[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 233 (Thursday, December 4, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 72049-72054]
[FR Doc No: 2014-28474]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-73702; File No. SR-BX-2014-048]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NASDAQ OMX BX, Inc.; Order
Granting Approval to Proposed Rule Change To Establish the Retail Price
Improvement Program on a Pilot Basis Expiring Twelve Months From the
Date of Implementation

November 28, 2014.

I. Introduction

    On October 17, 2014, The NASDAQ OMX BX Stock Market LLC (the
``Exchange'' or ``BX'') 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 to establish a Retail Price
Improvement (``RPI'') Program (the ``Program'') on a pilot basis for a
period of 12 months from the date of implementation, if approved. The
proposed rule change was published for comment in the Federal Register
on October 29, 2014.\3\ The Commission did not receive any comments on
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. 73410 (October, 23,
2014), 79 FR 64447 (SR-BX-2014-048) (``Notice'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In connection with the proposal, the Exchange requested exemptive
relief from Rule 612 of Regulation NMS,\4\ which, among other things,
prohibits a national securities exchange from accepting or ranking
orders priced greater than $1.00 per share in an increment smaller than
$0.01.\5\ On October 10, 2014, the Exchange submitted a letter
requesting that the staff of the Division of Trading and Markets not
recommend any enforcement action under Rule 602 of Regulation NMS based
on the Exchange's and its Members' participation in the Program.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ 17 CFR 242.612 (``Sub-Penny Rule'').
    \5\ See Letter from Jeffrey Davis, Deputy General Counsel,
NASDAQ OMX BX, Inc., to Brent J. Fields, Secretary, Commission,
dated October 10, 2014 (``Request for Sub-Penny Rule Exemption'').
The Request for Sub-Penny Rule Exemption was submitted
contemporaneously with the Exchange's original filing for this
proposed rule change, which was filed on October 10, 2014. Because
that filing did not comply with the rules of the Commission relating
to the required form of a filing on Form 19b-4, it was rejected.
    \6\ See Letter from Jeffrey Davis, Deputy General Counsel,
NASDAQ OMX BX, Inc., to Stephen Luparello, Director, Division of
Trading and Markets, Commission, dated October 10, 2014. This letter
was submitted contemporaneously with the Exchange's original filing
for this proposed rule change, which was filed on October 10, 2014.
As noted above, that filing was rejected because it did not comply
with the rules of the Commission relating to the required form of a
filing on Form 19b-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This order approves the proposed rule change and grants the
exemption from the Sub-Penny Rule sought by the Exchange in relation to
the proposed rule change.

II. Description of the Proposal

    The Exchange is proposing a 12-month pilot program to attract
additional retail order flow to the Exchange, while also providing the
potential for price improvement to retail order flow. The Program would
be limited to trades occurring at prices equal to or greater than $1.00
per share.\7\ All Regulation NMS securities traded on the Exchange
would be eligible for inclusion in the Program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ The Exchange notes that certain orders submitted to the
Program designated as eligible to interact with liquidity outside of
the Program--Type 2 Retail Orders, discussed below--could execute at
prices below $1.00 if they do in fact execute against liquidity
outside of the Program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Under the Program, a new class of market participants called Retail
Member Organizations (``RMOs'') \8\ would be eligible to submit certain
retail order flow (``Retail Orders'') to the Exchange. All Exchange
Members would be permitted to provide potential price improvement for
Retail Orders in the form of designated non-displayed interest, called
a Retail Price Improvement Order (``RPI Order'' or ``RPI interest''),
that is priced more aggressively than the Protected National Best Bid
or Offer (``Protected NBBO'') \9\ by at least $0.001 per share. When
RPI interest priced at least $0.001 per share better than the Protected
Bid or Protected Offer for a particular security is available in the
Exchange's system (the ``System''), the Exchange would disseminate an
identifier, known as the Retail Liquidity Identifier, indicating that
such interest exists. A Retail Order would interact, to the extent
possible, with available contra-side RPI Orders and other price
improving liquidity.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ An RMO would be a Member (or a division thereof) that has
been approved by the Exchange to submit Retail Orders. See Proposed
BX Rule 4780. A ``Member'' is any registered broker or dealer that
has been admitted to membership in the Exchange. See BX Rule
0120(i).
    \9\ The terms Protected Bid and Protected Offer are defined in
Rule 600(b)(57) of Regulation NMS. 17 CFR 242.600(b)(57). The
Exchange represents that, generally, the Protected Bid and Protected
Offer, and the national best bid (``NBB'') and national best offer
(``NBO,'' together with the NBB, the ``NBBO''), will be the same.
However, it further represents that a market center is not required
to route to the NBB or NBO if that market center is subject to an
exception under Regulation NMS Rule 611(b)(1) or if such NBB or NBO
is otherwise not available for an automatic execution. In such case,
the Exchange states that the Protected NBBO would be the best-priced
protected bid or offer to which a market center must route interest
pursuant to Rule 611 of Regulation NMS.
    \10\ As explained further below, the Exchange has proposed two
types of Retail Orders, one of which could execute against other
contra-side interest if it was not completely filled by contra-side
RPI Interest or other price-improving liquidity. All Retail Orders
would first execute against available contra-side RPI Orders or
other price-improving liquidity. Any remaining portion of the Retail
Order would then either cancel, be executed as an immediate-or-
cancel order, or be routed to another market for execution,
depending on the type of Retail Order. The Exchange notes that other
price improving liquidity may include, but is not limited to: Booked
non-displayed orders with a limit price that is more aggressive than
the then-current NBBO; midpoint-pegged orders (which are by
definition non-displayed and priced more aggressively than the
NBBO); non-displayed orders pegged to the NBBO with an aggressive
offset, as defined in Proposed BX Rule 4780(a)(4) as Other Price
Improving Contra-Side Interest. Orders that do not constitute other
price improving liquidity include, but are not limited to: Orders
with a time-in-force instruction of IOC; displayed orders; limit
orders priced less aggressively than the NBBO.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Types of Orders and Identifier

    A Retail Order would be an agency or riskless principal \11\ order
that originates from a natural person and is submitted to the Exchange
by an RMO, provided that no change is made to the terms of the order
with respect to price (except in the case of a market order being
changed to a marketable limit order) or side of market and provided
that the order does not originate from a trading algorithm or any other
computerized methodology. A Retail Order is an Immediate or Cancel
Order. As discussed in greater detail below, Retail Orders may be
designated as Type 1 or Type 2. Retail Orders, regardless of Type, may
be entered in sizes that are odd lots, rounds lots, or mixed lots.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ In order to qualify as a ``Retail Order,'' a ``riskless
principal'' order must satisfy the criteria set forth in FINRA Rule
5320.03. RMOs that submit riskless principal orders as Retail Orders
must maintain supervisory systems to reconstruct such orders in a
time-sequenced manner, and the RMOs must submit reports
contemporaneous with the execution of the facilitated orders that
identify such trades as riskless principal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    An RPI Order would be non-displayed liquidity on the Exchange that
is priced better than the Protected NBBO by at

least $0.001 per share and that is identified as such. RPI interest can
be priced either as an explicitly priced limit order or implicitly
priced as relative to the NBBO with an offset of at least $0.001. The
price of an RPI Order with an offset would be determined by a Member's
entry of the following into the Exchange: (1) RPI buy or sell interest;
(2) an offset from the Protected NBBO, if any; and (3) a ceiling or
floor price. RPI Orders submitted with an offset would be similar to
other peg orders available to Members in that the order is tied or
``pegged'' to a certain price, and would have its price automatically
set and adjusted upon changes in the Protected NBBO, both upon entry
and any time thereafter.
    RPI Orders in their entirety (the buy or sell interest, the offset,
and the ceiling or floor) will remain non-displayed. The Exchange will
also allow Members to enter RPI Orders that establish the exact limit
price, which is similar to a non-displayed limit order currently
accepted by the Exchange today, except that the Exchange will accept
sub-penny limit prices on RPI Orders in increments of $0.001.\12\ The
Exchange will monitor whether RPI buy or sell interest, adjusted by any
offset and subject to the ceiling or floor price, is eligible to
interact with incoming Retail Orders.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ As noted above, supra note 5 and accompanying text, in
connection with the Program, the Exchange requested exemptive relief
from the Sub-Penny Rule of Regulation NMS, which, among other
things, prohibits a national securities exchange from accepting or
ranking orders priced greater than $1.00 per share in an increment
smaller than $0.01.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    When RPI interest priced at least $0.001 better than the Exchange's
Protected Bid or Protected Offer for a particular security is available
in the System, the Exchange would disseminate an identifier, known as
the Retail Liquidity Identifier, indicating that such interest exists.
The Exchange would implement the Program in a manner that allowed the
dissemination of the identifier through consolidated data streams
(i.e., pursuant to the Consolidated Tape Association Plan/Consolidated
Quotation Plan (``CTA/CQ Plan'') for Tape A and Tape B securities, and
the Nasdaq UTP Plan for Tape C securities as well as through
proprietary Exchange data feeds). The Retail Liquidity Identifier would
reflect the symbol and the side (buy or sell) of the RPI Order, but it
would not include the price or size. In particular, the consolidated
quoting outputs would include a field for codes related to the Retail
Liquidity Identifier. The codes will indicate RPI interest that is
priced better than the Exchange's Protected Bid or Protected Offer by
at least the minimum level of price improvement as required by the
Program.

