[Federal Register: January 8, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 5)]
[Notices]
[Page 1390-1391]
[DOCID:fr08ja08-98]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-57068; File No. SR-NASDAQ-2007-093]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC;
Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change
to Nasdaq's Rule 7033

December 31, 2007.
    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 December 19, 2007, The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC (``Nasdaq'') 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 substantially by Nasdaq. Nasdaq has designated
this proposal as one that is concerned solely with the administration
of the self-regulatory organization under Section 19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of
the Act \3\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(3) 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)(iii).
    \4\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    Nasdaq is filing with the Commission a proposed rule change to
correct certain errors in the rule manual regarding fees charged for
the Mutual Fund Quotation Service (``MFQS''). The text of the proposed
rule change is available at http://www.nasdaq.complinet.com, the

principal offices of the Exchange, and 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. Nasdaq 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
    Nasdaq is amending its rule manual to reflect MFQS fees previously
approved when MFQS was operated as a facility of the National
Association of Securities Dealers (``NASD'') but inadvertently not
transferred to the corresponding Nasdaq rule when Nasdaq commenced
operations as a national securities exchange on August 1, 2006.
Pursuant to SR-NASD-2005-059 ,\5\Nasdaq amended NASD Rule 7090
subsections (a) and (d) to provide for annual MFQS listing fees of $475
for News Media List and $350 for the Supplemental List, as well as a
$25 administrative fee. The changes were approved by the Commission and
became effective September 27, 2005. However, due to an oversight, the
Nasdaq manual, as replicated by Nasdaq upon its separation from NASD,
did not include the revised and approved subsections (a) or (d) in its
corresponding Rule 7033. Nevertheless, Nasdaq has charged the approved
fees since the effective date of the approval. Nasdaq seeks to rectify
the oversight through the current rule proposal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Securities Exchange Act Release No. 52517 (September 27,
2005), 70 FR 57908 (October 4, 2005).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    Nasdaq believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with
Section 6(b) of the Act \6\ in general, and with Section 6(b)(4) of the
Act,\7\ in particular, in that the proposal provides for the equitable
allocation of reasonable dues, fees and other charges among members and
issuers and other persons using any facility or system which Nasdaq
operates or controls. The proposed rule change corrects certain errors
in the rule manual to reflect previously approved MFQS fees.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    Nasdaq 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.

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

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

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

    The foregoing proposed rule change has been designated as concerned
solely with the administration of a self-regulatory organization
pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act \8\ and Rule 19b-
4(f)(3) \9\ thereunder. Accordingly, the proposal is effective upon
filing with the Commission. 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

III. 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-NASDAQ-2007-093 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

    All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NASDAQ-2007-093.
This file number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is
used. To help the Commission process and review your comments more
efficiently, please use only one method. The Commission will post all
comments on the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml
). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments,

all written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that
are filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating
to the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person,
other than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance
with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for inspection
and copying in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street,
NE., Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours
of 10 a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of such filing also will be available for
inspection and copying at the principal office of 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 publicly available. All
submissions should refer to File Number SR-NASDAQ-2007-093 and should
be submitted on or before January 29, 2008.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\10\
Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

 [FR Doc. E8-84 Filed 1-7-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: March 16, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 49)]
[Notices]
[Page 11170-11172]
[DOCID:fr16mr09-115]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Railroad Administration

Environmental Impact Statement for the California High-Speed
Train Project From San Jose to Merced, CA

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

ACTION: Notice of Intent to Prepare an Environmental Impact Statement.

