filed 12-6-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111-23-P


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 31 (Wednesday, February 15, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Pages 9953-9954]
[FR Doc No: 2023-03140]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Notice of Intent of Waiver With Respect to Land; Crystal Airport,
Minneapolis, Minnesota

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA is considering a proposal to change approximately
0.145 acres or 6,319.8 square feet of airport land from aeronautical
use to non-aeronautical use and to authorize the granting of a
permanent easement of airport property located at Crystal Airport,
Minneapolis, Minnesota. The aforementioned land is not needed for
aeronautical use. The easement is to be located on the south side of
the airport along the northern portion of Vera Cruz Avenue North. The
property is currently a public road and the proposed easement to the
City of Crystal will allow the City to maintain the existing roadway
and other appurtenances associated with City-related services.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before March 17, 2023.

ADDRESSES: Documents are available for review by appointment at the FAA
Dakota-Minnesota Airports District Office, Nancy Nistler, Program
Manager, 6020 28th Avenue South, Suite 102, Minneapolis, MN 55450.
Telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>/Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Written comments on the Sponsor's request must be delivered or
mailed to: Nancy Nistler, Program Manager, Federal Aviation
Administration, Dakota-Minnesota Airports District Office, 6020 28th
Avenue South, Suite 102, Minneapolis, MN 55450. Telephone: (612) 253-
4638/Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Nancy Nistler, Program Manager,
Federal Aviation Administration, Dakota-Minnesota Airports District
Office, 6020 28th Avenue South, Suite 102, Minneapolis, MN 55450.
Telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>/Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In accordance with section 47107(h) of Title
49, United States Code, this notice is required to be published in the
Federal Register 30 days before modifying the land-use assurance that
requires the property to be used for an aeronautical purpose.
    The approximately 0.145 acres or 6,319.8 square feet of land is
currently a public roadway. The property was acquired by the
Metropolitan Airports Commission (MAC) in 1959 and 1960 through the use
of Federal Aid to Airports Program grants. The proposed easement to be
granted will allow the City of Crystal (City) to maintain the land as a
public roadway. In exchange for the easement MAC proposes to grant to
the City, the City will vacate approximately 1.5 acres or 65,500 square
feet of existing easement property to MAC for aeronautical purposes.
    The disposition of proceeds from the sale of the airport property
will be in accordance with FAA's Policy and Procedures Concerning the
Use of Airport Revenue, published in the Federal Register on February
16, 1999 (64 FR 7696).
    This notice announces that the FAA is considering the release of
the subject airport property at the Crystal Airport, Minneapolis,
Minnesota from federal land covenants, subject to a reservation

for continuing right of flight as well as restrictions on the released
property as required in FAA Order 5190.6B, Change 2, section 22.16.
Approval does not constitute a commitment by the FAA to financially
assist in the disposal of the subject airport property nor a
determination of eligibility for grant-in-aid funding from the FAA.

Property Description

    A 30 feet wide street, utility, and drainage easement over under
and across that part of Lot 23 Auditors Subdivision No. 328 as recorded
in Hennepin County Minnesota, which is to be approximately 210.7 feet
in length and bound as follows:
    Southerly of the northerly line of Block 1, Mork-Campion 3rd
Addition as recorded in Hennepin County Minnesota; westerly of a line
60 feet easterly and parallel to the easterly line and its extensions
of said Block 1; northerly of the northerly line of the South 103.6
feet of the North One Fifth of the South Half of said Lot 23.

    Issued in Minneapolis, MN, on February 8, 2023.
E. Lindsay Butler,
Manager, Dakota-Minnesota Airports District Office, FAA, Great Lakes
Region.
[FR Doc. 2023-03140 Filed 2-14-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


maintaining effective supervision. FINRA believes that the proposed
pilot program would provide FINRA the appropriate amount of time and
population sample to better evaluate the use of remote inspections in
the unfolding office work environment. FINRA believes the proposed
pilot program, with the proposed safeguards and controls, will provide
firms more flexibility to adapt to changing work conditions. The
proposed pilot program would aid in FINRA's assessment of the
effectiveness of a flexible remote inspection option and its utility in
an environment that is increasingly moving to hybrid workplace models,
without compromising investor protection.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \104\ See note 49, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    FINRA 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.
Economic Impact Assessment
    FINRA has undertaken an economic impact assessment, as set forth
below, to analyze the regulatory need for the proposed rule change, its
potential economic impacts, including anticipated costs, benefits, and
distributional and competitive effects, relative to the current
baseline, and the alternatives FINRA considered in assessing how best
to meet FINRA's regulatory objectives.
1. Regulatory Need
    The proposed pilot program would serve two purposes. First, it
would mitigate potential disruptions to the hybrid work arrangements
that have developed during the pandemic. In particular, for
participating members, the proposed pilot program would limit the
increase in aggregate inspection costs, and the resulting incentive to
reduce the number and type of work locations, that would occur when
temporary relief provided during the pandemic expires.\105\ The
proposed pilot program would not eliminate the need for such
adjustments, but it would allow member firms to focus their on-site
inspections on riskier locations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \105\ According to the April Survey of Working Arrangements and
Attitudes (SWAA), post-COVID, many employers are planning to allow
employees to work from home approximately 2.2 days per week, on
average. See Jose Maria Barrero, Nicholas Bloom, Shelby Buckman &
Steven J. Davis, SWAA February 2023 (February 12, 2023), https://wfhresearch.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/02/WFHResearch_updates_February2023.pdf. The SWAA is a monthly survey
with respondents that are working-age persons in the United States
that had earnings of at least $10,000 in 2019. Further details about
this survey can be found in https://wfhresearch.com.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed pilot program would also allow FINRA to assess the
benefits and costs of allowing some element of remote inspection of
branch offices and non-branch locations, under specified conditions, in
the post-pandemic world. FINRA would obtain information from
participating members on certain elements of the risk-based approach
that they implement, the type and frequency of inspections, and certain
outcomes conditional on the type and frequency of inspections, as well
as the type of office or location inspected.
2. Economic Baseline
    The economic baseline for the proposed rule change includes both
current and foreseeable workforce arrangements and business practices,
including those that were first developed during the pandemic and have
been modified since. In particular,