Retail Member Organizations

    In order to become an RMO, a Member must conduct a retail business
or handle retail orders on behalf of another broker-dealer. Any Member
that wishes to obtain RMO status would be required to submit: (1) An
application form; (2) supporting documentation sufficient to
demonstrate the retail nature and characteristics of the applicant's
order flow; \13\ and (3) an attestation, in a form prescribed by the
Exchange, that substantially all orders submitted by the Member as a
Retail Order would meet the qualifications for such orders under
Proposed BX Rule 4780(b). If the Exchange disapproves the application,
it would provide a written notice to the Member. The disapproved
applicant could appeal the disapproval as provided below or re-apply 90
days after the disapproval notice is issued by the Exchange. An RMO
also could voluntarily withdraw from RMO status at any time by giving
written notice to the Exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ For example, a prospective RMO could be required to provide
sample marketing literature, Web site screenshots, other publicly
disclosed materials describing the retail nature of their order
flow, and such other documentation and information as the Exchange
may require to obtain reasonable assurance that the applicant's
order flow would meet the requirements of the Retail Order
definition.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange would require an RMO to have written policies and
procedures reasonably designed to assure that it will only designate
orders as Retail Orders if all the requirements of a Retail Order are
met. Such written policies and procedures would have to require the
Member to exercise due diligence before entering a Retail Order to
assure that entry as a Retail Order is in compliance with the proposed
rule and to monitor whether orders entered as Retail Orders meet the
applicable requirements. If the RMO represents Retail Orders from
another broker-dealer customer, the RMO's supervisory procedures must
be reasonably designed to assure that the orders received from the
broker-dealer customer that are designated as Retail Orders meet the
definition of a Retail Order. The RMO must obtain, from each broker-
dealer customer that sends it orders to be designated as Retail Orders,
an annual written representation, in a form acceptable to the Exchange,
that entry of orders as Retail Orders will be in compliance with the
requirements of this proposed rule, and the RMO must monitor whether
its broker-dealer customer's Retail Order flow continues to meet the
applicable requirements.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ The Exchange represents that it or another self-regulatory
organization on behalf of the Exchange will review an RMO's
compliance with these requirements through an exam-based review of
the RMO's internal controls. See Notice, supra note 3, 79 FR at 6449
n.8.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Retail Order Designations

    Under Proposed BX Rule 4780(f), an RMO submitting a Retail Order
could choose one of two designations dictating how the Retail Order
would interact with available contra-side interest. First, a Retail
Order could interact only with available contra-side RPI interest and
other price-improving liquidity. The RMO would label this a Type 1
Retail Order, and such orders would not interact with available non-
price-improving, contra-side interest in the System or route to other
markets. Portions of a Type 1 Retail Order that were not executed would
be cancelled immediately and automatically.
    Second, an RMO could label a Retail Order as a Type 2-designated
Retail Order. A Type 2-designated Retail Order would interact first
with available contra-side RPI Orders and other price-improving
liquidity, and any remaining portion would be eligible to interact with
other interest in the System and, if designated as eligible for
routing, would route to other markets in compliance with Regulation NMS
and pursuant to BX Rule 4758. Any portion of the Retail Order that
remained unexecuted would then be cancelled.

Priority and Allocation

    Under Proposed BX Rule 4780(g), the Exchange would follow price-
time priority, ranking RPI interest in the same security according to
price and then time of entry into the System.\15\ Any remaining
unexecuted RPI Orders would remain available to interact with other
incoming Retail Orders if such interest is at an eligible price. Any
remaining unexecuted portion of a Retail Order would cancel or execute
in accordance with Proposed BX Rule 4780(f).\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ See also BX Rule 4757 (setting forth the Exchange's price-
time priority methodology).
    \16\ The Exchange has provided three examples of how the
priority and ranking of RPI Orders would operate. See Notice, supra
note 3, 79 FR at 64449-50.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Failure of RMO To Abide by Retail Order Requirements

    Proposed BX Rule 4780(c) addresses an RMO's failure to abide by
Retail Order requirements. If an RMO were to designate orders submitted
to the Exchange as Retail Orders and the

Exchange determined, in its sole discretion, that those orders failed
to meet any of the requirements of Retail Orders, the Exchange could
disqualify a Member from its status as an RMO. When disqualification
determinations are made, the Exchange would provide a written
disqualification notice to the Member. A disqualified RMO could appeal
the disqualification as provided below or re-apply 90 days after the
disqualification notice is issued by the Exchange.

Appeal of Disapproval or Disqualification

    Under Proposed BX Rule 4780(d), the Exchange would establish a
Retail Price Improvement Program Panel (``RPI Panel'') to review
disapproval or disqualification decisions. If a Member disputes the
Exchange's decision to disapprove or disqualify it as an RMO, such
Member could request, within five business days after notice of the
decision is issued by the Exchange, that the RPI Panel review the
decision to determine if it was correct. The RPI Panel would consist of
the Exchange's Chief Regulatory Officer (or his or her designee) and
two officers of the Exchange designated by the Exchange's Chief
Executive Officer, and it would review the facts and render a decision
within the timeframe prescribed by the Exchange. The RPI Panel could
overturn or modify an action taken by the Exchange under Proposed Rule
4780, and all determinations by the RPI Panel would constitute final
action by the Exchange on the matter at issue.

III. Discussion and Commission Findings

    After careful review of the proposal, the Commission finds that the
proposed rule change is consistent with the requirements of the Act and
the rules and regulations thereunder that are applicable to a national
securities exchange. In particular, the Commission finds that the
proposed rule change, subject to its term as a pilot, is consistent
with Section 6(b)(5) of the Act,\17\ which requires, among other
things, that the rules of a national securities 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 facilitating 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 and that the rules of a
national securities exchange not be designed to permit unfair
discrimination between customers, issuers, brokers or dealers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission finds that the Program, as it is proposed on a pilot
basis, is consistent with the requirements of the Act because the
Program is reasonably designed to benefit retail investors by providing
price improvement to retail order flow.\18\ The Commission also
believes that the Program could promote competition for retail order
flow among execution venues and that this could benefit retail
investors by creating additional price improvement opportunities for
their order flow. Currently, most marketable retail order flow is
executed in the over-the-counter (``OTC'') markets, pursuant to
bilateral agreements, without ever reaching a public exchange. The
Commission has noted that ``a very large percentage of marketable
(immediately executable) order flow of individual investors'' is
executed, or ``internalized,'' by broker-dealers in the OTC
markets.\19\ A previous review of the order flow of eight retail
broker-dealers revealed that nearly 100% of their customer market
orders were routed to OTC market makers.\20\ The same review found that
such routing is often done pursuant to arrangements under which retail
brokers route their order flow to certain OTC market makers in exchange
for payment for such order flow.\21\ To the extent that the Program may
provide price improvement to retail orders that equals what would be
provided under such OTC internalization arrangements, the Program could
benefit retail investors. So that the Exchange and the Commission can
better understand the Program's potential impact, the Exchange
represents that it ``will produce data throughout the pilot, which will
include statistics about participation, the frequency and level of
price improvement provided by the Program, and any effects on the
broader market structure.'' \22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ The Commission has approved similar programs for New York
Stock Exchange LLC and NYSE MKT LLC, Securities Exchange Act Release
No. 67347 (July 3, 2012), 77 FR 40673 (July 10, 2012) (SR-NYSE-2011-
55; SR-NYSEAmex-2011-84) (``NYSE RLP Approval Order''), BATS Y-
Exchange, Inc., Securities Exchange Act Release No. 68303 (November
27, 2012), 77 FR 71652 (December 3, 2012) (SR-BYX-2012-019) (``BATS
Y RPI Approval Order''), and The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC, Securities
Exchange Act Release No. 68937 (February 15, 2013), 78 FR 12397
(February 22, 2013) (SR-NASDAQ-2012-129) (``NASDAQ RPI Approval
Order'').
    \19\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 61358 (Jan. 14,
2010), 75 FR 3594, 3600 (Jan. 21, 2010) (``Concept Release on Equity
Market Structure'').
    \20\ See id.
    \21\ See id.
    \22\ See Notice, supra note 3, 79 FR at 64450.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Program proposes to create additional price improvement
opportunities for retail investors by segmenting retail order flow on
the Exchange and requiring liquidity providers that want to interact
with such retail order flow to do so at a price at least $0.001 per
share better than the Protected NBBO. The Commission finds that, while
the Program would treat retail order flow differently from order flow
submitted by other market participants, such segmentation would not be
inconsistent with Section 6(b)(5) of the Act, which requires that the
rules of an exchange are not designed to permit unfair discrimination.
The Commission previously has recognized that the markets generally
distinguish between individual retail investors, whose orders are
considered desirable by liquidity providers because such retail
investors are presumed on average to be less informed about short-term
price movements, and professional traders, whose orders are presumed on
average to be more informed.\23\ The Commission has further recognized
that, because of this distinction, liquidity providers are generally
more inclined to offer price improvement to less informed retail orders
than to more informed professional orders.\24\ Absent opportunities for
price improvement, retail investors may encounter wider spreads that
are a consequence of liquidity providers interacting with informed
order flow. By creating