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

SUMMARY: This notice is to advise the public that FRA and the
California High-Speed Rail Authority (Authority) will jointly prepare a
project Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) and project Environmental
Impact Report (EIR) for the San Jose to Merced section of the
Authority's proposed California High-Speed Train (HST) System in
compliance with relevant state and federal laws, in particular the
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
    In 2005, the Authority and FRA completed the first tier California
High Speed Train Program EIR/EIS and approved the statewide HST system
for intercity travel in California between the major metropolitan
centers of Sacramento and the San Francisco Bay Area in the north,
through the Central Valley, to Los Angeles and San Diego in the south.
The approved HST system would be about 800-miles long, with electric
propulsion and steel-wheel-on-steel-rail trains capable of maximum
operating speeds of 220 miles per hour (mph) on a mostly dedicated
system of fully grade-separated, access-controlled steel tracks and
with state-of-the-art safety, signaling, communication, and automated
train control systems. In approving the HST system, the Authority and
FRA also selected preferred corridor alignments and station location
options throughout most of the system. In 2008, the Authority and FRA
completed a second program EIR/EIS to evaluate alignments and station
locations within the broad corridor between and including the Altamont
Pass and the Pacheco Pass to connect the Bay Area and Central Valley
portions of the HST system. The Authority and FRA selected the Pacheco
Pass with San Francisco and San Jose termini network alternative, as
well as preferred corridor alignments and station location options. The
selected alignment uses the Caltrain rail right-of-way, between San
Francisco and San Jose along the San Francisco Peninsula, through the
Pacheco Pass and via Henry Miller Road, between San Jose and the
Central Valley.
    The preparation of the San Jose to Merced HST Project EIR/EIS will
involve development of preliminary engineering designs and assessment
of environmental effects associated with the construction, operation,
and maintenance of the HST system, including track, ancillary
facilities and a Gilroy station, along the Caltrain/UPRR corridor from
San Jose to Gilroy, through the Pacheco Pass, and via Henry Miller Road
in the Central Valley.

DATES: Written comments on the scope of the San Jose to Merced HST
Project EIR/EIS should be provided to the Authority by April 10, 2009.
Public scoping meetings are scheduled from March 18, 2009 to March 26,
2009, as noted below in Santa Clara and Merced Counties.

ADDRESSES: Written comments on the scope of this EIR/EIS should be sent
to Mr. Dan Leavitt, Deputy Director, ATTN: San Jose to Merced,
California High-Speed Rail Authority, 925 L Street, Suite 1425,
Sacramento, CA 95814, or via e-mail with subject line ``San Jose to
Merced HST'' to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Comments may also be provided
orally or in writing at the scoping meetings scheduled at the following
locations:
     Merced Community Senior Center, 755 W. 15th Street,
Merced, California, March 18 from 3 p.m. to 7 p.m. (joint meeting with
the Bakersfield to Merced Section)
     Roosevelt Community Center, Community Room B, 901 E Santa
Clara Street, San Jose, California, March 25, 2009 from 3 p.m. to 7
p.m.
     Gilroy Hilton Garden Inn Harvest Room, 6070 Monterey Road,
Gilroy, California, March 26, 2009 from 3 p.m. to 7 p.m.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. David Valenstein, Environmental
Program Manager, Office of Railroad Development, Federal Railroad
Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE. (Mail Stop 20), Washington,
DC 20590; Telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>, or Mr. Dan Leavitt, Telephone:
(916) 324-1541 at the above noted address.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Authority was established in 1996 and is
authorized and directed by statute to undertake the planning and
development of a proposed statewide HST network that is fully
coordinated with other public transportation services. The Authority
adopted a Final Business Plan in June 2000, which reviewed the economic
feasibility of an 800-mile-long HST capable of speeds in excess of 200
miles per hour on a dedicated, fully grade-separated state-of-the-art
track. The Authority released an updated Business Plan in November
2008.
    The FRA has responsibility for oversight of the safety of railroad
operations, including the safety of any proposed high-speed ground
transportation system. For the proposed HST, it is anticipated that FRA
would need to take certain regulatory actions prior to operation.
    In 2005, the Authority and FRA completed a Final Program EIR/EIS
for the Proposed California High Speed Train System (Statewide Program
EIR/EIS), as the first phase of a tiered environmental review process.
The Authority certified the Final Program EIR under CEQA and approved
the proposed HST System, and FRA issued a Record of Decision under NEPA
on the Final Program EIS. This statewide program EIR/EIS established
the purpose and need for the HST system, analyzed an HST system, and
compared it with a No Project/No Action Alternative and a Modal
Alternative. In approving the statewide program EIR/EIS, the Authority
and FRA selected the HST Alternative, selected certain corridors/
general alignments and general station locations for further study,
incorporated mitigation strategies and design practices, and specified
further measures to guide the development of the HST system at the
site-specific project level of environmental review to avoid and
minimize potential adverse environmental impacts. In the subsequent Bay
Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS, the Authority and FRA
selected as the preferred alternative the Caltrain/UPRR corridor
between San Jose and Gilroy to connect with the San Francisco to San
Jose section, and the Pacheco Pass and Henry Miller Road corridor from
Gilroy to Merced to connect with the Central Valley section of the HST
system.
    The San Jose to Merced HST Project EIR/EIS will tier from the Final
Statewide Program EIR/EIS and the Final Bay Area to Central Valley HST
Program EIR/EIS in accordance with Council on Environmental Quality
(CEQ) regulations, (40 CFR 1508.28) and State CEQA Guidelines (14
C.C.R. Sec. 15168[b]). Tiering will ensure that the San Jose to Merced
HST Project EIR/EIS builds upon all previous work prepared for and
incorporated in the Statewide

