52724 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 163 / Tuesday, August 23, 2011 / Notices 

10 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A). 

11 17 CFR 240.19b–4(f)(6). In addition, Rule 19b– 

4(f)(6) requires a self-regulatory organization to give 

the Commission written notice of its intent to file 

the proposed rule change at least five business days 

prior to the date of filing of the proposed rule 

change, or such shorter time as designated by the 

Commission. The Exchange has satisfied this 

requirement. 12 17 CFR 200.30–3(a)(12). 

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

2 17 CFR 240.19b–4. 

B. Self-Regulatory Organization’s 

Statement on Burden on Competition 

CBOE does not believe that the 

proposed rule change will impose any 

burden on competition that is not 

necessary or appropriate in furtherance 

of purposes of the Act. 

C. Self-Regulatory Organization’s 

Statement on Comments on the 

Proposed Rule Change Received From 

Members, Participants or Others 

No written comments were solicited 

or received with respect to the proposed 

rule change. 

III. Date of Effectiveness of the 

Proposed Rule Change and Timing for 

Commission 

Because the foregoing proposed rule 

change does not: (i) Significantly affect 

the protection of investors or the public 

interest; (ii) impose any significant 

burden on competition; and (iii) become 

operative for 30 days after the date of 

the filing, or such shorter time as the 

Commission may designate, it has 

become effective pursuant to 19(b)(3)(A) 

of the Act 10 and Rule 19b–4(f)(6) 11

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. 

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 rulecomments@sec.gov. Please include File 

Number SR–CBOE–2011–075 on the 

subject line. 

Paper Comments 

• Send paper comments in triplicate 

to Elizabeth M. Murphy, Secretary, 

Securities and Exchange Commission, 

100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC 

20549–1090. 

All submissions should refer to File 

Number SR–CBOE–2011–075. 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 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 a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of such filing 

also will be available for inspection and 

copying at the principal office of CBOE. 

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–CBOE–2011–075 and 

should be submitted on or before 

September 13, 2011. 

For the Commission, by the Division of 

Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated 

authority.12

Elizabeth M. Murphy, 

Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 2011–21465 Filed 8–22–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 8011–01–P 

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE 

COMMISSION 

[Release No. 34–65094; File No. SR– 

NASDAQ–2011–115] 

Self-Regulatory Organizations; the 

NASDAQ Stock Market LLC; Notice of 

Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of 

Proposed Rule Change To Extend the 

Pilot Period of the Trading Pause for 

NMS Stocks 

August 10, 2011. 

Correction 

In notice document 2011–20735 

appearing on pages 50779–50781 in the 

issue of August 16, 2011, make the 

following correction: 

On page 50779, in the second column, 

the File No. in the heading is corrected 

to read as it appears above. 

[FR Doc. C1–2011–20735 Filed 8–22–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 1505–01–D 

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE 

COMMISSION 

[Release No. 34–65158; File No. SR–MSRB– 

2011–11] 

Self-Regulatory Organizations; 

Municipal Securities Rulemaking 

Board; Notice of Filing of Amendments 

to Rule A–3, on Membership on the 

Board 

August 18, 2011. 

Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the 

Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the 

‘‘Act’’) 1 and Rule 19b–4 thereunder,2

notice is hereby given that on August 

11, 2011, the Municipal Securities 

Rulemaking Board (‘‘Board’’ or 

‘‘MSRB’’) filed with the Securities and 

Exchange Commission (‘‘SEC’’ or 

‘‘Commission’’) the proposed rule 

change as described in Items I, II, and 

III below, which Items have been 

prepared by the MSRB. The 

Commission is publishing this notice to 

solicit comments on the proposed rule 

change from interested persons. 

I. Self-Regulatory Organization’s 

Statement of the Terms of Substance of 

the Proposed Rule Change 

The MSRB is filing with the SEC a 

proposed rule change consisting of 

amendments to Rule A–3, on 

membership on the Board, in order to 

establish a permanent Board structure of 

21 Board members divided into three 

classes, each class being comprised of 

seven members who would serve three 

year terms. The terms would be 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 163 / Tuesday, August 23, 2011 / Notices 52725 

3See SEC Release No. 34–63025, File No. SR– 

MSRB–2010–08 (September 30, 2010). 

staggered and, each year, one class 

would be nominated and elected to the 

Board of Directors. 