additional competition for retail order flow, the Program is reasonably
designed to attract retail order flow to the exchange environment,
while helping to ensure that retail investors benefit from the better
price that liquidity providers are willing to give their orders.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ See NASDAQ RPI Approval Order, supra note 18, BATS Y RPI
Approval Order, supra note 18 and NYSE RLP Approval Order, supra
note 18. See also Concept Release on Equity Market Structure, supra
note 19; Securities Exchange Act Release No. 64781 (June 30, 2011),
76 FR 39953 (July 7, 2011) (SR-BATS-2011-009) (approving a program
proposed by an options exchange that would provide price improvement
opportunities to retail orders based, in part, on questions about
execution quality of retail orders under payment for order flow
arrangements in the options markets).
    \24\ See NASDAQ RPI Approval Order, supra note 18, BATS Y RPI
Approval Order, supra note 18 and NYSE RLP Approval Order, supra
note 18. See also Securities Exchange Act Release No. 64781 (June
30, 2011), 76 FR 39953, 39957 n.50 (July 7, 2011) (SR-BATS-2011-009)
(noting that ``it is well known in academic literature and industry
practice that prices tend to move against market makers after trades
with informed traders, often resulting in losses for market
makers,'' and that such losses are often borne by uninformed retail
investors through wider spreads (citing H.R. Stoll, ``The supply of
dealer services in securities markets,'' Journal of Finance 33
(1978), at 1133-51; L. Glosten & P. Milgrom, ``Bid ask and
transaction prices in a specialist market with heterogeneously
informed agents,'' Journal of Financial Economics 14 (1985), at 71-
100; and T. Copeland & D. Galai, ``Information effects on the bid-
ask spread,'' Journal of Finance 38 (1983), at 1457-69)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission notes that the Program might also create a desirable
opportunity for institutional investors to interact with retail order
flow that they are not able to reach currently. Today, institutional
investors often do not have the chance to interact with marketable
retail orders that are executed pursuant to internalization
arrangements. Thus, by submitting RPI Orders, institutional investors
may be able to reduce their possible adverse selection costs by
interacting with retail order flow.
    When the Commission is engaged in rulemaking or the review of a
rule filed by a self-regulatory organization, and is required to
consider or determine whether an action is necessary or appropriate in
the public interest, the Commission shall also consider, in addition to
the protection of investors, whether the action will promote
efficiency, competition, and capital formation.\25\ As discussed above,
the Commission believes this Program will promote competition for
retail order flow by allowing Exchange Members to submit RPI Orders to
interact with Retail Orders. Such competition may promote efficiency by
facilitating the price discovery process. Moreover, the Commission does
not believe that the Program will have a significant effect on market
structure, or will create any new inefficiencies in current market
structure. Finally, to the extent the Program is successful in
attracting retail order flow, it may generate additional investor
interest in trading securities, thereby promoting capital formation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ See 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission also believes that the Program is sufficiently
tailored to provide the benefits of potential price improvement only to
bona fide retail order flow originating from natural persons.\26\ The
Commission finds that the Program provides an objective process by
which a Member organization could become an RMO and that the Program
provides for appropriate oversight by the Exchange to monitor for
continued compliance with the terms of these provisions. The Exchange
has limited the definition of Retail Order to an agency or riskless
principal order that originates from a natural person and not from a
trading algorithm or any other computerized methodology. Furthermore, a
Retail Order must be submitted by an RMO that is approved by the
Exchange. In addition, RMOs would be required to maintain written
policies and procedures to help ensure that they designate as Retail
Orders only those orders that qualify under the Program. If a Member's
application to become an RMO is denied by the Exchange, that Member may
appeal the determination or re-apply. The Commission believes that
these standards should help ensure that only retail order flow is
submitted into the Program and that these standards thereby promote
just and equitable principles of trade and protect investors and the
public interest, while also providing an objective process through
which Members may become RMOs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ In addition, the Commission believes that the Program's
provisions concerning the approval and potential disqualification of
RMOs are not inconsistent with the Act. See, e.g., NASDAQ RPI
Approval Order, supra note 18, 78 FR at 12400 n.32, BATS Y RPI
Approval Order, supra note 18, 77 FR at 71656 n.41 and NYSE RLP
Approval Order, supra note 18, 77 FR at 40680 n.77.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, the Commission finds that the Program's proposed
dissemination of a Retail Liquidity Identifier would increase the
amount of pricing information available to the marketplace and that is
consistent with the requirement of the Act. The identifier would be
disseminated through the consolidated public market data stream and
proprietary Exchange data feeds to advertise the presence of a RPI
Order with which Retail Orders could interact. The identifier would
reflect the symbol for a particular security and the side of the RPI
Order interest, but it would not include the price or size of such
interest. The identifier would alert market participants to the
existence of a RPI Order and should provide market participants with
more information about the availability of price improvement
opportunities for retail orders than is currently available.\27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ As the Commission noted when approving the comparable
NASDAQ, BATS Y-Exchange, and NYSE programs, the Commission believes
that the Program will not create any best execution challenges for
brokers that are not already present in today's markets. A broker's
best execution obligations are determined by a number of facts and
circumstances, including: (1) The character of the market for the
security (e.g., price, volatility, relative liquidity, and pressure
on available communications); (2) the size and type of transaction;
(3) the number of markets checked; (4) accessibility of the
quotation; and (5) the terms and conditions of the order that
results in the transaction. See NASDAQ RPI Approval Order, supra
note 18, 78 FR at 12400 n.33, BATS Y RPI Approval Order, supra note
18, 77 FR at 71657, and NYSE RLP Approval Order, supra note 18, 77
FR at 40680 n.75 (all citing FINRA Rule 5310).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange asserts that the Program will operate in substantially
the same manner as NASDAQ Rule 4780 \28\ and BATS Y-Exchange Rule
11.24,\29\ which set forth the NASDAQ and BATS Y-Exchanges' Retail
Price Improvement Programs, respectively, and that it would be similar
to, but with distinctions from, New York Stock Exchange LLC's
(``NYSE'') Rule 107C, which governs NYSE's Retail Liquidity
Program.\30\ Accordingly, the Exchange believes that the Program should
both enhance competition among market participants and encourage
competition among exchange venues.\31\ Specifically, the Exchange
asserts that allowing all Members to enter RPI Orders on equal terms,
as opposed to adopting a special category of retail liquidity
providers, as NYSE did with its Retail Liquidity Program, could result
in a higher level of competition and maximize price improvement to
incoming Retail Orders; \32\ that the Program should provide the
maximum price improvement available to incoming Retail Orders because
they will always interact with resting RPI Orders and other resting
non-displayed liquidity; \33\ and that the Program will provide all of
the price improvement available to incoming Retail Orders by allowing
executions at multiple price levels, as opposed to a single clearing
price level.\34\ The Commission finds that the Program is reasonably
designed to enhance competition among market participants and encourage
competition among exchange venues. The Commission also finds that the
distinctions between the Exchange's Program and the approved programs
on