the economic baseline includes the innovations, and investments in
communication and surveillance technology, that have supported and
continue to support supervision in the remote work environment.\106\
These innovations and investments were developed during the temporary
relief allowing remote inspections in Rule 3110.17, and the temporary
suspension of the requirement to submit branch office applications on
Form BR for new office locations provided in Notice 20-08 (``Form BR
Relief''). The baseline includes the scheduled expiration of Rule
3110.17 on the effective date of the proposed Rule 3110.18; and, in
order to provide a full accounting of the likely effects of the
proposed rule change, the analysis also assumes that, going forward,
the temporary suspension of the above requirement is no longer in
effect. FINRA expects that numerous additional office locations would
then need to be registered, greatly expanding the number of
inspections, and all inspections would then need to be conducted on-
site.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \106\ The pandemic propelled increased reliance on technology
solutions in the remote work environment. A McKinsey survey in late
2020 found that, overall, firms had accelerated their adoption of
technology, with large accelerations in the implementation of
changes to increase remote working and collaboration, as well the
use of advanced technologies in operations. See McKinsey & Company,
How COVID-19 has pushed companies over the technology tipping
point--and transformed business forever (October 5, 2020), https://mck.co/3nlK8b2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As of December 31, 2022, FINRA's membership included 3,381 firms
with 150,495 registered branch offices.\107\ Of these branch offices,
18,564 (12%) are OSJs subject to an annual inspection requirement. The
remaining 131,931 branch locations are non-OSJ branch offices subject
to an inspection requirement at least annually or every three years. In
addition, according to FINRA estimates, there are approximately 59,830
non-branch locations, of which 41,078 are private residences.\108\ A
non-branch location must be inspected on a periodic schedule, presumed
to be at least every three years. These data may be affected by the
temporary relief from certain requirements to update Form U4 and to
submit Form BR provided in Notice 20-08. FINRA estimates that member
firms conduct at least 82,500 inspections per year.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \107\ This count excludes firms with membership pending
approval, and withdrawn or terminated from membership.
    \108\ Non-branch locations do not have to be registered with
FINRA. The estimates for non-branch locations, including those that
are also private residences, are obtained by reviewing Form U4.
There may be some double counting of non-branch locations if members
record the address differently on more than one Form U4. For the
estimate of non-branch locations, FINRA counted, by firm, unique
addresses based on the first seven characters of the Form U4
``Street 1'' field, city and state. Addresses that matched the
address of the main office or of an existing registered branch were
excluded.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. Economic Impacts
    When the Form BR Relief ends,\109\ FINRA expects that numerous
additional office locations will need to be registered, greatly
expanding the number of inspections, and all inspections would then
need to be conducted on site. The economic impacts of these changes
would be mitigated by the proposed rule change for firms that choose to
participate in the pilot program.\110\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \109\ When appropriate, FINRA will announce a termination date
for the regulatory relief set forth in Notice 20-08 that will
provide members with time to make necessary operational adjustments.
See generally FINRA's Key Topic: COVID-19/Coronavirus (referencing,
among other things, Frequency Asked Questions Related to Regulatory
Relief Due to the Coronavirus Pandemic), https://www.finra.org/rules-guidance/key-topics/covid-19/faq.
    \110\ Separately, FINRA filed a proposed rule change to
establish a Residential Supervisory Location (``RSL''), a new non-
branch location, that would, relative to the baseline, reduce the
number of inspections that members with RSLs would need to conduct
in a year. See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 97237 (March 31,
2023), 88 FR 20568 (April 6, 2023) (Notice of Filing of File No. SR-
FINRA-2023-006) (``2023 RSL Rule Filing''). For member firms with
locations that would meet the proposed definition of an RSL, the
aggregate cost savings from choosing to participate in the proposed
pilot program would be lower if the RSL proposal were in place
because the cost savings from remote inspections would accrue over
fewer inspections. The qualitative impacts of the proposed pilot
program, however, are similar whether the proposed definition of an
RSL is adopted or not.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The requirements in the Proposed Rule 3110.18 would exclude some
member firms entirely or partially by excluding some of their offices
or locations from participating in the Remote Inspections Pilot
Program. The proposed additional requirements reference events or
activities of a member firm or its associated person where remote
inspection may result in an increased risk to investors.
    Using CRD data as of early November 2022, FINRA estimates that
under the firm level exclusions from the Initial Proposal, at least
approximately 128 firms with 474 registered branches would not qualify
for the proposed pilot program. Under the office or location level
exclusions, an additional 868 registered branch offices belonging to
278 other firms would be excluded. Thus, a total of approximately 1,342
(= 474 + 868) registered branch offices would be excluded from the
proposed pilot program.\111\ Based on these figures, FINRA anticipates
that at most approximately 2,884 small firms, 183 mid-size firms and
166 large firms could potentially participate in the proposed pilot
program and that most large firms would have some branch offices
excluded.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \111\ Approximately 1,766 firms have a single registered branch
office and ten or fewer registered representatives or no registered
branch offices. FINRA anticipates that such firms would be less
likely to elect to participate in the proposed pilot program. The
reason is that it is less likely that these firms would have enough
staff working from home such that the benefit of conducting remote
inspections relative to the cost of sending data to FINRA and
meeting the other proposed pilot program requirements would make
participation in the proposed pilot program more practical than
conducting physical inspections or eliminating remote work.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Participants in the pilot program would be expected to take a risk-
based approach to conducting remote inspections. A firm that does not
conduct a remote inspection for an office or location must conduct an
on-site inspection of that office or location on the required cycle and
remains subject to the other requirements of Rule 3110(c). A firm that
chooses to participate in the pilot program (assuming that it is not
otherwise ineligible from participating) would also be required to
provide FINRA with certain data and other information about the risk-
based approach that they implement, the type and frequency of
inspections, and certain outcomes conditional on the type and frequency
of inspections.
Anticipated Benefits
    The benefit to eligible firms of choosing to participate in the
pilot program, in an improved health environment, would result from
limiting the increase in travel costs and lost productivity due to time
spent during travel and in the on-site inspection. On-site visits have
material costs from travel expenses and additional staff time. A system
of risk-based on-site and remote inspections will allow firms to more
efficiently deploy compliance resources and to use an on-site component
only when appropriate.
    Firms as well as investors may benefit if remote inspections
provide new flexibility in the design of inspection teams. For example,
remote inspections may facilitate the development of specialized
inspection staff that are deployed over more inspections, for shorter
periods of time, in a targeted way. This option may especially benefit
diversified member firms with a variety of product offerings. Remote
inspections can also facilitate the use of inspections