Program EIR/EIS and the Bay Area to Central Valley HST Program EIR/EIS.
    This Project EIR/EIS will describe site-specific environmental
impacts; will identify specific mitigation measures to address those
impacts; and will incorporate design practices to avoid and minimize
potential adverse environmental impacts. The FRA and the Authority will
assess the site characteristics, size, nature, and timing of proposed
site-specific projects to determine whether the impacts are potentially
significant and whether impacts can be avoided or mitigated. This
project EIR/EIS will identify and evaluate reasonable and feasible
site-specific alignment alternatives, and evaluate the impacts from
construction, operation, and maintenance of the HST system. Information
and documents regarding this HST environmental review process will be
made available through the Authority's Internet site: http://
www.cahighspeedrail.gov/.
    Purpose and Need: The purpose of the proposed HST system is to
provide a new mode of high-speed intercity travel that would link major
metropolitan areas of the state; interface with international airports,
mass transit, and highways; and provide added capacity to meet
increases in intercity travel demand in California in a manner
sensitive to and protective of California's unique natural resources.
The need for a high-speed train (HST) system is directly related to the
expected growth in population, and increases in intercity travel demand
in California over the next twenty years and beyond. With the growth in
travel demand, there will be an increase in travel delays arising from
the growing congestion on California's highways and at airports. In
addition, there will be negative effects on the economy, quality of
life, and air quality in and around California's metropolitan areas
from a transportation system that will become less reliable as travel
demand increases. The intercity highway system, commercial airports,
and conventional passenger rail serving the intercity travel market are
currently operating at or near capacity, and will require large public
investments for maintenance and expansion to meet existing demand and
future growth.
    Alternatives: The San Jose to Merced HST Project EIR/EIS will
consider a No Action or No Project Alternative and an HST Alternative
for the San Jose to Merced corridor.
    No Action Alternative: The No Action Alternative (No Project or No
Build) represents the conditions in the corridor as it existed in 2007,
and as it would exist based on programmed and funded improvements to
the intercity transportation system and other reasonably foreseeable
projects through 2035, taking into account the following sources of
information: State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP), Regional
Transportation Plans (RTPs) for all modes of travel, airport plans,
intercity passenger rail plans, city and county plans.
    HST Alternative: The Authority proposes to construct, operate and
maintain an electric-powered steel-wheel-on-steel-rail HST system,
about 800 miles long, capable of operating speeds of 220 mph on mostly
dedicated, fully grade-separated tracks, with state-of-the-art safety,
signaling, and automated train control systems. The San Jose to Merced
HST corridor selected by the Authority and FRA and the subject of this
Project EIR/EIS generally follows the Caltrain/UPRR corridor from San
Jose to Gilroy. From Gilroy, the corridor extends east through the
Pacheco Pass generally following State Route 152 and then along Henry
Miller Road across the valley floor to connect with the Merced to
Bakersfield section of the HST system.
    Further engineering studies will be undertaken as part of this EIR/
EIS process that will examine design options along the Caltrain/UPRR
corridor and possible use of portions of parallel transportation
corridors. Alignment refinements in the Pacheco Pass area potentially
locating the HST line closer to State Route 152 will be reviewed to
determine their practicality and their ability to reduce environmental
impacts. Alignment variations along Henry Miller Road (both to the
north and south) will be identified and evaluated for the purpose of
minimizing or avoiding impacts to resources in the Grasslands
Ecological Area (GEA).
    The entire alignment would be grade separated. The options to be
considered for the design of grade-separated roadway crossings would
include (1) depressing the street to pass under the rail line; (2)
elevating the street to pass over the rail line; (3) leaving the street
as-is and constructing rail line improvements to pass over or under the
local street; and (4) street closure, if appropriate. In addition,
alternative sites for right-of-way maintenance, train storage
facilities and a train service and inspection facility will be
evaluated in the San Jose to Merced HST project area.
    The preferred station location in the City of Gilroy is the current
Caltrain Station. This location was selected by the Authority and FRA
through the Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS
considering the project purpose and need, and the program objectives.
Alternative station sites at or near the preferred location may be
identified and evaluated in this Project EIR/EIS. There will be no
station between Gilroy and Merced and no maintenance and storage
facilities considered in the Los Banos area (or in the vicinity of the
GEA).
    Probable Effects: The purpose of the EIR/EIS process is to explore
in a public setting the effects of the proposed project on the
physical, human, and natural environment. The FRA and the Authority
will continue the tiered evaluation of all significant environmental,
social, and economic impacts of the construction and operation of the
HST system. Impact areas to be addressed include transportation
impacts; safety and security; land use and zoning; agricultural land
impacts, land acquisition, displacements, and relocations; cumulative
and secondary impacts; cultural resource impacts, including impacts on
historical and archaeological resources and parklands/recreation areas;
neighborhood compatibility and environmental justice; and natural
resource impacts including air quality, wetlands, water resources,
noise, vibration, energy, wildlife and ecosystems, including endangered
species. Measures to avoid, minimize, and mitigate adverse impacts will
be identified and evaluated.
    The San Jose to Merced HST Project EIR/EIS will be prepared in
accordance with FRA's Procedures for Considering Environmental Impacts
(64 FR 28545 [May 26, 1999]) and will address not only NEPA and CEQA
but also other applicable statutes, regulations, and executive orders,
including the Clean Air Act, Section 404 of the Clean Water Act,
Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Section
4(f) of the Department of Transportation Act, the Endangered Species
Act, and Executive Order 12898 on Environmental Justice.
    This EIR/EIS process will continue the NEPA/Clean Water Act Section
404 integration process established through the Statewide Program EIR/
EIS process. The EIR/EIS will evaluate project alignment alternatives,
station and maintenance facility locations to support a determination
of the Least Environmentally Damaging Practicable Alternative
(``LEDPA'') by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.
    Scoping and Comments: FRA encourages broad participation in the EIS
process during scoping and review of the resulting environmental
documents. Comments are invited from all interested agencies and the
public to

ensure the full range of issues related to the proposed action and
reasonable alternatives are addressed and all significant issues are
identified. In particular, FRA is interested in determining whether
there are areas of environmental concern where there might be a
potential for significant site-specific impacts. Public agencies with
jurisdiction are requested to advise FRA and the Authority of the
applicable permit and environmental review requirements of each agency,
and the scope and content of the environmental information that is
germane to the agency's statutory responsibilities in connection with
the proposed project. Public agencies are requested to advise FRA if
they anticipate taking a major action in connection with the proposed
project and if they wish to cooperate in the preparation of the Project
EIR/EIS. Public scoping meetings have been scheduled as an important
component of the scoping process for both the State and Federal
environmental review. The scoping meetings described in this Notice
will also be the subject of additional public notification.
    FRA is seeking participation and input of all interested Federal,
State, and local agencies, Native American groups, and other concerned
private organizations and individuals on the scope of the EIR/EIS.
Implementation of the San Jose to Merced section of the HST system is a
federal undertaking with the potential to affect historic properties.
As such, it is subject to the requirements of section 106 of the
National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470f). In
accordance with regulations issued by the Advisory Council on Historic
Preservation, 36 CFR part 800, FRA intends to coordinate compliance
with section 106 of this Act with the preparation of the EIR/EIS,
beginning with the identification of consulting parties through the
scoping process, in a manner consistent with the standards set out in
36 CFR 800.8.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on March 9, 2009.
Ray LaHood,
Secretary, U.S. Department of Transportation.
 [FR Doc. E9-5573 Filed 3-13-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-06-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 178 (Wednesday, September 14, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Page 63237]
[FR Doc No: 2016-22038]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Proposed Collection; Comment Request