other exchanges are reasonably designed to enhance the Program's price-
improvement benefits to retail investors and are, therefore, consistent
with the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ See NASDAQ RPI Approval Order, supra note 18.
    \29\ See BATS Y RPI Approval Order, supra note 18.
    \30\ See NYSE RLP Approval Order, supra note 18.
    \31\ See Notice, supra note 3, 79 FR at 64451.
    \32\ See id. at 64450. The NYSE's Retail Liquidity Program
creates a category of members, Retail Liquidity Providers, who are
required to maintain a NYSE Retail Price Improvement Order that
betters the protected best bid or offer at least 5% of the trading
day in each assigned security and who receive lower execution fees
as a result.
    \33\ See Notice, supra note 3, 79 FR at 64450. In contrast,
pursuant to NYSE Rule 107C(k)(1), a NYSE Type 1-designated Retail
Order will interact only with available contra-side NYSE Retail
Price Improvement Orders and NYSE Mid-Point Passive Liquidity
Orders. Pursuant to NYSE Rule 13, a Mid-Point Passive Liquidity
Order ``is an undisplayed limit order that automatically executes at
the mid-point of the protected best bid or offer.''
    \34\ See Notice, supra note 3, 79 FR at 64450-51. Under the
NYSE'S Retail Liquidity Program, Retail Orders execute at the single
price at which the order will be fully executed, unless there are
separate MPL Orders with better pricing on the other side of the
Retail Order. See NYSE Rule 107C(l) (providing examples of how
orders execute under the NYSE's Retail Liquidity Program).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission notes that it is approving the Program on a pilot
basis. Approving the Program on a pilot basis will allow the Exchange
and market participants to gain valuable practical experience with the
Program during the pilot period. This experience should allow the
Exchange and the Commission to determine whether modifications to the
Program are necessary or appropriate prior to any Commission decision
to approve the Program on a permanent basis. The Exchange also has
agreed to provide the Commission with a significant amount of data that
should assist the Commission in its evaluation of the Program.
Specifically, the Exchange has represented that it ``will produce data
throughout the pilot, which will include statistics about
participation, the frequency and level of price improvement provided by
the Program, and any effects on the broader market structure.'' \35\
The Commission expects that the Exchange will monitor the scope and
operation of the Program and study the data produced during that time
with respect to such issues and that the Exchange will propose any
modifications to the Program that may be necessary or appropriate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \35\ See supra note 22 and accompanying text.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission also welcomes comments, and empirical evidence, on
the Program during the pilot period to further assist the Commission in
its evaluation of the Program. The Commission notes that any permanent
approval of the Program would require a proposed rule change by the
Exchange, and any such proposed rule change would provide an
opportunity for public comment prior to further Commission action.

IV. Exemption From the Sub-Penny Rule

    Pursuant to its authority under Rule 612(c) of Regulation NMS,\36\
the Commission hereby grants the Exchange a limited exemption from the
Sub-Penny Rule to operate the Program. For the reasons discussed below,
the Commission determines that such an exemption is necessary or
appropriate in the public interest and is consistent with the
protection of investors. The exemption shall operate for a period of 12
months, ending on the same date as the 12-month pilot period of the
Program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \36\ 17 CFR 242.612(c).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    When the Commission adopted the Sub-Penny Rule in 2005, it
identified a variety of problems caused by sub-pennies that the Sub-
Penny Rule was designed to address:
     If investors' limit orders lose execution priority for a
nominal amount, investors may over time decline to use them, thus
depriving the markets of liquidity.
     When market participants can gain execution priority for a
nominal amount, important customer protection rules such as exchange
priority rules and the Manning Rule could be undermined.
     Flickering quotations that can result from widespread sub-
penny pricing could make it more difficult for broker-dealers to
satisfy their best execution obligations and other regulatory
responsibilities.
     Widespread sub-penny quoting could decrease market depth
and lead to higher transaction costs.
     Decreasing depth at the inside could cause institutions to
rely more on execution alternatives away from the exchanges,
potentially increasing fragmentation in the securities markets.\37\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \37\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 51808 (June 9,
2005), 70 FR 37496, 37551-52 (June 29, 2005).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At the same time, the Commission ``acknowledge[d] the possibility
that the balance of costs and benefits could shift in a limited number
of cases or as the markets continue to evolve.'' \38\ Therefore, the
Commission also adopted Rule 612(c), which provides that the Commission
may grant exemptions from the Sub-Penny Rule, either unconditionally or
on specified terms and conditions, if it determined that such an
exemption is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, and is
consistent with the protection of investors.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \38\ Id. at 37553.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission believes that the Exchange's proposal raises such a
case. As described above, under the current market structure, few
marketable retail orders in equity securities are routed to exchanges.
The vast majority of marketable retail orders are internalized by OTC
market makers, who typically pay retail brokers for their order flow.
Retail investors can benefit from such arrangements to the extent that
OTC market makers offer them price improvement over the NBBO. Price
improvement is typically offered in sub-penny amounts.\39\ An
internalizing broker-dealer can offer sub-penny executions, provided
that such executions do not result from impermissible sub-penny orders
or quotations. Accordingly, OTC market makers typically select a sub-
penny price for a trade without quoting at that exact amount or
accepting orders from retail customers seeking that exact price.
Exchanges--and exchange member firms that submit orders and quotations
to exchanges--cannot compete for marketable retail order flow on the
same basis, because it would be impractical for exchange electronic
systems to generate sub-penny executions without exchange liquidity
providers or retail brokerage firms having first submitted sub-penny
orders or quotations, which the Sub-Penny Rule expressly prohibits.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \39\ When adopting the Sub-Penny Rule, the Commission considered
certain comments that asked the Commission to prohibit broker-
dealers from offering sub-penny price improvement to their
customers, but declined to do so. The Commission stated that
``trading in sub-penny increments does not raise the same concerns
as sub-penny quoting'' and that ``sub-penny executions due to price
improvement are generally beneficial to retail investors.'' Id. at
37556.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The limited exemption granted today should promote competition
between exchanges and OTC market makers in a manner that is reasonably
designed to minimize the problems that the Commission identified when
adopting the Sub-Penny Rule. Under the Program, sub-penny prices will
not be disseminated through the consolidated quotation data stream,
which should avoid quote flickering and reduced depth at the inside
quotation. Furthermore, while the Commission remains concerned about
providing enough incentives for market participants to display limit
orders, the Commission does not believe that granting this exemption
(and approving the accompanying proposed rule change) will reduce such
incentives. Market participants that display limit orders currently are
not able to interact with marketable retail order flow because it is
almost entirely routed to internalizing OTC market makers that offer
sub-penny executions. Consequently, enabling the Exchanges to compete
for this retail order flow through the Program should not materially
detract from the current incentives to display limit orders, while
potentially resulting in greater order interaction and price
improvement for marketable retail orders. To the extent that the
Program may raise Manning and best-execution issues for broker-dealers,
these issues are already presented by the existing practices of OTC
market makers.
    The exemption being granted today is limited to a one-year pilot.
The Exchange has stated that ``sub-penny trading and pricing could
potentially

result in undesirable market behavior'' and that, therefore, it will
``monitor the Program in an effort to identify and address any such
behavior.'' \40\ Furthermore, the Exchange has represented that it
``will produce data throughout the pilot, which will include statistics
about participation, the frequency and level of price improvement
provided by the Program, and any effects on the broader market
structure.'' \41\ The Commission expects to review the data and
observations of the Exchange before determining whether and, if so, how
to extend the exemption from the Sub-Penny Rule.\42\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \40\ See Request for Sub-Penny Rule Exemption, supra note 5, at
3, n.6.
    \41\ See supra note 22 and accompanying text.
    \42\ In particular, the Commission expects the Exchange to
observe how maker/taker transaction charges, whether imposed by the
Exchange or by other markets, might impact the use of the Program.
Market distortions could arise where the size of a transaction
rebate, whether for providing or taking liquidity, is greater than
the size of the minimum increment permitted by the Program ($0.001
per share).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

V. Conclusion

    It is therefore ordered, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the
Act,\43\ that the proposed rule change (SR-BX-2014-048) be, and hereby
is, approved on a one-year pilot basis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \43\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    It is also hereby ordered that, pursuant to Rule 612(c) of
Regulation NMS, the Exchange is given a limited exemption from Rule 612
of Regulation NMS allowing it to accept and rank orders priced equal to
or greater than $1.00 per share in increments of $0.001, in the manner
described in the proposed rule change above, for a period of 12 months,
ending on the same date as the 12-month pilot period of the Program.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\44\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \44\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12); 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(83).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Brent J. Fields,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2014-28474 Filed 12-3-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: May 2, 2014.
Susan Hedman,
Regional Administrator, Region 5.
[FR Doc. 2014-11022 Filed 5-12-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register: April 24, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 78)]
[Notices]
[Page 20373]
[DOCID:fr24ap07-100]

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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Occupational Safety and Health Administration

Agency Information Collection Activities; Announcement of Office
of Management and Budget (OMB) Control Numbers Under the Paperwork
Reduction Act

AGENCY: Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), Labor.

ACTION: Notice; announcement of OMB approval of information collection
requirements.

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

SUMMARY: The Occupational Safety and Health Administration announces
that OMB has extended its approval for a number of information
collection requirements found in sections of 29 CFR parts 1910, 1915,
1917, 1918, 1926, and 1928; and for OSHA's Data Initiative. OSHA sought
approval under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA-95), and, as
required by that Act, is announcing the approval numbers and expiration
dates for those requirements.