that target a particular area of focus in a member firm's business
across all branches of the member firm.
    The proposed rule change may also support the competitiveness of
the broker-dealer industry for individuals who seek professional
positions in compliance.\112\ The expectation of workplace flexibility
and remote work by such individuals may lead them away from the broker-
dealer industry if other segments of financial services or professional
occupations offer more flexible workforce arrangements, with regulatory
frameworks that offer more discretion in how the supervision is
conducted.\113\ Even prior to the pandemic, the scope of on-site
inspections had been much reduced due to technological surveillance
solutions and centralization of books and records. The proposed pilot
would support continued adoption and innovation in technological
solutions and reductions in the cost of these solutions.\114\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \112\ See note 106, supra. See also Jose Maria Barrero, Nicholas
Bloom & Steven J. Davis, Why Working from Home Will Stick (NBER
Working Paper 28731, April 2021), https://wfhresearch.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/w28731-3-May-2021.pdf, who point to a
lasting effect of the pandemic on work arrangements, in particular
for those with higher education and earnings; and Alexander Bick,
Adam Blandin & Karel Mertens, Work from Home Before and After the
COVID-19 Outbreak, (Working Paper, October 2022), https://karelmertenscom.files.wordpress.com/2022/11/wfh_oct_15_paper.pdf,
who find consistent results, with a higher adoption rate of work
from home jobs in Finance and Insurance, relative to other
industries, reflected in Figure 10. Both papers, based on different
surveys and, in Bick et al., with added results from a model,
conclude that around 22% of full workdays will be provided from home
in the long run.
    \113\ For example, Advisers Act Rule 206(4)-7 does not require
Registered Investment Advisers to conduct in-person inspections or
reviews of its offices or personnel.
    \114\ See Ben Charoenwong, Zachary T. Kowaleski, Alan Kwan &
Andrew Sutherland, RegTech (MIT Sloan Research Paper 6563-22,
September 16, 2022), http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4000016. The
authors show that broker-dealers that made compliance technology
investments in response to the 2014 amendment of Exchange Act Rule
17a-5 were able to make complementary technology investments in
communications and customer relationship management software. These
resulted in a reduced number of complaints and less employee
misconduct.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Participants in the proposed pilot program would provide FINRA with
quarterly data on the frequency and type of inspections (on-site or
remote), counts of findings from inspections subdivided by category of
office or location, qualitative information about these findings, and
certain information about the written supervisory procedures for remote
inspections they are required to have.\115\ Depending on the number and
types of firms that participate in the proposed pilot program, this
data may allow FINRA to identify differences in risks between remote
versus on-site inspection, both conditional on the observable
characteristics and policies of firms and overall, the extent of
variation in these risks across firms and firm characteristics, and
factors associated with very high or low risks.\116\ The proposed pilot
program has the potential to yield a more thorough collection of
sensitive information in a structured manner than voluntary submissions
or a survey of FINRA members could provide. This data will be useful
both for monitoring for risks as the pilot proceeds and, with
sufficient participation, for developing a balanced assessment of the
potential impact of permitting further remote inspection.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \115\ In addition, if the effective date of the rule is such
that the first year of the pilot program covers a period less than a
full calendar year, participating firms would be required to
provide, the data and information specified in proposed Rule
3110.18(h)(2).
    \116\ In addition, analysis of trends over time will need to
consider changes in the macroeconomic environment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Anticipated Costs
    Participation in the proposed pilot program is voluntary, and the
proposed rule change provides firms with an additional method for
complying with certain supervisory requirements without removing other
methods of compliance. Eligible pilot program participants will
therefore participate in the pilot program only if doing so is
beneficial to their operations relative to complying with current Rule
3110. The cost of complying with the requirements of the proposed pilot
program is a factor in this decision. These costs include conducting
risk-based analyses for inspections and providing aggregated data on
findings to FINRA. The data request in particular may require more
standardization and aggregation of inspection findings than some member
firms typically conduct. The data request may also not use the same
terms or formats used by compliance officers for reporting and tracking
inspection findings. Firms may need to develop new written supervisory
procedures and new trainings for compliance staff to ensure that all
required data is accurate and compiled and submitted to FINRA in a
timely manner. Firms will incur new ongoing costs both for compliance
and monitoring for compliance.
    Supervision and inspections are intended to identify not only the
activities that violate member procedures or FINRA rules but also poor
practices that might ultimately allow for such violations. FINRA
recognizes that remote inspections may be less likely to identify such
practices or activities as on-site inspections. FINRA believes that
risks to member firms and investors from remote inspections are
mitigated by the proposed requirements to have written supervisory
procedures for remote inspections, the proposed requirement to conduct
and document risk assessments, the proposed limitations on the firms
and locations that would be eligible to participate in the proposed
pilot program, and the technology already employed for day-to-day
supervision. In addition, FINRA will continue to closely monitor the
outcomes of examinations during the pilot program period.
4. Alternatives Considered
    The proposed pilot program would continue for three years. FINRA
staff considered alternative durations for the program. FINRA members
firms vary by business model and organizational structure, so a shorter
program is less likely to yield enough data on inspection findings to
allow for meaningful comparisons between on-site and remote inspection
regimes across members. In addition, inspections are typically planned
by members well ahead of time, so some members may not implement the
requirements of the program until well into the duration of the pilot
program. It may also help firms and the policy development process if
FINRA had enough data to meaningfully evaluate well ahead of the
expiration of the pilot program.
    As discussed above, the requirements in proposed Rule 3110.18 would
exclude some member firms entirely or partially by excluding some of
their offices or locations from participating in the proposed pilot
program. FINRA considered alternative pilot programs with fewer such
exclusions. Firms that are entirely or partially excluded that would
otherwise participate in the proposed pilot program do not incur a cost
relative to the baseline, but they fail to receive the benefits of
alternative programs in which they would choose to participate.
Restrictions that exclude these firms not only limit the benefits of
the pilot program but also limit the potential learnings from the
proposed program. As a result, the same restrictions may ultimately
need to be carried over into any ongoing program of risk-based
examinations. The exclusion of such firms, however, should reduce any
risk of customer