The text of the proposed rule change 

is available on the MSRB’s Web site at 

http://www.msrb.org/Rules-andInterpretations/SEC–Filings/2011– 

Filings.aspx, 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 Board 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 purpose of the proposed rule 

change is to make changes to MSRB 

Rule A–3 as are necessary and 

appropriate to establish a permanent 

Board structure of 21 Board members 

divided into three classes, each class 

being comprised of seven members who 

would serve three year terms. The terms 

would be staggered and, each year, one 

class would be nominated and elected 

to the Board of Directors. 

In order to facilitate the transition to 

three staggered classes, Rule A–3 would 

include a transitional provision, Rule 

A–3(h), applicable for the Board’s fiscal 

years commencing October 1, 2012, and 

ending September 30, 2014, which 

would provide that Board members who 

were elected prior to July 2011 and 

whose terms end on or after September 

30, 2012, may be considered for term 

extensions not exceeding two years, in 

order to facilitate the transition to three 

staggered classes of seven Board 

members per class. The transitional 

provision would further provide that 

Board members would be nominated for 

term extensions by a Special 

Nominating Committee formed pursuant 

to Rule A–6, on committees of the 

Board, and that the Board would then 

vote on each proposed term extension. 

The selection of Board members whose 

terms would be extended would be 

consistent with ensuring that the Board 

is in compliance with the composition 

requirements of revised Section (a) of 

Rule A–3 during such extension 

periods. 

In an order approving changes to 

MSRB Rule A–3 to comply with the 

provisions of the Dodd-Frank Wall 

Street Reform and Consumer Protection 

Act (the ‘‘Dodd-Frank Act’’) (Pub. L. 

111–203, 124 Stat. 1376 (2010)) 

requiring the Board to have a majority 

of independent public members and 

municipal advisor representation,3 the 

Commission approved a transitional 

provision of the rule that increased the 

Board from 15 to 21 members, 11 of 

whom would be independent public 

members and 10 of whom would be 

members representing regulated entities. 

Of the public members, at least one 

would be representative of municipal 

entities, at least one would be 

representative of institutional or retail 

investors, and at least one would be a 

member of the public with knowledge of 

or experience in the municipal industry. 

Of the regulated members, at least one 

would be representative of brokerdealers, at least one would be 

representative of bank dealers, and at 

least one, but not less than 30% of the 

regulated members, would be 

representative of municipal advisors 

that are not associated with brokerdealers or bank dealers. 

The Commission also approved a 

provision in MSRB Rule A–3 that 

defined an independent public member 

as one with no material business 

relationship with an MSRB regulated 

entity, meaning that, within the last two 

years, the individual was not associated 

with a municipal securities broker, 

municipal securities dealer, or 

municipal advisor, and that the 

individual has no relationship with any 

such entity, whether compensatory or 

otherwise, that reasonably could affect 

the independent judgment or decision 

making of the individual. The rule 

further provided that the Board, or by 

delegation, its Nominating and 

Governance Committee, could also 

determine that additional circumstances 

involving the individual could 

constitute a material business 

relationship with an MSRB regulated 

entity. 

In finding that the proposed rule 

change was reasonable and consistent 

with the requirements of the Securities 

Exchange Act of 1934 (the ‘‘Exchange 

Act’’) (15 U.S.C. 78o–4), in that it 

provided for fair representation of 

public representatives and MSRB 

regulated entities, the Commission 

noted that the MSRB had committed to 

monitor the effectiveness of the 

structure of the Board to determine to 

what extent, if any, proposed changes 

might be appropriate. Additionally, in 

its response to comment letters, the 

MSRB suggested that, at the end of the 

transitional period, the MSRB would be 

in a better position to make long-term 

decisions regarding representation, size 

and related matters. 