DATES: This notice is effective April 24, 2007.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Todd Owen or Theda Kenney, Directorate
of Standards and Guidance, Occupational Safety and Health
Administration, U.S. Department of Labor, Room N-3609, 200 Constitution
Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20210, telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In a series of Federal Register notices, the
Agency announced its requests to OMB to renew its current extensions of
approvals for various information collection (paperwork) requirements
in its safety and health standards for general industry, shipyard
employment, longshoring, marine terminals, the construction industry,
and agriculture (i.e., 29 CFR parts 1910, 1915, 1917, 1918, 1926, and
1928); and for OSHA's Data Initiative. In these Federal Register
notices, the Agency provided 60-day comment periods for the public to
respond to OSHA's burden hour and cost estimates.
    In accordance with PRA-95 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), OMB renewed its
approval for these information collection requirements and assigned OMB
control numbers to these requirements. The table below provides the
following information for each of these OMB-approved requirements: The
title of the collection; the date of the Federal Register notice; the
Federal Register reference (date, volume, and leading page); OMB's
control number; and the new expiration date.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                   Date of Federal Register
                    Title                        publication, Federal Register      OMB control     Expiration
                                               reference, and OSHA docket number        No.            date
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Electrical Protective Equipment (29 CFR       09/14/2006, 71 FR 54309, Docket          1218-0190      02/28/2010
 1910.137), and Electric Power Generation,     No. 1218-0190 (2006).
 Transmission, and Distribution (29 CFR
 1910.269).
Ethylene Oxide (EtO) (29 CFR 1910.1047).....  10/16/2006, 71 FR 60769, Docket          1218-0108      02/28/2010
                                               No. 1218-0108 (2006).
4,4-Methylenedianiline Construction (29 CFR   08/16/2006, 71 FR 47253, Docket          1218-0183      02/28/2010
 1926.60).                                     No. 1218-0184 (2006).
4,4-Methylenedianiline General Industry (29   08/30/2006, 71 FR 51639, Docket          1218-0184      02/28/2010
 CFR 1910.1050).                               No. 1218-0184 (2006).
OSHA Data Initiative (ODI)..................  05/22/2006, 71 FR 29355, Docket          1218-0209      03/31/2010
                                               No. 1218-0209 (2006).
Walking--Working Surfaces Standard (29 CFR    09/14/2006, 71 FR 54311, Docket          1218-0199      02/28/2010
 part 1910, subpart D).                        No. 1218-0199 (2006).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In accordance with 5 CFR 1320.5(b), an agency cannot conduct,
sponsor, or require a response to a collection of information unless
the collection displays a valid OMB control number and the agency
informs respondents that they are not required to respond to the
collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB
control number.

Authority and Signature

    Edwin G. Foulke, Jr., Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational
Safety and Health, directed the preparation of this notice. The
authority for this notice is the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44
U.S.C. 3506 et seq.) and Secretary of Labor's Order No. 5-2002 (67 FR
65008).

    Signed at Washington, DC, on April 17, 2007.
Edwin G. Foulke, Jr.,
Assistant Secretary of Labor.
[FR Doc. E7-7728 Filed 4-23-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4510-26-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 221 (Tuesday, November 17, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 71843-71844]
[FR Doc No: 2015-29344]

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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Occupational Safety and Health Administration

[Docket No. OSHA-2007-0042]

TUV Rheinland of North America, Inc.: Grant of Expansion of
Recognition

AGENCY: Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), Labor.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: In this notice, OSHA announces its final decision to expand
the scope of recognition for TUV Rheinland of North America, Inc.
(TUVRNA), as a Nationally Recognized Testing Laboratory (NRTL).

DATES: The expansion of the scope of recognition becomes effective on
November 17, 2015.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Information regarding this notice is
available from the following sources:
    Press inquiries: Contact Mr. Frank Meilinger, Director, OSHA Office
of Communications, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue
NW., Room N-3647, Washington, DC 20210; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>;
email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    General and technical information: Contact Kevin Robinson,
Director, Office of Technical Programs and Coordination Activities,
Directorate of Technical Support and Emergency Management, Occupational
Safety and Health Administration, U.S. Department of Labor, 200
Constitution Avenue NW., Room N-3655, Washington, DC 20210; telephone:
(202) 693-2110; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>OSHA's Web page includes
information about the NRTL Program (see http://www.osha.gov/dts/otpca/nrtl/index.html).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Notice of Final Decision

    OSHA hereby gives notice of the expansion of the scope of
recognition of TUV Rheinland of North America, Inc. (TUVRNA), as an
NRTL. TUVRNA's expansion covers the addition of one recognized testing
and certification site to their NRTL scope of recognition.
    OSHA recognition of an NRTL signifies that the organization meets
the requirements in Section 1910.7 of Title 29, Code of Federal
Regulations (29 CFR 1910.7). Recognition is an acknowledgment that the
organization can perform independent safety testing and certification
of the specific products covered within its scope of recognition and is
not a delegation or grant of government authority. As a result of
recognition, employers may use products properly approved by the NRTL
to meet OSHA standards that require testing and certification.
    The Agency processes applications by an NRTL for initial
recognition, or for expansion or renewal of this recognition, following
requirements in Appendix A to 29 CFR 1910.7. This appendix requires
that the Agency publish two notices in the Federal Register in
processing an application. In

the first notice, OSHA announces the application and provides its
preliminary finding and, in the second notice, the Agency provides its
final decision on the application. These notices set forth the NRTL's
scope of recognition or modifications of that scope. OSHA maintains an
informational Web page for each NRTL that details its scope of
recognition. These pages are available from the Agency's Web site at
http://www.osha.gov/dts/otpca/nrtl/index.html.
    TUVRNA submitted an application, dated January 9, 2015 (OSHA-2007-
0042-0013), to expand its recognition to include the addition of one
recognized testing and certification sites located at: TUV Rheinland of
North America, Inc. 1279 Quarry Lane, Pleasanton, CA 94566. OSHA staff
performed a detailed analysis of the application and other pertinent
information. OSHA staff also performed an on-site review of TUVRNA's
Pleasanton, CA testing and certification facility on March 17, 2015,
and recommended expansion of TUVRNA's recognition to include this one
site.
    OSHA published the preliminary notice announcing TUVRNA's expansion
application in the Federal Register on August 10, 2015 (80 FR 47953).
The Agency requested comments by August 25, 2015, but it received no
comments in response to this notice. OSHA now is proceeding with this
final notice to grant expansion of TUVRNA's scope of recognition.
    To obtain or review copies of all public documents pertaining to
the TUVRNA's application, go to www.regulations.gov or contact the
Docket Office, Occupational Safety and Health Administration, U.S.
Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue NW., Room N-2625,
Washington, DC 20210. Docket No. OSHA-2007-0042 contains all materials
in the record concerning TUVRNA's recognition.

II. Final Decision and Order

    OSHA staff examined TUVRNA's expansion application, conducted a
detailed on-site assessment, and examined other pertinent information.
Based on its review of this evidence, OSHA finds that TUVRNA meets the
requirements of 29 CFR 1910.7 for expansion of its recognition, subject
to the limitation and conditions listed below. OSHA, therefore, is
proceeding with this final notice to grant TUVRNA's scope of
recognition. OSHA limits the expansion of TUVRNA's recognition to
include the site at TUV Rheinland of North America, Inc., 1279 Quarry
Lane, Pleasanton, CA 94566 as listed above. OSHA's recognition of this
site limits TUVRNA to performing product testing and certifications
only to the test standards for which the site has the proper capability
and programs, and for test standards in TUVRNA's scope of recognition.
This limitation is consistent with the recognition that OSHA grants to
other NRTLs that operate multiple sites.

A. Conditions

    In addition to those conditions already required by 29 CFR 1910.7,
TUVRNA also must abide by the following conditions of the recognition:
    1. TUVRNA must inform OSHA as soon as possible, in writing, of any
change of ownership, facilities, or key personnel, and of any major
change in its operations as an NRTL, and provide details of the
change(s);
    2. TUVRNA must meet all the terms of its recognition and comply
with all OSHA policies pertaining to this recognition; and
    3. TUVRNA must continue to meet the requirements for recognition,
including all previously published conditions on TUVRNA's scope of
recognition, in all areas for which it has recognition.
    Pursuant to the authority in 29 CFR 1910.7, OSHA hereby expands the
recognition of TUVRNA, subject to these limitations and conditions
specified above.
Authority and Signature
    David Michaels, Ph.D., MPH, Assistant Secretary of Labor for
Occupational Safety and Health, 200 Constitution Avenue NW.,
Washington, DC 20210, authorized the preparation of this notice.
Accordingly, the Agency is issuing this notice pursuant to 29 U.S.C.
657(g)(2), Secretary of Labor's Order No. 1-2012 (77 FR 3912, Jan. 25,
2012), and 29 CFR 1910.7.

    Signed at Washington, DC, on November 12, 2015.
David Michaels,
Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health.
[FR Doc. 2015-29344 Filed 11-16-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-26-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 197 (Friday, October 13, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Page 47733]
[FR Doc No: 2017-22102]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2017-0451; FRL-9966-72]

Disapproval of Pesticide Product Registrations for Special Local
Needs

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: As provided under Section 24(c) of the Federal Insecticide,
Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), State-designated lead agencies
may register pesticides, within their respective States, to meet
special local needs. EPA's regulations require the State lead agencies
to notify EPA of such special local need registrations. EPA may
disapprove any such State registration. EPA's regulations require that
notice of these actions be published in the Federal Register; this
notice identifies special local need registrations which were
disapproved by EPA on July 3, 2017.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michael L. Goodis, Registration
Division (7505P), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental
Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-
0001; main telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email address:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. Does this action apply to me?