harm from not having on-site inspections.\117\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \117\ See Zachary T. Kowaleski, Andrew G. Sutherland & Felix W.
Vetter, Supervisor Influence on Employee Financial Misconduct
(Working Paper, July 2022), https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3646617. This paper presents evidence that
could be interpreted as supportive of the exclusions based on
misconduct and lack of experience.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, FINRA considered the merits of adapting other
requirements similar to those FINRA has proposed in the 2023 RSL Rule
Filing.\118\ In particular, the 2023 RSL Rule Filing is proposing to
impose limitations on the offices or locations that may be designated
as an RSL. One limitation is that an office or location at which an
associated person has less than one year of supervisory experience with
the firm or is functioning as a principal for a limited period in
accordance with Rule 1210.04 (Requirements for Registered Persons
Functioning as Principals for a Limited Period) would be ineligible for
RSL designation. FINRA believes that adding these limitations to this
proposed rule change would not be appropriate because the presence of
even one such associated person at an office or location would
disqualify an office or location of any size from participating in the
proposed pilot program. FINRA believes that imposing these limitations
in this proposed rule change would adversely impact the potential
population of pilot program participants, which would then negatively
impact FINRA's data and information collection efforts to gauge the
effectiveness of remote inspections in a hybrid work environment.
Moreover, FINRA believes that this proposed rule change provides for
the appropriate controls for participation in the proposed pilot
program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \118\ See note 110, supra. FINRA previously filed a similar
proposed rule change with the SEC to adopt proposed Rule 3110.19,
which FINRA withdrew on March 29, 2022. See https://www.finra.org/sites/default/files/2023-03/sr-finra-2022-019-withdrawal.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, FINRA considered different levels of detail for the data
reporting requirement. FINRA has tried to carefully balance the
reporting burden for firms with the need for enough information to make
statistically valid comparisons. Nevertheless, depending on the number
and type of pilot program participants, interpretation of the results
will be subject to caveats.

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

    The SEC published the 2022 Remote Inspections Pilot Program Rule
Filing for comment and as of the end of the comment period on September
6, 2022, the SEC had received 24 comment letters, then subsequently
received four more new comment letters.\119\ On November 10, 2022, the
Commission instituted proceedings to determine whether to approve or
disapprove the 2022 Remote Inspections Pilot Program Rule Filing
(``Order''), and the SEC received five comments letters in response to
the Order.\120\ On December 15, 2022, FINRA filed Partial Amendment No.
1 and responded to the comment letters.\121\ On December 22, 2022, the
SEC published the partial amendment to the 2022 Remote Inspections
Pilot Program Rule Filing for comment and as of the end of the comment
period on January 12, 2023, the SEC had received four comment
letters.\122\ On April 11, 2023, FINRA withdrew the 2022 Remote
Inspections Pilot Program Rule Filing to consider whether more
safeguards and clarifications to the filing would be appropriate in
response to concerns raised by commenters. While the proposed rule
change retains many of the terms set forth in the 2022 Remote
Inspections Pilot Program Rule Filing, the proposed rule change makes
some adjustments, which are discussed in detail above under Item
II.A.1(IV).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \119\ See note 52, supra.
    \120\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 96297 (November
10, 2022), 87 FR 68774 (November 16, 2022) (Order Instituting
Proceedings to Determine Whether to Approve or Disapprove File No.
SR-FINRA-2022-021).
    \121\ See Exhibits 2b and 2c.
    \122\ See note 52, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to [email protected]. Please include
File Number SR-FINRA-2023-007 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-FINRA-2023-007. 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 a.m. and 3
p.m. Copies of such filing also will be available for inspection and
copying at the principal office of FINRA. Do not include personal
identifiable information in submissions; you should submit only
information that you wish to make available publicly. We may redact in
part or withhold entirely from publication submitted material that is
obscene or subject to copyright protection. All submissions should
refer to File Number SR-FINRA-2023-007 and should be submitted on or
before May 25, 2023.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \123\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\123\
Sherry R. Haywood,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2023-09444 Filed 5-3-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: November 24, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 227)]
[Notices]
[Page 71073-71074]
[DOCID:fr24no08-150]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-58948; File No. SR-NYSEArca-2008-105]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE Arca, Inc.; Order Approving
Proposed Rule Change Relating to Listing Certain Derivative Products
Pursuant to Continued Listing Criteria

November 14, 2008.