While the transitional period has not 

yet concluded, the Board believes it is 

now in a position to establish a 

permanent structure. The MSRB has 

now operated as an expanded, majoritypublic Board with representation of 

municipal advisors, as approved by the 

Commission, for approximately one 

fiscal year. During this period, the Board 

has engaged in the full range of MSRB 

activities. In a typical year, the Board 

meets quarterly but this year, due to the 

requirements of the Dodd-Frank Act and 

the new rulemaking authority over 

municipal advisors, the Board met six 

times in person and numerous times by 

phone. Additionally, Board members 

participated in committee meetings and 

informal conversations. The Board has 

undertaken many significant rulemaking 

initiatives regulating the activities of 

brokers, dealers, municipal securities 

dealers and municipal advisors that 

would provide important protections for 

investors, municipal entities, obligated 

persons and the public interest. In 

particular, notwithstanding its larger 

size, the Board acted swiftly to propose 

and, in many cases, adopt baseline rules 

for municipal advisors, and also 

promulgate additional rules and 

interpretive guidance applicable to 

brokers, dealers and municipal 

securities dealers. The insight of Board 

members with diverse backgrounds and 

viewpoints contributed considerably to 

the quality of the initiatives. In addition, 

the Board has continued to develop, 

operate and maintain information 

systems critical to investors, municipal 

entities and market professionals. 

Furthermore, the Board has made 

significant efforts to orient previously 

unregulated municipal advisors to the 

realities of a regulated environment 

through an unprecedented level of 

outreach and education activities. 

Given the extensive interaction among 

Board members, the Board was able to 

evaluate its effectiveness, particularly in 

the development of a body of rules 

governing the activities of municipal 

advisors while maintaining its prior 

level of regulatory and other activities in 

connection with brokers, dealers and 

municipal securities dealers. The Board 

believes that it has acted effectively as 

a regulator carrying out the functions 

contemplated by the Exchange Act and 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

52726 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 163 / Tuesday, August 23, 2011 / Notices 

the Dodd-Frank Act and that its current 

size and composition have been 

significant factors in the Board’s 

efficient and effective operation during 

this transition period. The Board further 

believes there has been sufficient time 

to evaluate its effectiveness and has 

determined to proceed at this time with 

this proposed rule change to ensure that 

the federally mandated rule proposal 

process necessary to obtain SEC 

approval can be completed in time for 

the MSRB to undertake its Board 

member election process in a thorough 

and orderly manner for the first class of 

Board members to serve after the 

conclusion of the transition period. 

In order to evaluate the effectiveness 

of the Board, the Nominating and 

Governance Committee developed a 

survey of the members of the Board that 

addressed various governance issues, 

such as participation in Board 

deliberations by individual Board 

members and constituencies, 

development of Board agendas, skills 

and experience of Board members, role 

of Board committees and staff, and 

management of Board meetings. The 

survey inquired as to the ability of 

industry and public Board members to 

participate in Board meeting 

discussions and debate, such as whether 

the Board considers adequately the 

interests of municipal advisors in its 

deliberations, and whether discussions 

on key issues include a balance of 

perspectives. The survey results 

indicated that Board members believe 

the 21-member Board is working 

effectively and that the Board, as 

constituted, can carry out its mission 

and objectives. Board members also 

believe that all constituents, industry 

and public, are appropriately 

represented by Board members who are 

able to provide input into the 

development of Board agendas and 

participate actively in deliberations. 