    You may be potentially affected by this action if you are an
agricultural producer, food manufacturer, or pesticide manufacturer.
The following list of North American Industrial Classification System
(NAICS) codes is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a
guide to help readers determine whether this document applies to them.
Potentially affected entities may include:
    [emsp14]Crop production (NAICS code 111).
    [emsp14]Animal production (NAICS code 112).
    [emsp14]Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311).
    [emsp14]Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532).

B. How can I get copies of this document and other related information?

    The docket for this action, identified by docket identification
(ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2017-0451, is available at http://www.regulations.gov or at the OPP Docket in the Environmental
Protection Agency Docket Center (EPA/DC), West William Jefferson
Clinton Bldg., Rm. 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC
20460-0001. The Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30
p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone
number for the Public Reading Room is<PHONE_NUMBER>, and the telephone
number for the OPP Docket is<PHONE_NUMBER>. Please review the visitor
instructions and additional information about the docket available at
http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

II. Background

    Section 24(c) of FIFRA (7 U.S.C. 136v(c)) authorizes States to
register ``additional uses of federally registered pesticides to meet
special local needs.'' Pursuant to FIFRA section 24(c), EPA's
regulations at 40 CFR 162.153(h) require States to notify EPA of such
special local need registrations. EPA's regulations pertaining to such
special local need registrations state that ``the Administrator may
disapprove, on any reasonable grounds, any state registration which,
when compared to a federally registered product, does not have . . . a
similar use pattern. . . .'' 40 CFR 162.154(a)(1). The regulations
define ``similar use pattern'' to mean ``a use of a pesticide . . .
which is (among other things) substantially the same as the federally
registered use.'' 40 CFR 162.151.

III. Disapprovals of Special Local Need Registrations

    On July 3, 2017, EPA disapproved special local need registrations
from the Nevada Department of Agriculture, for use on cannabis grown in
Nevada, to control various insect pests, mites, and plant diseases, as
follows:
    1. EPA SLN No. NV170003--General Hydroponics Prevasyn (EPA Reg. No.
91865-1); containing Capsicum oleoresin extract, garlic oil, & soybean
oil.
    2. EPA SLN No. NV170004--General Hydroponics Exile (EPA Reg. No.
91865-2); containing potassium salts of fatty acids.
    3. EPA SLN No. NV170005--General Hydroponics Defguard (EPA Reg. No.
91865-3); containing Bacillus amyloliquefaciens strain D747.
    4. EPA SLN No. NV170006--General Hydroponics; Azamax (EPA Reg. No.
91865-4); containing azadirachtin.
    Additional information may be found in the docket for this action,
docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2017-0451, available at http://www.regulations.gov or at the OPP Docket in the Environmental
Protection Agency Docket Center. Details on accessing the docket are
given in Unit I.B. of this document.

    Authority: 7 U.S.C. 136 et seq.

    Dated: September 14, 2017.
Michael L. Goodis,
Director, Registration Division, Office of Pesticide Programs.
[FR Doc. 2017-22102 Filed 10-12-17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


Farm ID # _______________

Methyl Bromide Critical Use Exemption Enterprise Budget Work Sheets Alternatives Tomatoes  Dade County  Single Crop Yield Cartons Per Acre IFAS Average 1,260 Farm Information Cost Information IFAS Farm Information Acre Carton Acre Carton Pre Harvest Production Costs:

Fertilizer 333.50 Fumigant 627.00 Crop Protection Materials 830.84 Transplants/ Seeds 201.70 Stakes 128.00 Plastic String 82.50 Plastic Mulch/ Irrigation Tubing 294.00 Frost Protection 100.00 Machinery: Irrigation 328.64 Non irrigation 304.68 Plastic Mulch/ Drip Tape Disposal 75.00 Scounting 35.00 Labor Costs: Tractor Drivers 130.00 Direct Labor 525.08 Miscellaneous 35.00 Interest 213.31 Fixed Costs: Land Cost 420.00 Supervision 869.39 Overhead 1,086.73 Total Pre Harvest Production Costs: 6,620.37 $ 5.25 $  $ # DIV/ 0!

Harvesting 1,190.00 $ 0.94 $ # DIV/ 0!

Packing, Selling & Related Overhead 3,556.00 $ 2.82 $ # DIV/ 0!

TOTAL COST: 11,366.37 $ 9.02 $  $ # DIV/ 0! Farming Costs:

dwcgi 15181 1081176034 365631000. xls August 3, 2003


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 21 (Wednesday, January 31, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 4489-4490]
[FR Doc No: 2018-01920]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2016-E-1245]

Determination of Regulatory Review Period for Purposes of Patent
Extension; LENVIMA

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or the Agency) has
determined the regulatory review period for LENVIMA and is publishing
this notice of that determination as required by law. FDA has made the
determination because of the submission of an application to the
Director of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), Department of
Commerce, for the extension of a patent which claims that human drug
product.

DATES: Anyone with knowledge that any of the dates as published (in the
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section) are incorrect may submit either
electronic or written comments and ask for a redetermination by April
2, 2018. Furthermore, any interested person may petition FDA for a
determination regarding whether the applicant for extension acted with
due diligence during the regulatory review period by July 30, 2018. See
``Petitions'' in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for more
information.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments as follows. Please note that late,
untimely filed comments will not be considered. Electronic comments
must be submitted on or before April 2, 2018. The https://www.regulations.gov electronic filing system will accept comments until
midnight Eastern Time at the end of April 2, 2018. Comments received by
mail/hand delivery/courier (for written/paper submissions) will be
considered timely if they are postmarked or the delivery service
acceptance receipt is on or before that date.

Electronic Submissions

    Submit electronic comments in the following way:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the instructions for submitting comments. Comments submitted
electronically, including attachments, to https://www.regulations.gov
will be posted to the docket unchanged. Because your comment will be
made public, you are solely responsible for ensuring that your comment
does not include any confidential information that you or a third party
may not wish to be posted, such as medical information, your or anyone
else's Social Security number, or confidential business information,
such as a manufacturing process. Please note that if you include your
name, contact information, or other information that identifies you in
the body of your comments, that information will be posted on https://www.regulations.gov.
     If you want to submit a comment with confidential
information that you do not wish to be made available to the public,
submit the comment as a written/paper submission and in the manner
detailed (see ``Written/Paper Submissions'' and ``Instructions'').

Written/Paper Submissions

    Submit written/paper submissions as follows:
     Mail/Hand delivery/Courier (for written/paper
submissions): Dockets Management Staff (HFA-305), Food and Drug
Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.
     For written/paper comments submitted to the Dockets
Management Staff, FDA will post your comment, as well as any
attachments, except for information submitted, marked and identified,
as confidential, if submitted as detailed in ``Instructions.''
    Instructions: All submissions received must include the Docket No.
FDA-2016-E-1245 for ''Determination of Regulatory Review Period for
Purposes of Patent Extension; LENVIMA.'' Received comments, those filed
in a timely manner (see ADDRESSES), will be placed in the docket and,
except for those submitted as ``Confidential Submissions,'' publicly
viewable at https://www.regulations.gov or at the Dockets Management
Staff between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday.
     Confidential Submissions--To submit a comment with
confidential information that you do not wish to be made publicly
available, submit your comments only as a written/paper submission. You
should submit two copies total. One copy will include the information
you claim to be confidential with a heading or cover note that states
``THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION.'' The Agency will
review this copy, including the claimed confidential information, in
its consideration of comments. The second copy, which will have the
claimed confidential information redacted/blacked out, will be
available for public viewing and posted on https://www.regulations.gov.
Submit