I. Introduction

    On October 1, 2008, NYSE Arca, Inc. (``Exchange'' or ``NYSE
Arca''), through its wholly owned subsidiary, NYSE Arca Equities, Inc.
(``NYSE Arca Equities''), filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission (``Commission'') pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4
thereunder,\2\ a proposed rule change relating to listing certain
Derivative Products (as defined in proposed Commentary .01 to NYSE Arca
Equities Rule 5.2(b)) pursuant to continued listing criteria. The
proposed rule change was published for comment in the Federal Register
on October 10, 2008.\3\ The Commission received no comment letters on
the proposed rule change. This order approves the proposed rule change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 58734 (October 6,
2008), 73 FR 60388.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Description of the Proposed Rule Change

    The Exchange proposes to adopt new Commentary .01 to NYSE Arca
Equities Rule 5.2(b) to permit the listing of a Derivative Product \4\
that (1) was originally listed on another registered national
securities exchange (``Other SRO'') and continues to be listed on such
Other SRO, and (2) satisfies the Exchange's continued listing criteria
applicable to the relevant product class that would include such
Derivative Product.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Commentary .01 to NYSE Arca Equities Rule 5.2(b) defines
``Derivative Product'' to include securities described in NYSE Arca
Equities Rule 5.2(j)(2) (Equity Linked Notes); NYSE Arca Equities
Rule 5.2(j)(3) (Investment Company Units); NYSE Arca Equities Rule
5.2(j)(4) (Index-Linked Exchangeable Notes); NYSE Arca Equities Rule
5.2(j)(6) (Equity Index-Linked Securities, Commodity-Linked
Securities, Currency-Linked Securities, Fixed Income Index-Linked
Securities, Futures-Linked Securities, and Multifactor Index-Linked
Securities); NYSE Arca Equities Rule 8.100 (Portfolio Depositary
Receipts); and Commentary .01 to NYSE Arca Equities Rule 8.200
(Trust Issued Receipts). Exchange rules relating to the listing and
trading, including trading pursuant to unlisted trading privileges,
of ``Derivative Products,'' as described above, permit the listing
and trading of such products pursuant to Rule 19b-4(e) under the
Act. Rule 19b-4(e) under the Act provides that the listing and
trading of a new derivative securities product by a self-regulatory
organization (``SRO'') shall not be deemed a proposed rule change,
pursuant to paragraph (c)(1) of Rule 19b-4, if the Commission has
approved, pursuant to Section 19(b) of the Act, the SRO's trading
rules, procedures, and listing standards for the product class that
would include the new derivatives securities product, and the SRO
has a surveillance program for the product class. See 17 CFR
240.19b-4(e)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For example, in the case of an Index-Linked Security that is listed
on an Other SRO, the staff of the Exchange would determine whether the
Index-Linked Security meets the Exchange's continued listing criteria.
If the Index-Linked Security satisfies the Exchange's continued listing
criteria, then NYSE Arca could proceed to list such security on the
Exchange. If the Index-Linked Security does not meet the continued
listing criteria, the staff of the Exchange would then, in its sole
discretion, either file a separate rule filing pursuant to Rule 19b-4
under the Act proposing that the Index-Linked Security be listed on the
Exchange pursuant to the criteria

set forth in the rule filing or decline to list the Index-Linked
Security on the Exchange.
    Prior to listing on the Exchange, the issuer of a Derivative
Product would be required to properly delist from the Other SRO and
satisfy the applicable listing procedures of the Exchange and
applicable statutory and regulatory requirements, including, without
limitation, Section 12 of the Act,\5\ relating to listing such
Derivative Product on the Exchange. In addition, the Exchange
represents that, for any Derivative Product listed pursuant to proposed
Commentary .01 to NYSE Arca Equities Rule 5.2(b), other than the
initial listing standards, the shares or other units of such Derivative
Product will comply with all other pertinent requirements applicable to
the product class that would include such Derivative Product,
including, but not limited to, requirements relating to the
dissemination of key information, such as an index value, reference
asset value, and intraday indicative value, and rules governing the
trading of equity securities, trading hours, trading halts,
surveillance, firewalls, and Information Bulletins to ETP Holders, as
set forth in Exchange rules applicable to such Derivative Product and
prior Commission orders approving the generic listing rules applicable
to the listing and trading of such Derivative Product.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ 15 U.S.C. 78(l).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Discussion and Commission's Findings