While the Board proposes a 

composition greater than the statutory 

minimum of 15, the Board believes this 

membership level is appropriate, given 

the diversity of the municipal securities 

marketplace and its constituencies, 

many of whom are required by statute 

to be represented on the Board. The 

Exchange Act requires the Board to have 

at least one retail or institutional 

investor representative, at least one 

municipal entity representative, at least 

one member of the public with 

knowledge of or experience in the 

municipal securities industry, at least 

one broker-dealer representative, at least 

one bank dealer representative, and at 

least one municipal advisor 

representative. Given the diversity of 

municipal entities, broker-dealers, bank 

dealers, and municipal advisors, a 

Board of 21 members provides more 

flexibility to provide representation 

from various sectors of the market. For 

example, at a 21-member level, the 

Board would be in a position to appoint 

municipal entity representatives that 

serve large and small constituencies, 

such as states and state agencies, cities, 

and other municipal entities, while at 

the same time retaining the flexibility to 

appoint academics and others with a 

broader view of the market. A smaller 

Board would be constrained in this 

regard. Moreover, at a 21-member level, 

the Board would be similar in size to its 

counterpart, the Board of Governors of 

the Financial Industry Regulatory 

Authority (‘‘FINRA’’), the self-regulatory 

organization that works closely with the 

Board to enforce Board rules applicable 

to FINRA members. Consequently, a 

Board of 21 members is appropriate and 

consistent with industry norms. 

The survey results confirm the 

individual sentiments of Board 

members that the Board, as currently 

constituted, is effective and provides 

fair representation of public and 

industry members. Consequently, the 

Board voted to approve changes to 

MSRB Rule A–3 to make permanent a 

Board of 11 independent public 

members and 10 regulated members, 

with at least 30% of the regulated 

members being municipal advisors who 

are not associated with brokers, dealers 

or municipal securities dealers (‘‘nondealer municipal advisors’’). The Board 

further voted to divide itself into three 

classes of seven, serving staggered threeyear terms. Each class would be as 

evenly divided as possible between 

public members and regulated members, 

and there would be at least one nondealer municipal advisor in each of the 

three classes. The Board believes this 

permanent structure is consistent with 

the Exchange Act and provides fair 

representation of public members, 

broker-dealers, bank dealers and 

municipal advisors. 

Finally, the Board voted to permit 

existing Board members to be 

considered for extended terms of up to 

two years, in order to transition to three 

staggered classes. A transition plan is 

necessary to balance the classes with 

public and regulated representatives 

and to ensure there is at least one nondealer municipal advisor per class. In 

order to carry out the transition plan, 

the Board voted to create, by resolution, 

a Special Nominating Committee of five 

disinterested Board members to 

nominate certain Board members for 

extended terms. Disinterested Board 

members are those members who are 

ineligible for a term extension and, 

therefore, are less likely to have a 

personal interest in the nomination 

process that could affect their 

independent judgment. The class of 

2011 is ineligible and, hence, 

disinterested because the term 

extensions would commence as of fiscal 

year 2013, and these members would no 

longer be on the Board at that time. 

Additionally, one public member from 

the class of 2012 is disinterested 

because the transition plan does not 

contemplate an extension for public 

members from that class. Therefore, 

there are six disinterested Board 

members, five of whom comprise the 

Special Nominating Committee, which 

includes three public members and two 

regulated members. The Chair of the 

Committee was selected from amongst 

the public members. The Board believes 

that a Special Nominating Committee of 

disinterested members, led by a public 

chair and with a public majority, is in 

the best position to nominate Board 

members for term extensions, in that 

these members are least likely to have 

personal interests regarding the term 

extensions that could affect their 

independent judgments. 

The Dodd-Frank Act provides that the 

Board shall be composed of 15 members 

or more, provided that such number is 

an odd number, as specified by the rules 

of the Board. The Board has voted to 

increase its membership to 21 and to 

eliminate Rule A–3(b), which provides 

that the Board may increase or decrease 

its membership by multiples of six, in 

order to maintain an odd number, and 

that the membership be equally divided 

among public members, bank dealers, 

and broker-dealers, so long as the 

membership is not less than 15. This 

section is no longer applicable, since the 

Dodd-Frank Act eliminated the prior 

statutory requirement that the Board 

consist of five public members, five 

bank dealer representatives, and five 

broker-dealer representatives. Moreover, 

there is no necessity to specify in a 

Board rule that the membership may be 

greater than 15, provided that the 

membership is set at an odd number, 

since such a provision is incorporated 

into the Exchange Act. Future changes 

in size of the Board, if any, would be 

effected through the rule change process 

consistent with the Dodd-Frank Act 

provisions. Hence, section (b) is no 

longer necessary. 