both copies to the Dockets Management Staff. If you do not wish your
name and contact information to be made publicly available, you can
provide this information on the cover sheet and not in the body of your
comments and you must identify this information as ``confidential.''
Any information marked as ``confidential'' will not be disclosed except
in accordance with Sec.  10.20 (21 CFR 10.20) and other applicable
disclosure law. For more information about FDA's posting of comments to
public dockets, see 80 FR 56469, September 18, 2015, or access the
information at: https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2015-09-18/pdf/2015-23389.pdf.
    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or
the electronic and written/paper comments received, go to https://www.regulations.gov and insert the docket number, found in brackets in
the heading of this document, into the ``Search'' box and follow the
prompts and/or go to the Dockets Management Staff, 5630 Fishers Lane,
Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Beverly Friedman, Office of Regulatory
Policy, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg.
51, Rm. 6250, Silver Spring, MD 20993,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    The Drug Price Competition and Patent Term Restoration Act of 1984
(Pub. L. 98-417) and the Generic Animal Drug and Patent Term
Restoration Act (Pub. L. 100-670) generally provide that a patent may
be extended for a period of up to 5 years so long as the patented item
(human drug product, animal drug product, medical device, food
additive, or color additive) was subject to regulatory review by FDA
before the item was marketed. Under these acts, a product's regulatory
review period forms the basis for determining the amount of extension
an applicant may receive.
    A regulatory review period consists of two periods of time: A
testing phase and an approval phase. For human drug products, the
testing phase begins when the exemption to permit the clinical
investigations of the drug becomes effective and runs until the
approval phase begins. The approval phase starts with the initial
submission of an application to market the human drug product and
continues until FDA grants permission to market the drug product.
Although only a portion of a regulatory review period may count toward
the actual amount of extension that the Director of USPTO may award
(for example, half the testing phase must be subtracted as well as any
time that may have occurred before the patent was issued), FDA's
determination of the length of a regulatory review period for a human
drug product will include all of the testing phase and approval phase
as specified in 35 U.S.C. 156(g)(1)(B).
    FDA has approved for marketing the human drug product LENVIMA
(lenvatinib mesylate). LENVIMA is indicated for treatment of patients
with locally recurrent or metastatic, progressive, radioactive iodine-
refractory differentiated thyroid cancer. Subsequent to this approval,
the USPTO received a patent term restoration application for LENVIMA
(U.S. Patent No. 7,253,286) from EISAI R&D Management Co., Ltd., and
the USPTO requested FDA's assistance in determining this patent's
eligibility for patent term restoration. In a letter dated July 12,
2016, FDA advised the USPTO that this human drug product had undergone
a regulatory review period and that the approval of LENVIMA represented
the first permitted commercial marketing or use of the product.
Thereafter, the USPTO requested that FDA determine the product's
regulatory review period.

II. Determination of Regulatory Review Period

    FDA has determined that the applicable regulatory review period for
LENVIMA is 3,580 days. Of this time, 3,396 days occurred during the
testing phase of the regulatory review period, while 184 days occurred
during the approval phase. These periods of time were derived from the
following dates:
    1. The date an exemption under section 505(i) of the Federal Food,
Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the FD&C Act) (21 U.S.C. 355(i)) became
effective: April 28, 2005. FDA has verified the applicant's claim that
April 28, 2005, is the date the investigational new drug application
(IND) became effective.
    2. The date the application was initially submitted with respect to
the human drug product under section 505(b) of the FD&C Act: August 14,
2014. FDA has verified the applicant's claim that the new drug
application (NDA) for LENVIMA (NDA 206947) was initially submitted on
August 14, 2014.
    3. The date the application was approved: February 13, 2015. FDA
has verified the applicant's claim that NDA 206947 was approved on
February 13, 2015.
    This determination of the regulatory review period establishes the
maximum potential length of a patent extension. However, the USPTO
applies several statutory limitations in its calculations of the actual
period for patent extension. In its application for patent extension,
this applicant seeks 1,465 days of patent term extension.

III. Petitions

    Anyone with knowledge that any of the dates as published are
incorrect may submit either electronic or written comments and, under
21 CFR 60.24, ask for a redetermination (see DATES). Furthermore, as
specified in Sec.  60.30 (21 CFR 60.30), any interested person may
petition FDA for a determination regarding whether the applicant for
extension acted with due diligence during the regulatory review period.
To meet its burden, the petition must comply with all the requirements
of Sec.  60.30, including but not limited to: must be timely (see
DATES), must be filed in accordance with Sec.  10.20, must contain
sufficient facts to merit an FDA investigation, and must certify that a
true and complete copy of the petition has been served upon the patent
applicant. (See H. Rept. 857, part 1, 98th Cong., 2d sess., pp. 41-42,
1984.) Petitions should be in the format specified in 21 CFR 10.30.
    Submit petitions electronically to https://www.regulations.gov at
Docket No. FDA-2013-S-0610. Submit written petitions (two copies are
required) to the Dockets Management Staff (HFA-305), Food and Drug
Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.

    Dated: January 24, 2018.
Leslie Kux,
Associate Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2018-01920 Filed 1-30-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4164-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 224 (Tuesday, November 20, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 69617-69618]
[FR Doc No: 2012-28125]

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

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:

Filings Instituting Proceedings

    Docket Numbers: RP12-91-000.
    Applicants: Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Company.
    Description: 2012 Penalty Sharing Report.
    Filed Date: 11/9/12.
    Accession Number: 20121109-5043.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/21/12.

    Docket Numbers: RP13-268-000.
    Applicants: Natural Gas Pipeline Company of America.
    Description: Amendment Filing--Tenaska Negotiated Rate Agreement to
be effective 11/9/2012.
    Filed Date: 11/9/12.
    Accession Number: 20121109-5073.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/21/12.

    Docket Numbers: RP13-269-000.
    Applicants: Natural Gas Pipeline Company of America.
    Description: Amendment Filing--Tenaska Negotiated Rate Agreement to
be effective 11/9/2012.
    Filed Date: 11/9/12.
    Accession Number: 20121109-5075.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/21/12.

    Docket Numbers: RP13-270-000.
    Applicants: Midwestern Gas Transmission Company.
    Description: Non-Conforming Agreement--Total to be effective 11/1/
2012.
    Filed Date: 11/9/12.
    Accession Number: 20121109-5122.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/21/12.

    Docket Numbers: RP13-271-000.
    Applicants: Granite State Gas Transmission, Inc.
    Description: Sixth Revised Volume 1 to be effective 12/10/2012.
    Filed Date: 11/9/12.
    Accession Number: 20121109-5175.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/21/12.

    Docket Numbers: RP13-272-000.
    Applicants: Southern Natural Gas Company, L.L.C.
    Description: Gas Quality Correction to be effective 11/1/2012.
    Filed Date: 11/9/12.
    Accession Number: 20121109-5177.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/21/12.

    Docket Numbers: RP13-273-000.
    Applicants: Southern Natural Gas Company, L.L.C.
    Description: South of Toca Facilities Sale to be effective 11/1/
2012.
    Filed Date: 11/9/12.
    Accession Number: 20121109-5178.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/21/12.

    Docket Numbers: RP13-274-000.
    Applicants: Gulf Crossing Pipeline Company LLC.
    Description: Amendment to Neg Rate Agmt (JP Morgan 156-3) to be
effective 11/10/2012.
    Filed Date: 11/13/12.
    Accession Number: 20121113-5017.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/26/12.

    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.

Filings in Existing Proceedings

    Docket Numbers: RP12-1121-002.
    Applicants: Portland General Electric Company.
    Description: Order 587-V Compliance Filing Second Corrected Section
25 to be effective 12/1/2012.
    Filed Date: 11/9/12.
    Accession Number: 20121109-5085.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/16/12.

    Any person desiring to protest in any the above proceedings must
file in accordance with Rule 211 of the Commission's Regulations (18
CFR Sec.  385.211) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified
comment date.
    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by
clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
    eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing
requirements, interventions, protests, and service 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 (202) 502-
8659.

    Dated: November 13, 2012.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-28125 Filed 11-19-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: September 5, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 173)]
[Notices]
[Page 51807-51809]
[DOCID:fr05se08-41]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-RCRA-2008-0548; FRL-8711-9]

Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed Collection;
Comment Request; Criteria for Classification of Solid Waste Disposal
Facilities and Practices, Recordkeeping and Reporting Requirements--40
CFR Part 257, Subpart B, EPA ICR Number 1745.06, OMB Control Number
2050-0154

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) (44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), this document announces that EPA is planning to
submit a request to renew an existing approvedInformation Collection
Request (ICR) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). This ICR is
scheduled to expire on January 31, 2009. Before submitting the ICR to
OMB for review and approval, EPA is soliciting comments on specific
aspects of the proposed information collection as described below.

DATES: Comments must be submitted on or before November 4, 2008.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-
RCRA-2008-0548, by one of the following methods:
     www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions for
submitting comments.
     E-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: RCRA Docket (2822T), U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460.
     Hand Delivery: 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Room 3334,
Washington, DC 20460. Such deliveries are only accepted during the
Docket's normal hours of operation, and special arrangements should be
made for deliveries of boxed information.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-RCRA-
2008-0548. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included
in the public docket without change and may be made available online at
www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided,
unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential
Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you consider to
be CBI or otherwise protected through www.regulations.gov or e-mail.
The www.regulations.gov Web site is an ``anonymous access'' system,
which means EPA will not know your identity or contact information
unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an e-
mail comment directly to EPA without going through www.regulations.gov
your e-mail address will be automatically captured and included as part
of the comment that is placed in the public docket and made available
on the Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends
that you include your name and other contact information in the body of
your comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read
your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for
clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic
files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of
encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses. For additional
information about EPA's public docket visit the EPA Docket Center
homepage at http://www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Craig Dufficy, Office of Solid Waste,
(mail code 5306P), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1200
Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone number: 703-
308-9037; fax number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail address:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

How Can I Access the Docket and/or Submit Comments?