    The Commission has carefully reviewed the proposed rule change and
finds that it is consistent with the requirements of Section 6 of the
Act \6\ and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to a
national securities exchange.\7\ In particular, the Commission finds
that the proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b)(5) of the
Act,\8\ which requires, among other things, that the Exchange's rules
be designed to promote just and equitable principles of trade, to
remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open
market and a national market system, and, in general, to protect
investors and the public interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78f.
    \7\ In approving this proposed rule change, the Commission has
considered the proposed rule's impact on efficiency, competition,
and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).
    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposal would permit the Exchange to list and trade any
Derivative Product that (1) was originally listed on an Other SRO and
continues to be listed on such Other SRO, and (2) satisfies the
Exchange's continued listing criteria applicable to the product class
that would include such Derivative Product. The Commission believes
that the proposal reasonably balances the removal of impediments to a
free and open market with the protection of investors and the public
interest, two principles set forth in Section 6(b)(5) of the Act. The
Commission notes that (1) it has previously approved the generic
listing standards, including the continued listing criteria, applicable
to each product class that would include such Derivative Product, and
(2) the continued listing criteria applicable to a Derivative Product
are substantially similar to those of Other SROs that list such
Derivative Product.\9\ The Commission also notes that, for any
Derivative Product listed on the Exchange pursuant to proposed
Commentary .01 to NYSE Arca Equities Rule 5.2(b), the shares of such
Derivative Product must comply with all of the other pertinent
requirements applicable to the product class that would include such
Derivative Product including, without limitation, requirements relating
to the dissemination of key values and the rules governing the trading
of equity securities, trading hours, trading halts, surveillance,
firewalls, and Information Bulletins to ETP Holders, as set forth in
the applicable Exchange rules and prior Commission orders approving the
generic listing rules applicable to the listing and trading of such
Derivative Product. In addition, prior to listing on the Exchange, the
issuer of a Derivative Product must properly delist from the Other SRO
and satisfy all relevant Exchange listing procedures and applicable
statutory and regulatory requirements, including, without limitation,
Section 12 of the Act. If the Exchange seeks to list a Derivative
Product that does not satisfy the Exchange's continued listing
standards applicable to such product, it may not do so pursuant to
proposed Commentary .01 to NYSE Arca Equities Rule 5.2(b). Instead, the
Exchange must obtain prior Commission approval pursuant to Section
19(b)(2) of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ For example, the following are NYSE Alternext US LLC (``NYSE
Alternext'') listing standards for Derivative Products having
similar or identical continued listing standards to those of the
Exchange: Index Fund Shares (NYSE Alternext Equities Rule 1000A et
seq.); Portfolio Depositary Receipts (Rules 1000 et seq.); Trust
Issued Receipts (Rules 1200 et seq.); and securities listed under
Section 107 of the NYSE Alternext Company Guide, including Equity-
Linked Term Notes; Index-Linked Exchangeable Notes; Index-Linked
Securities; Commodity-Linked Securities; Currency-Linked Securities;
Fixed Income-Linked Securities; Futures-Linked Securities; and
Combination-Linked Securities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission believes that the Exchange's proposal would
facilitate the timely and efficient listing and continuous trading of a
Derivative Product should an issuer of such Derivative Product,
originally listed on an Other SRO, choose to delist from such Other SRO
and list such Derivative Product on the Exchange, provided that all of
the requirements with respect to the Derivative Product referenced
herein, including all of the applicable requirements governing the
trading of such Derivative Product, as set forth in Exchange rules and
prior applicable Commission orders, are satisfied. For the foregoing
reasons, the Commission believes that the proposed rule change is
consistent with the Act and finds good cause for approving the proposed
rule change.

IV. Conclusion

    It is therefore ordered, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the
Act,\10\ that the proposed rule change (SR-NYSEArca-2008-105) be, and
it hereby is, approved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Florence E. Harmon,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. E8-27878 Filed 11-21-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 137 (Friday, July 17, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 42567-42569]
[FR Doc No: 2015-17534]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-75442; File No. SR-CBOE-2015-066]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Chicago Board Options Exchange,
Incorporated; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed
Rule Change To Amend the Fees Schedule

July 13, 2015.
    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 July 1, 2015, Chicago Board Options Exchange, Incorporated
(the ``Exchange'' or ``CBOE'') filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission (``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in
Items I, II, and III below, which Items have been prepared by the
Exchange. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments
on the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange proposes to amend its Fees Schedule. The text of the
proposed rule change is available on the

Exchange's Web site (http://www.cboe.com/AboutCBOE/CBOELegalRegulatoryHome.aspx), at the Exchange's Office of the
Secretary, 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 its Fees Schedule, effective July 1,
2015.
    On May 11, 2015, the Exchange launched an updated version of the
Floor Broker Workstation (``FBW''), (i.e., ``FBW2''). In conjunction
with the launch of FBW2, the Exchange submitted a rule filing which
provided for a fee waiver for the months of May and June 2015, as well
as provided that, after July 1, 2015, the monthly fee for FBW2 login
IDs would be waived for the first month.\3\ The Exchange also noted in
that filing that after July 2015 (and absent an applicable fee waiver
noted above), TPHs will be charged each of $400 for FBW and FBW2 (i.e.,
total of $800) if such users continue to use both FBW and FBW2. The
Exchange notes that new features are anticipated to become available on
FBW2 in August 2015. In the meanwhile, the Exchange wishes to encourage
FBW users to begin (or continue) transitioning to FBW2 logins and
provide additional time to become acclimated to FBW2 while still being
able to use FBW logins. As such, the Exchange does not wish to charge a
TPH $400 for using both FBW and FBW2 login IDs. Accordingly, the
Exchange proposes to delete now outdated language and provide that for
every FBW login a TPH has, the FBW2 fee will be waived for the months
of July 2015 through September 2015 on a one-to-one basis.\4\
Additionally, in light of the proposed changes, the Exchange no longer
wishes to continue to provide a waiver of the FBW2 fee for the first
month for new FBW2 login IDS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 75022 (May 21,
2015), 80 FR 102 [sic] (May 28, 2015) (SR-CBOE-2015-049). The
adopted fee for FBW2 is the same as the existing FBW fee (i.e., $400
per month (per login ID).
    \4\ For example, if a TPH has two FBW logins and two FBW2
logins, the total monthly fee would be $800 ($400 for each FBW
login). Another example is if a TPH has two FBW logins and three
FBW2 logins, the total monthly fee would be $1,200 ($400 for each
FBW login and $400 for the additional FBW2 login).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the ``Act'') and the rules and
regulations thereunder applicable to the Exchange and, in particular,
the requirements of Section 6(b) of the Act.\5\ Specifically, the
Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with the
Section 6(b)(5) \6\ requirements that the rules of an exchange be
designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to
promote just and equitable principles of trade, to foster cooperation
and coordination with persons engaged in regulating, clearing,
settling, processing information with respect to, and facilitation
transactions in securities, to remove impediments to and perfect the
mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system, and,
in general, to protect investors and the public interest. Additionally,
the Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with
Section 6(b)(4) of the Act,\7\ which requires that Exchange rules
provide for the equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees, and
other charges among its Trading Permit Holders and other persons using
its facilities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In particular, the Exchange believes it is reasonable to provide a
waiver of FBW2 fees for each FBW login a TPH has for the months of July
2015 through September 2015 because it encourages users to use and
become familiar with the updated FBW2 login IDs while waiting for
certain features to be implemented on FBW2. Additionally, the Exchange
notes the proposed rule change provides users additional time to become
familiar with and fully acclimated to the new FBW functionality. The
Exchange believes it is reasonable to eliminate the waiver for the
first month for a new login ID currently beginning July 1, 2015,
because the Exchange is also providing for additional waivers of FBW2
logins as described above and wants to encourage users to begin
transitioning to FBW2 logins prior to the upcoming discontinuation of
FBW logins. The Exchange believes the proposed changes are equitable
and not unfairly discriminatory because it applies to all users of
FBW2.