Upon Written Request, Copies Available From: Securities and Exchange
Commission, Office of FOIA Services, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC
20549-2736.

Extension:
    Rule 15c3-5, SEC File No. 270-601, OMB Control No. 3235-0673.

    Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction
Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.) (``PRA''), the Securities and
Exchange Commission (``Commission'') is soliciting comments on the
existing collection of information provided for in Rule 15c3-5 (17 CFR
240.15c3-5) under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78a et
seq.) (``Exchange Act''). The Commission plans to submit this existing
collection of information to the Office of Management and Budget
(``OMB'') for extension and approval.
    Rule 15c3-5 under the Exchange Act requires brokers or dealers with
access to trading directly on an exchange or alternative trading system
(``ATS''), including those providing sponsored or direct market access
to customers or other persons, to implement risk management controls
and supervisory procedures reasonably designed to manage the financial,
regulatory, and other risks of this business activity.
    The rule requires brokers or dealers to establish, document, and
maintain certain risk management controls and supervisory procedures as
well as regularly review such controls and procedures, and document the
review, and remediate issues discovered to assure overall effectiveness
of such controls and procedures. Each such broker or dealer is required
to preserve a copy of its supervisory procedures and a written
description of its risk management controls as part of its books and
records in a manner consistent with Rule 17a-4(e)(7) under the Exchange
Act. Such regular review is required to be conducted in accordance with
written procedures and is required to be documented. The broker or
dealer is required to preserve a copy of such written procedures, and
documentation of each such review, as part of its books and records in
a manner consistent with Rule 17a-4(e)(7) under the Exchange Act, and
Rule 17a-4(b) under the Exchange Act, respectively.
    In addition, the Chief Executive Officer (or equivalent officer) is
required to certify annually that the broker or dealer's risk
management controls and supervisory procedures comply with the rule,
and that the broker-dealer conducted such review. Such certifications
are required to be preserved by the broker or dealer as part of its
books and records in a manner consistent with Rule 17a-4(b) under the
Exchange Act. Compliance with Rule 15c3-5 is mandatory.
    Respondents consist of broker-dealers with access to trading
directly on an exchange or ATS. The Commission estimates that there are
currently 640 respondents. To comply with Rule 15c3-5, these
respondents will spend a total of approximately 102,400 hours per year
(160 hours per broker-dealer x 640 broker-dealers = 102,400 hours). At
an average internal cost per burden hour of approximately $339.09, the
resultant total related internal cost of compliance for these
respondents is $34,722,560 per year (102,400 burden hours multiplied by
approximately $339.09/hour). In addition, for hardware and software
expenses, the Commission estimates that the average annual external
cost would be approximately $20,500 per broker-dealer, or $13,120,000
in the aggregate ($20,500 per broker-dealer x 640 brokers and dealers =
$13,120,000).
    Written comments are invited on (a) whether the proposed collection
of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions
of the Commission, including whether the information shall have
practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the Commission's estimates of
the burden of the proposed collection of information; (c) ways to
enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected;
and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on
respondents, including through the use of automated collection
techniques or other forms of information technology. Consideration will
be given to comments and suggestions submitted in writing within 60
days of this publication.
    An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required
to respond to, a collection of information under the PRA unless it
displays a currently valid OMB control number.
    Please direct your written comments to: Pamela Dyson, Director/
Chief Information Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission, c/o Remi
Pavlik-Simon, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549, or send an email
to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
    Dated: September 8, 2016.
Brent J. Fields,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2016-22038 Filed 9-13-16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P