    EPA has established a public docket for this ICR under Docket ID
No. EPA-HQ-RCRA-2008-0548, which is available for online viewing at
www.regulations.gov, or in person viewing at the RCRA Docket in the EPA
Docket Center (EPA/DC), EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave.,
NW., Washington, DC. The EPA/DC Public Reading Room is open from 8 a.m.
to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The
telephone number for the Reading Room is<PHONE_NUMBER>, and the
telephone number for the RCRA Docket is<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Use www.regulations.gov to obtain a copy of the draft collection of
information, submit or view public comments, access the index listing
of the contents of the docket, and to access those documents in the
public docket that are available electronically. Once in the system,
select ``search,'' then key in the docket ID number identified in this
document.

What Information Is EPA Particularly Interested in?

    Pursuant to section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA, EPA specifically
solicits comments and information to enable it to:
    (i) Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is
necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Agency,
including whether the information will have practical utility;
    (ii) Evaluate the accuracy of the Agency's estimate of the burden
of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of
the methodology and assumptions used;
    (iii) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information
to be collected; and
    (iv) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those
who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated
electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or
other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic
submission of responses. In particular, EPA is requesting comments from
very small businesses (those that employ less than 25) on examples of
specific additional efforts that EPA could make to reduce the paperwork
burden for very small businesses affected by this collection.

What Should I Consider When I Prepare My Comments for EPA?

    You may find the following suggestions helpful for preparing your
comments:
    1. Explain your views as clearly as possible and provide specific
examples.
    2. Describe any assumptions that you used.
    3. Provide copies of any technical information and/or data you used
that support your views.
    4. If you estimate potential burden or costs, explain how you
arrived at the estimate that you provide.
    5. Offer alternative ways to improve the collection activity.
    6. Make sure to submit your comments by the deadline identified
under DATES.
    7. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, be sure to identify the docket
ID number assigned to this action in the subject line on the first page
of your response. You may also provide the name, date, and Federal
Register citation.

What Information Collection Activity or ICR Does This Apply to?

    Affected entities: EPA assumes that industrial waste units that
previously co-disposed non-hazardous wastes and conditionally exempt
small quantity generator (CESQG) hazardous waste on-site have ceased
that practice and that commercial off-site industrial waste units are
operating with stringent environmental controls in place. Therefore,
entities that potentially will be affected by this action are limited
to those that dispose of CESQG hazardous wastes in construction and
demolition (C&D) waste landfills.
    Title: Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed
Collection; Comment Request; Criteria for Classification of Solid Waste
Disposal Facilities and Practices, Recordkeeping andReporting
Requirements--40 CFR Part 257, Subpart B.
    ICR numbers: EPA ICR No. 1745.06, OMB Control No. 2050-0154.
    ICR status: This ICR is currently scheduled to expire on January
31, 2009. An Agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not
required to respond to, a collection of information, unless it displays
a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's
regulations in title 40 of the CFR, after appearing in the Federal
Register when approved, are listed in 40 CFR part 9, are displayed
either by publication in the Federal Register or by other appropriate
means, such as on the related collection instrument or form, if
applicable. The display of OMB control numbers in certain EPA
regulations is consolidated in 40 CFR part 9.
    Abstract: In order to effectively implement and enforce final
changes to 40 CFR Part 257--Subpart B on a State level, owners/
operators of construction and demolition waste landfills that receive
CESQG hazardous wastes will have to comply with the final reporting and
recordkeeping requirements. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a
person is not required to respond to, a collection of information
unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB
control number for EPA's regulations are listed in 40 CFR part 9 and 48
CFR chapter 15. This continuing ICR documents the recordkeeping and
reporting burdens associated with the location and ground-water
monitoring provisions contained in 40 CFR Part 257--Subpart B.
    The EPA would like to solicit comments to:
    (i) Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is
necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Agency,
including whether the information will have practical utility;
    (ii) Evaluate the accuracy of the Agency's estimate of the burden
of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of
the methodology and assumptions used;
    (iii) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information
to be collected; and
    (iv) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those
who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated
electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or
other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic
submission of responses.
    Burden Statement: Burden means the total time, effort, or financial
resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or
disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency. This
includes the time needed to review instructions; develop, acquire,
install, and utilize technology and systems for the purposes of
collecting, validating, and verifying information, processing and
maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information;
adjust the existing ways to comply with any previously applicable
instructions and requirements; train personnel to be able to respond to
a collection of information; search data sources; complete and review
the collection of information; and transmit or otherwise disclose the
information. Burden for this collection of information is estimated to
average 74 hours per response.

    The ICR provides a detailed explanation of the Agency's estimate,
which is only briefly summarized here:
    Estimated Number of Respondents: 183.
    Frequency of Response: On occasion.
    Estimated Total Annual Hour Burden: 13,581 hours.
    Estimated Total Annualized Capital, O&M Cost Burden: $938.

Send comments on the Agency's need for this information, the accuracy
of the provided burden estimates, and any suggested methods for
minimizing respondent burden, including through the use of automated
collection techniques to the addresses listed above. Please refer to
EPA ICR No. 1745.06 and OMB Control No. 2050-0154 in any
correspondence.

What Is the Next Step in the Process for This ICR?

    EPA will consider the comments received and amend the ICR as
appropriate. The final ICR package will then be submitted to OMB for
review and approval pursuant to 5 CFR 1320.12. At that time, EPA will
issue another Federal Register notice pursuant to 5 CFR
1320.5(a)(1)(iv) to announce the submission of the ICR to OMB and the
opportunity to submit additional comments to OMB. If you have any
questions about this ICR or the approval process, please contact the
technical person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

    Dated: August 18, 2008.
Maria P. Vickers,
Acting Director, Office of Solid Waste.
[FR Doc. E8-20595 Filed 9-4-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register: July 9, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 130)]
[Notices]
[Page 37284-37285]
[DOCID:fr09jy07-124]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-55994; File No. SR-ISE-2007-37]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; International Securities Exchange,
LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule
Change as Modified by Amendment No. 1 Thereto Relating to Cancellation
Fees

June 29, 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 June 1, 2007, the International Securities Exchange, LLC (the
``ISE'' or the ``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission (``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in
Items I and II below, which Items have been substantially prepared by
the ISE. On June 20, 2007, the ISE filed Amendment No. 1 to the
proposed rule change. The ISE has filed the proposed rule change as one
establishing or changing a due, fee, or other charge imposed by the
Exchange under Section 19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act \3\ and Rule 19b-
4(f)(2) thereunder,\4\ which renders the proposal effective upon filing
with the Commission. The Commission is publishing this notice to
solicit comments on the proposed rule change, as amended, from
interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii).
    \4\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The ISE is proposing to amend its Schedule of Fees regarding its
cancellation fee. The text of the proposed rule change is available at
ISE, the Commission's Public Reference Room, and http://www.iseoptions.com
.

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

    In its filing with the Commission, the ISE 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 ISE 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 this proposed rule change is to amend the ISE's
cancellation fee. The Exchange currently has a cancellation fee of
$1.50 that applies to Electronic Access Members (``EAMs'') that
cancelled at least 500 orders in a month, for each order cancellation
in excess of the total number of orders such member or an introducing
broker executed that month. Further, all orders from the same clearing
EAM for itself or an introducing broker, executed in the same series on
the same side of the market at the same price within a 30 second
period, are aggregated and counted as one executed order for purposes
of this fee. The Exchange adopted this fee to recover the costs
associated with processing multiple cancellations. The Exchange now
proposes to exclude broker-dealer orders, including non-member market
maker (FARMM) orders, from this fee by charging this fee for public
customer orders only. Non-customers already pay transaction fees, which
helps address cancellation costs, while the ISE currently excludes most
public customer orders from transaction fees.
2. Statutory Basis
    The basis under the Act for this proposed rule change is the
requirement under Section 6(b)(4) that an exchange have an equitable
allocation of reasonable dues, fees, and other charges among its
members and other persons using its facilities.

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

    The proposed rule change does not 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 not solicited, and does not intend to solicit,
comments on this proposed rule change. The Exchange has not received
any unsolicited written comments from members or other interested
parties.

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

    Because the foregoing proposed rule change establishes or changes a
due, fee, or other charged imposed by the Exchange, it has become
effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \5\ and Rule 19b-
4(f)(2) \6\ thereunder. At any time within 60 days of the filing of the
proposed rule change the Commission may summarily abrogate such
proposed 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.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \6\ 17 CFR 19b-4(f)(2).
    \7\ For purposes of calculating the 60-day abrogation period,
the Commission considers the period to commence on June 20, 2007,
the date on which the Exchange filed Amendment No. 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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-ISE-2007-37 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

     Send paper comments in triplicate to Nancy M. Morris,
Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20549-1090.
    All submissions should refer to File Number SR-ISE-2007-37. 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 ISE. 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-ISE-2007-37 and should be submitted on or before July 30, 2007.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation,
pursuant to delegated authority.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. E7-13158 Filed 7-6-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010-01-P