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 that is not necessary or appropriate
in furtherance of the purposes of the Act, because it applies to all
Trading Permit Holders. The Exchange believes this proposal will not
cause an unnecessary burden on intermarket competition because the
proposal only affects trading on CBOE. To the extent that the proposed
changes make CBOE a more attractive marketplace for market participants
at other exchanges, such market participants are welcome to become CBOE
market participants.

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

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

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

    The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \8\ and paragraph (f) of Rule 19b-4 \9\
thereunder. At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed
rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule
change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or
appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or
otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission
takes such action, the Commission will institute proceedings to
determine whether the proposed rule change should be approved or
disapproved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \9\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Solicitation of Comments

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views and
arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the 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-CBOE-2015-066 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-CBOE-2015-066. 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-CBOE-2015-066 and should be
submitted on or before August 7, 2015.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Robert W. Errett,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2015-17534 Filed 7-16-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 5 (Tuesday, January 8, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Page 1278]
[FR Doc No: C1-2012-31260]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-68533; File No. SR-NYSE-2012-74]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; New York Stock Exchange LLC;
Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change
Extending the Bond Trading License and the Bond Liquidity Provider
Pilot Program

December 21, 2012.

Correction

    In notice document 2012-31260, appearing on pages 77166-77167 in
the issue of Monday, December 31, 2012, make the following correction:
    On page 77166, in the second column, the Release No. and the File
No., are corrected to read as set forth above.

[FR Doc. C1-2012-31260 Filed 1-7-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 1505-01-D


[Federal Register: August 28, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 168)]
[Notices]
[Page 50850-50852]
[DOCID:fr28au08-109]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-58406; File No. SR-MSRB-2008-06]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Municipal Securities Rulemaking
Board; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule
Change Relating to Revisions to the Series 51 Examination Program

August 21, 2008.
    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 August 18, 2008, the Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board (``MSRB''
or ``Board''), filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'' or ``SEC'') the proposed rule change as described in
Items I, II and III below, which Items have been prepared by the MSRB.
The MSRB has designated the proposed rule change as constituting a
stated policy, practice, or interpretation with respect to the meaning,
administration, or enforcement of an existing rule of the self-
regulatory organization pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(i) of the
Act,\3\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(1) 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)(i).
    \4\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The MSRB is filing with the Commission revisions to the study
outline and selection specifications for the Municipal Fund Securities
Limited Principal Qualification Examination (Series 51) program.\5\ The
proposed revisions consolidate certain job responsibilities (such as
the recordkeeping functions) and regroup others in order to allow more
detailed testing of particular rule requirements.

The MSRB is not proposing any textual changes to its rules.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ The MSRB is also proposing corresponding revisions to the
Series 51 question bank, but based upon instructions from the
Commission staff, the MSRB is submitting SR-MSRB-2008-06 for
immediate effectiveness pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(i) of the
Act and Rule 19b-4(f)(1) thereunder, and is not filing the question
bank for Commission review. See letter to Diane G. Klinke, General
Counsel, MSRB, from Belinda Blaine, Associate Director, Division of
Market Regulation, SEC, dated July 24, 2000. The question bank is
available for Commission review.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The revised study outline is available on the MSRB's Web site
(http://www.msrb.org), at the MSRB's principal office, and at the
Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    Section 15B(b)(2)(A) of the Act \6\ authorizes the MSRB to
prescribe standards of training, experience, competence, and such other
qualifications as the Board finds necessary or appropriate in the
public interest or for the protection of investors. The MSRB has
developed examinations that are designed to establish that persons
associated with brokers, dealers and municipal securities dealers that
effect transactions in municipal securities have attained specified
levels of competence and knowledge. The MSRB periodically reviews the
content of the examinations to determine whether revisions are
necessary or appropriate in view of changes pertaining to the subject
matter covered by the examinations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78o-4(b)(2)(A).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    MSRB Rule G-3(b)(iv) states that the municipal fund securities
limited principal has responsibility to oversee the municipal
securities activities of a securities firm or bank dealer solely as
such activities relate to transactions in municipal fund securities. In
this capacity, the municipal fund securities limited principal manages,
directs or supervises one or more of the following activities relating
to municipal fund securities: underwriting, trading or selling
municipal fund securities; rendering financial advisory or consultant
services to issuers of municipal fund securities; research or
investment advice, or communications with customers, about any of the
activities named heretofore; maintaining records on activities in
municipal fund securities; processing, clearing, and (in the case of
securities firms) safekeeping of municipal fund securities; and
training of principals and representatives.\7\ The only examination
that qualifies a municipal fund securities limited principal is the
Municipal Fund Securities Limited Principal Qualification Examination.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ A municipal securities principal (Series 53) is also
qualified to supervise these responsibilities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A committee of industry members and MSRB staff (the Series 51
Committee) recently undertook a review of the Series 51 examination
program. As a result of this review, the MSRB is proposing to make
revisions to the study outline to consolidate certain job
responsibilities (such as the recordkeeping functions) and regroup
others in order to allow more detailed testing of particular rule
requirements. In addition, the detail on some existing topics is being
expanded to include specific cites to rules that had been amended since
the last update of the outline. The revised examination continues to
cover areas of knowledge required for effective supervision of
municipal fund securities activities. A summary of the changes to the
content outline for the Series 51 Examination, detailed by major topic
heading, is provided below.
Part Three--General Supervision
     The topic ``Restrictions on apprentices'' was moved to
this major heading from the major heading Sales Supervision (Part Five)
to be grouped with the qualification requirements for apprentices.
     A reference to ``Supervisory Controls'' under Rule G-27
was added.
     Technical changes to rule citations were made to reflect
amendments to Rule G-27.
Part Five--Sales Supervision
     Reference to ``Restrictions on apprentices'' was moved to
Part Three to be grouped with the qualification requirements for
apprentices.
     Technical changes to rule citations were made to reflect
amendments to Rule G-27.
     ``Records of agency transactions'' was moved to Part Seven
to be grouped with similar requirements for the maintenance of books
and records.
     The topic ``Books and records maintained by transfer
agents'' was moved to Part Seven to be grouped with similar
requirements for the maintenance of books and records.
Part Six--Underwriting and Disclosure Obligations
     The sub-heading ``Obligations of Municipal Underwriters
under SEC Rules'' was changed to ``Obligations of Municipal
Underwriters'' in order to include relevant MSRB rules under the sub-
heading.
Part Seven--Operations
     The topic ``Records of agency transactions'' was moved
under this major heading from Part Five to be grouped with similar
requirements for the maintenance of books and records.
     The topic ``Books and records maintained by transfer
agents'' was moved under this major heading from Part Five to be
grouped with similar topics on the maintenance of books and records.
    The MSRB is proposing similar changes to the Series 51 selection
specifications and question bank. The examination will continue to
consist of 60 multiple choice-questions assigned to the seven areas of
the examination as shown below. The percentages given for each section
are rounded to an even number.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                Percent
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulatory Structure.........................................          5
Product Knowledge............................................         27
General Supervision..........................................         17
Fair Practice and Conflicts of Interest......................         17
Sales Supervision............................................         18
Underwriting and Disclosure Obligations......................          6
Operations...................................................         10
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Candidates will continue to be allowed one and one-half hours for
each testing session. Each question will continue to count one point,
and each candidate must correctly answer 70 percent of the questions in
order to receive a passing grade.
    A candidate for the Series 51 must also pass the General Securities
Principal Examination (Series 24) or the Investment Company Products/
Variable Contracts Limited Principal Examination (Series 26). The
Series 51 Committee considered subject matter that would be covered in
either of these examinations when developing the specifications for the
Series 51 Examination.
2. Statutory Basis
    The MSRB believes that the proposed revisions to the Series 51
examination program are consistent with the provisions of Section
15B(b)(2)(A) of the

Act,\8\ which authorizes the MSRB to prescribe standards of training,
experience, competence, and such other qualifications as the Board
finds necessary or appropriate in the public interest or for the
protection of investors. Section 15B(b)(2)(A) of the Act also provides
that the Board may appropriately classify municipal securities brokers
and municipal securities dealers and their associated personnel and
require persons in any such class to pass tests prescribed by the
Board.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78o-4(b)(2)(A).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The MSRB does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose
any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act, as amended.

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

    Written comments were neither solicited nor received.

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

    The proposed rule change has become effective pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A)(i) of the Act \9\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(1) thereunder,\10\ in
that the proposed rule change constitutes a stated policy, practice, or
interpretation with respect to the meaning, administration, or
enforcement of an existing rule of the self-regulatory organization.
The MSRB proposes to implement the revised Series 51 examination
program on November 1, 2008. At any time within 60 days of the filing
of the proposed rule change, the Commission may summarily abrogate such
rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is
necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of
investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(i).
    \10\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(1).
    \11\ See Section 19(b)(3)(C) of the Act, 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(C).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://
www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-MSRB-2008-06 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-MSRB-2008-06. 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
am and 3 pm. Copies of such filing also will be available for
inspection and copying at the principal office of the MSRB. 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-MSRB-2008-06 and should be
submitted on or before September 18, 2008.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Florence E. Harmon,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. E8-19944 Filed 8-27-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 245 (Friday, December 20, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Pages 70177-70178]
[FR Doc No: 2019-27497]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings

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

    Docket Numbers: RP20-323-000.
    Applicants: Bear Creek Storage Company, L.L.C.
    Description: Compliance filing Annual Fuel Assessment 2019 to be
effective N/A.
    Filed Date: 12/12/19.
    Accession Number: 20191212-5043.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/24/19.

    Docket Numbers: RP20-324-000.
    Applicants: Wyoming Interstate Company, L.L.C.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: Non-Conforming Agreements
Update (EnerVest) to be effective 1/1/2020.
    Filed Date: 12/12/19.
    Accession Number: 20191212-5084.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/24/19.

    Docket Numbers: RP20-325-000.
    Applicants: Florida Gas Transmission Company, LLC.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: Service Agreement with FPU
Filing on 12-12-19 to be effective 1/1/2020.
    Filed Date: 12/12/19.
    Accession Number: 20191212-5141.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/24/19.

    Docket Numbers: RP20-326-000.
    Applicants: Florida Gas Transmission Company, LLC.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: Update Non-Conforming List
(FPU) and Negotiated Rate Record to be effective 1/1/2020.
    Filed Date: 12/12/19.
    Accession Number: 20191212-5153.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/24/19.

    Docket Numbers: RP20-327-000.
    Applicants: Southern Star Central Gas Pipeline, Inc.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: Vol.2--Negotiated Rate
Agreements--Spotlight to be effective 12/12/2019.
    Filed Date: 12/12/19.
    Accession Number: 20191212-5171.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/24/19.

    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by
clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
    Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above
proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00
p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be
considered, but

intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.
    eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing
requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying
facilities filings can be found at: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For other information, call<PHONE_NUMBER>
(toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: December 13, 2019.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2019-27497 Filed 12-19-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P