2. Statutory Basis 

The MSRB has adopted the proposed 

rule change pursuant to Section 

15B(b)(2)(B) of the Act, which provides 

that the MSRB’s rules shall: 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 163 / Tuesday, August 23, 2011 / Notices 52727 

4 17 CFR 200.30–3(a)(12). 

establish fair procedures for the nomination 

and election of members of the Board and 

assure fair representation in such 

nominations and elections of public 

representatives, broker dealer 

representatives, bank representatives, and 

advisor representatives. Such rules— 

(i) Shall provide that the number of public 

representatives of the Board shall at all times 

exceed the total number of regulated 

representatives and that the membership 

shall at all times be as evenly divided in 

number as possible between public 

representatives and regulated representatives; 

(ii) Shall specify the length or lengths of 

terms members shall serve; 

(iii) May increase the number of members 

which shall constitute the whole Board, 

provided that such number is an odd 

number; and 

(iv) Shall establish requirements regarding 

the independence of public representatives. 

The MSRB believes the proposed rule 

change is consistent with the Exchange 

Act in that the proposal provides that 

the number of public representatives of 

the Board shall exceed the total number 

of regulated representatives by one so 

that the membership shall be as evenly 

divided as possible between public 

representatives and regulated 

representatives—11 to 10. The proposal 

specifies the length of term that Board 

members will serve—three years— 

which is consistent with the length of 

the terms served by Board members 

prior to the adoption of the Dodd-Frank 

Act. The proposal increases the size of 

the Board from 15 to 21, consistent with 

the size of the Board during the 

transitional period that commenced on 

October 1, 2010. For the reasons 

discussed earlier, the Board believes a 

21-member Board is effective and fairly 

represents all constituencies referenced 

in the Exchange Act, including public 

representatives and regulated 

representatives. Finally, the proposed 

rule change maintains the existing 

requirement regarding the 

independence of public representatives. 

Section 15B(b)(1) of the Exchange Act 

further sets forth minimum 

representation requirements for certain 

categories of public representatives, as 

well as for bank dealer, broker-dealer 

and municipal advisor representatives. 

The proposed rule change complies 

with these requirements. The Exchange 

Act does not, however, mandate the 

specific number of any class of 

representative that should serve on the 

Board, nor does it set forth maximum 

Board composition or representation 

requirements. Thus, the MSRB believes 

that its proposal does provide for fair 

representation of public representatives, 

broker-dealers, bank dealers and 

municipal advisors under the Exchange 

Act, and it believes that providing a 

minimum number of non-dealer 

municipal advisors—at least 30% of the 

regulated representatives—is 

reasonable, and consistent with the 

Exchange Act. 

B. Self-Regulatory Organization’s 

Statement on Burden on Competition 

The Board does not believe that the 

proposed rule change will impose any 

burden on competition not necessary or 

appropriate in furtherance of the 

purposes of the Act since it is solely 

concerned with the administration of 

the MSRB and, in any event, provides 

for fair representation on the Board of 

public representatives, broker dealer 

representatives, bank dealer 

representatives and municipal advisor 

representatives. 

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 on the proposed 

rule change. 

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 e-mail to rulecomments@sec.gov. Please include File 

Number SR–MSRB–2011–11 on the 

subject line. 

Paper Comments 

• Send paper comments in triplicate 

to Elizabeth M. Murphy, Secretary, 

Securities and Exchange Commission, 

100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC 

20549–1090. 

All submissions should refer to File 

Number SR–MSRB–2011–11. 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 

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 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 

am and 3 pm. Copies of such filing also 

will be available for inspection and 

copying at the MSRB’s offices. 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–2011–11 and should 

be submitted on or before September 13, 

2011. 

For the Commission, by the Division of 

Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated 

authority.4

Elizabeth M. Murphy, 

Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 2011–21557 Filed 8–22–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 8011–01–P 

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE 

COMMISSION 

[Release No. 34–65150; File No. SR– 

NASDAQ–2011–113] 

Self-Regulatory Organizations; The 

NASDAQ Stock Market LLC; Notice of 

Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of 

a Proposed Rule Change Regarding 

Clerical Changes to Its Rules 

August 17, 2011. 

Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the 

Securities Exchange Act of 1934 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES