but possible explanations include: 1) the respondents misunderstood the survey ( for example, the survey respondents may have been unaware, despite the instructions, that the survey applied to a single chemical, not to all chemicals produced at a site), 2) EPA's contractor erred, despite strict quality control measures, in reporting survey responses. In neither of these cases is it appropriate for EPA to include such responses. Page 147 of 159 Comment G. 1 8: EPA's proposal assumes that the current IUR reporting requirements of 11 items of information per reportable CASRN will explode to more than 200 information items per CASRN under the amended rule. However, the current IUR requires a separate " line item" or report for each manufacturing activity, non site limited volume, and import volume. Thus, IURA would result in over 600 information items potentially being reported, compared to 33 information items under the current rule.

Source: C1 016, C1 026, C1 055 Response G. 1 8: EPA is amending the IUR to provide an accurate and readily available source of basic exposure related information. Industry's reporting burden has been limited as much as possible while providing EPA with information necessary to screen for risks to human health and the environment. The maximum number of data elements that could possibly be filled in on the revised Form U for an IUR chemical is roughly 233, 111 of which are simply check boxes for claiming CBI. The vast majority of reports will contain far less than the maximum number of data elements.

2. Cost comments Comment G. 2 1: Compliance costs for chemicals manufactured in amounts below the 25,000 lb./ yr. production volume threshold are not zero. One commenter writes: " as production approaches the threshold, tracking costs will accrue because there often is no way of ascertaining a priori whether production will exceed the threshold. This position is verified on page III 11 [ of the Economic Analysis for the proposed rule] with the acknowledgment in the footnote of the existence of voluntary below threshold reports."

Source: C1 016, C1 073 Response G. 2 1: Compliance determination ( the act of determining the need to comply with a regulation) occurs on a per site basis, so that the economic analysis assumes all sites that report to the IUR incur the same average cost for determining compliance, regardless of the number of chemicals reported. Some small number of firms that are not required to report to IUR may incur some negligible costs in this regard, but EPA does not believe the costs to be significant as compliance determination is based on production volume, particularly given that it is generally Page 148 of 159 standard procedure for a business to be aware of the volumes it produces. The existence of voluntary reporters does not imply that below threshold compliance costs are non zero; it simply indicates that some firms have chosen to respond to the IUR when not required. EPA has no basis for including costs beyond the requirements of the rule. Additionally, whereas in the past EPA required companies to retain records forming the basis for their decision not to report in a given year, the IURA does not include this recordkeeping requirement for non submitters.

Comment G. 2 2: Burden estimates for collecting or estimating downstream processing and use data were too low.

Source: C1 003, C1 011, C1 019, C1 021, C1 027, C1 028, C1 031, C1 037, C1 073 Response G. 2 2: EPA disagrees that its burden estimates for providing downstream processing and use data were too low. EPA surveyed industry respondents to determine burden estimates for downstream processing and use data, which total 79 to 86 hours per report. It is EPA's expectation that the companies that will file IUR reports can fairly estimate the burdens involved. The methodology used by EPA is explained in greater detail in the EA for the final rule,

and the actual survey submissions are in the public version of the official record for this rulemaking.

There are two important factors to note in interpreting the burden estimates supplied in response to the burden survey. First, IURA requires that industry report only " readily obtainable"

downstream processing and use information; this information standard was considered after the burden survey was executed. Thus, the survey respondents were reporting burden estimates for a higher standard of information. Second, the UEIP program, which asked respondents to report chemical information very similar to that required by IURA, also asked respondents to report the time spent filling out the UEIP form; companies reported a median burden per chemical report of 8 hours, with a mean of 12 hours. No commenters provided specific analysis as to how EPA has underestimated the burden of providing processing and use data, and none provided any basis for an alternative estimate. Therefore, EPA has concluded that its estimates are reasonable.

Comment G. 2 3: Commenters asserted that EPA would be unlikely to make timely use of the volumes of processing and use data that would have to be reported and collected every four years under the rule as proposed. Commenters pointed out that EPA projects its costs under the reporting program would only be $ 525,000 in the first reporting year and $ 275,000 in subsequent Page 149 of 159 reporting years, which indicates to them that EPA is not setting aside sufficient funds to allow for timely use of IURA data.

Source: C1 016, C1 055 Response G. 2 3: IURA data will be able to be used in a timely manner. The data will be in a database, which will be readily searchable or downloadable to other programs. EPA use of the data gathered via the IURA is not specifically part of the rulemaking and therefore costs associated with these efforts are not included in the economic analysis for the proposed rule.

EPA's need for, and expected use of, the IURA data are documented in the economic analysis, but the costs indicated by the commenter are solely for data collection and management activities as indicated in Section 4 of the EA. Costs arising from use of data are not included in economic analyses, as it is among the Agency's primary functions to use available data in the course of fulfilling its mission. And it is important to note that IUR data are currently used on a daily basis within the Agency, and provide critical information to a wide variety of programs. Thus, a separate budget line item for IUR data use would fail to characterize the broad range of situations in which IUR data are, and will continue to be, crucial to EPA's mission. The IURA data may in fact save the Agency resources, because the reported data will decrease the time and effort required to estimate chemical use and exposure. The IURA data will increase the quality of data available to EPA, improving the Agency's ability to make optimal decisions and thus saving resources.

Comment G. 2 4: EPA projects in its Economic Analysis of the proposed rule that raising the 10,000 lbs./ yr reporting threshold to 25,000 lbs./ yr will eliminate roughly 3,800 reports for 1,535 chemicals at a savings of $ 21.3 to $ 25.8 million in the first year alone. One commenter doubts that these savings will be realized. The commenter could not identify a single instance where the increase in the reporting threshold to 25,000 lbs would eliminate the need to prepare a TSCA IUR report. However, they suggested that perhaps their industry ( forest products) is unique in that few, if any, companies will benefit from the increase in the reporting threshold.

Source: C1 011 Response G. 2 4: EPA received roughly 3,800 IUR reports in 1994 for chemicals produced in quantities between 10,000 and 25,000 pounds per site. In 1998 IUR data, which was Page 150 of 159 unavailable for the proposed rule but was used in the EA for the final rule, the number of organic chemicals produced in volumes between 10,000 and 25,000 pounds was roughly 3,100. Under the rule as finalized, reports of this sort will not have to be filed, generating savings similar to those indicated by the commenter. EPA cannot comment specifically on forest product companies.

Comment G. 2 5: One commenter indicated that the Economic Analysis does not explain why EPA expects to save $ 21.3 to $ 25.8 million in the first reporting cycle from raising the 10,000 lbs. reporting threshold to 25,000 lbs., but the Agency projects industry to only incur a cost of $ 5.1 to $ 8.5 million in the first reporting cycle by removing the inorganic exemption. In the EA, EPA anticipates that industry will actually end up submitting 4,500 new reports to address inorganics while subtracting only an estimated 3,800 reports for raising the reporting threshold. In short, EPA is claiming that industry " saves" $ 6,789 per report on the one hand ( i. e.,

by raising the threshold), but on the other hand it only " costs" $ 1,888 to prepare a TSCA report for an inorganic chemical. It appears to the commenter that the agency is either overstating its savings or understating the costs to prepare a TSCA IUR report.

Source: C1 010 Response G. 2 5: EPA has revised the estimated savings to the regulated community from raising the 10,000 lbs. reporting threshold to 25,000 lbs., to $ 1.8 to$ 2.9 million per reporting cycle, based on the cost of an IUR report under the existing regulations. The re estimated costs of removing the inorganic exemption are $ 6.4 to $ 9.9 million in the first year ( when inorganics are still partially exempt), and $ 17.8 to $ 22.0 million in future cycles. See table S 2 of the EA for the final rule.

Comment G. 2 6: One commenter claimed that EPA either erred or was obfuscating at several points in the economic analysis. " For example, EPA claims that roughly 7,700 reports for 3,200 chemicals will be ' eliminated' from the requirement of reporting processing and use exposure information since chemicals produced between 25,000 lbs. and 300,000 lbs. will be exempt from this requirement. However, EPA fails to acknowledge that the vast majority of the processing and use exposure information requirements are newly proposed, e. g., exposure information on downstream customers... Moreover, EPA... claims cost savings of $ 16.6 million to $ 18 million for the elimination of supplying process and use exposure information on certain Page 151 of 159 petroleum stream chemicals and inorganics. In short, EPA's Economic Analysis appears to contain erroneous assumptions or calculations that distort the true costs of the proposed rule by overstating the cost savings while understating the actual costs to prepare the reports."

Source: C1 011 Response G. 2 6: The figures that the commenter cites are comparisons between the proposed rule and options in which all submitters are required to report the full revised Form U,

including the newly proposed requirements. None of the calculations cited are " erroneous," but a careful reading of the EA is necessary to understand the context in which figures are presented.

3. Benefits Comments Comment G. 3 1: Several commenters felt the costs of the rule outweigh its benefits, which are not quantified. For example, one commenter writes: " the IUR amendment as now proposed,

has only limited benefit to the public, and such benefit has not been demonstrated to justify the anticipated exorbitant cost and burden to industry."

Source: C1 015, C1 016, C1 021, C1 028, C1 038, C1 073 Response G. 3 1: EPA disagrees with this assertion. As stated in the EA for the final rule,

the benefits from this rule are unquantifiable on a monetary scale. Despite this, EPA believes that the benefits of increased information on chemical production and use are of substantial benefit to the Agency, and critical to its mandated mission to reduce chemical risk. Benefits from reductions in chemical risk are spread throughout society. Non EPA users of the data, such as other federal agencies, will also benefit in their service to the American public. EPA has enumerated the benefits of the rule in more detail in Section 5 of the EA.

Comment G. 3 2: One commenter suggested that EPA has overestimated the benefits of the rule. Underlying EPA's economic analysis is the suggestion that the market does not provide adequate processing and use information on existing chemicals, and that the lack of information requires EPA to amend the IUR. The commenter claims that the economic analysis does not identify any non regulatory alternatives, and fails to assess the relative costs and benefits of an alternative approach. The commenter also maintains that it is not possible for the public to read Page 152 of 159 EPA's cost benefit analysis and determine why the proposed option is superior to the other options, and feels that the public is left only with the belief that the Agency " feels" the proposed option is the most cost effective.

Source: C1 033 Response G. 3 2: EPA recognizes that it is impossible to quantify the benefits of the rule.

In the absence of hard benefit figures, it is impossible to make simple comparisons. Thus, EPA must balance the needs of the Agency for data with which to address critical environmental risks,

with the burdens of obtaining such data. In doing so, the uses of and need for the data are carefully addressed both within the Agency, and during interagency review. EPA has made every attempt to collect only the information necessary to meet Agency goals, and EPA believes the final rule achieves that objective.

Non regulatory alternatives are discussed in Section 2 of the EA for the final rule. They include taking no direct action or using a voluntary approach. Taking no action and attempting to rely on available information is insufficient ( see A Review of Existing Exposure Related Data Sources and Approaches to Screening Chemicals: Response to CMA). The shortcomings of a voluntary program, such as UEIP, are discussed at length in the preamble and elsewhere in this document.

Comment G. 3 3: Several commenters described the environmental benefits of their energy savings programs and stated it is counter productive for EPA to impose burdens that divert resources away from energy savings efforts. Commenters stated the IURA conflict with other Agency initiatives that include reuse conservation goals. One commenter went on to state that " under a revised IUR, cross industry or cross media, including the environmental benefits associated with particular uses of chemicals, are not recognized under a data scheme which focuses only on how many tons of a chemical were used in the past year."

Source: C1 019, C1 035, C1 043 Response G. 3 3: EPA commends industrial groups that are sponsoring energy savings programs and that have reuse conservation goals. EPA recognizes that the IURA will impose a slightly increased burden on industry. However, EPA developed the IURA to provide an accurate and readily available source of basic exposure related information for about 4,000 of the 76,000 Page 153 of 159 substances listed on the Inventory, thus limiting industry's reporting burden while providing EPA with information necessary to screen for risks to human health and the environment. EPA disagrees that this is counter productive. Although IURA will not collect information on the environmental benefits that a particular reported chemical may provide, this information is not necessary for EPA to identify and screen potential exposures and risks associated with TSCA chemicals, which is the purpose of the IURA.

4. Small Business Analysis Comments Comment G. 4 1: Several commenters argued that EPA's analysis of the impacts of the IURA on small businesses was insufficient to meet the requirements of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act ( SBREFA).

Source: C1 016, C1 016, C1 019, C1 073 Response G. 4 1: EPA's analysis of small business impacts fully complies with SBREFA.

For rules subject to the Regulatory Flexibility Act, which was amended by SBREFA, the Agency is required to undertake specific actions ( such as preparing an initial regulatory flexibility analysis and convening a small business advocacy review panel) unless it certifies that the rule will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. As described in the EA, EPA carefully analyzed the impact of the rule on small entities. ( The Small Business Administration participated in the Interagency review for the proposed and final rules, and its input was incorporated at both stages.) For both the proposed and final rules, EPA certified that there will not be a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. EPA notes that it has done and will continue to do outreach to businesses, including small businesses, for the IURA.

It is also important to note three facts: 1) the IUR exempts and IURA will continue to exempt small businesses, 2) the Small Business Administration reviewed EPA's small entity analysis, and 3) had EPA suspected that this rule might have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities, the Agency would have investigated the matter in much greater detail.

Comment G. 4 2: One commenter suggested that EPA's economic analysis is flawed, as it uses the economic profiles from organic chemical companies to predict economic impacts on sites from a broad range of affected industries. The commenter suggested using industry specific economic information ( e. g., profits) in the analysis. Page 154 of 159 Source: C1 036 Response G. 4 2: The portion of the EA to which the commenter refers is the small entity analysis. EPA's small entity analysis used economic data from all firms that reported under the IUR in 1994, which represent the vast majority of firms that will be required to report under IURA. EPA believes that it makes more sense to use available data on IUR sites to estimate the impacts of the IURA than to use more generalized data on industry as a whole.

EPA uses compliance costs as a percentage of annual sales as an indicator of the severity of economic impact; the type of profit data the commenter suggests are unavailable. In addition,

data specific to inorganic chemical manufacturers are also unavailable to EPA, as inorganic chemicals are currently exempt from IUR reporting. EPA has no data that suggest the economic profiles of inorganic manufacturers differ significantly from those of organic chemical manufacturers.

5. Executive Order 12866 Comment G. 5 1: One commenter claimed that the IURA is inconsistent with Executive Order 12866, in that they felt the proposed rule is not " cost effective," and the same commenter also mentioned the " Administration's program on Reinventing Environmental Regulation ( March 16, 1995), which calls for environmental protection in a ` common sense, cost effective manner'

and a reduction in ` existing reporting and recordkeeping burden hours by 25%.'"

Source: C1 016 Response G. 5 1: Regarding the requirements of E. O. 12866, EPA believes that IURA represents the most cost effective method of collecting the data necessary to begin evaluating risks of existing chemicals in commerce. The screening approach enabled by the IURA will allow EPA to target specific situations in which risks may be unreasonable without necessitating a more burdensome chemical by chemical review of existing chemicals. The IURA represents the least burdensome avenue to address risks from chemicals in commerce.

The 25% burden reduction target contained in the 1995 Reinventing Environmental Information Report was to be measured across the Agency, not for every individual regulation,

program, or Office within EPA. Moreover, the commitment was to reduce the burden of existing regulations; it was not intended to bar new and vital collections such as the IURA. Furthermore, Page 155 of 159 EPA has reduced burden in the IURA by raising the reporting threshold from 10,000 pounds to 25,000 pounds and adding a full reporting exemption for natural gas, reducing the number of reports by about 3,100 and 1,000, respectively. Additionally, many petroleum process streams and certain specifically listed chemical substances are exempt from reporting processing and use information. Page 156 of 159 References 1. USEPA, " IURA Data Use Plan," OPPT/ EETD, August 23, 2002.

2. USEPA, " A SAB Report: Improving the Use Cluster Scoring System, Recommendations for the Use Cluster Scoring System Prepared by the Environmental Engineering Committee, " Science Advisory Board, SAB EEC 95 017, September 1995. Also available at www. epa. gov/ sab/ pdf/ eec95017. pdf.

3. Memorandum from Sandra Zavolta, EPA OPPT, to Heidi King, OIRA OMB, and Kevin Bromberg, SBA, regarding the proposed IUR Amendments   Additional Information Requested 04 27 1999; Attachment E: RM1 Meeting Summary for Methyl Ethyl Ketoxime ( MEKO) Summary of a Risk Management 1 ( RM1) meeting regarding methyl ethyl ketoxime, provided to the Office of Management and Budget and the Small Business Administration to show how exposure and use information can affect risk management decisions. 03 19 1997.

4. Letter from Stephen A. Newell, Occupational Safety and Health Administration, to Wardner G.

Penberthy, EPA, October 15, 1996.

5. Letter from Paul A. Schulte, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, to Wardner G.

Penberthy, EPA, October 8, 1996.

6. Letter from Michael A. Babich, U. S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, to Wardner G.

Penberthy, EPA, June 24, 1996.

7. Letter from Robert Franklin, U. S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, to EPA, December 23,

1999.

8. Letter from Paul A. Schulte, Ph. D., National Institute for Occupational Safety & Health, to EPA,

December 21, 1999.

9. General Accounting Office, " Toxic Chemicals: Long Term Coordinated Strategy Needed to Measure Exposures in Humans," GAO/ HEHS 00 80, May 2, 2000.

10. Letter from Linda Greer, Ph. D., Natural Resources Defense Council, to Carol Browner, U. S. EPA,

February 12, 1999.

11. USEPA,    EPA Needs Exposure Related Data: A Discussion of the Justification for Collecting Exposure Related Data Through the IUR Amendments,'' OPPT/ EETD/ EPAB, 1998.

12. USEPA,    Reducing Risk: Setting Priorities and Strategies for Environmental Protection,'' Science Advisory Board, ( SAB EC 90 021), 1990.

13. National Academy of Public Administration,    Setting Priorities, Getting Results  A New Direction for EPA,'' 1995.

14. Letter to James Aidala, EPA, from Sandra Tirey, CMA, " Tier 1 Exposure Data in the EPA Voluntary Children's Safety Program," Docket Number OPPTS 00274, March 24, 2000.

15. Sandra Tirey, Inside EPA's Risk Policy Report, Jan 24, 2000, vol 7, No 1.

16. USEPA,    Inventory Update Rule ( IUR) Amendment Technical Support Document: Page 157 of 159 Exposure Related Data Useful for Chemical Risk Screening,'' Volumes 1 and 2, OPPT, July 19, 1996.

17. General Accounting Office,    EPA Should Focus Its Chemical Use Inventory on Suspected Harmful Substances,'' GAO/ RCED 95 165, July 7, 1995.

18. E Mail from James M. Boiano, NIOSH, to Susan Sharkey, OPPT/ EPA, " Status of NIOSH NEWS" October 24, 2002.

19. USEPA, " U. S. Chemical Production, Use, and Exposure Data: A Study of Existing Information Sources," OPPT, Oct 1, 1997.

20. USEPA, " Draft Instructions for 2006 Inventory Update Rule Reporting Under the Toxics Substances Control Act ( TSCA)," OPPT, August 2002.

21. USEPA,    Inventory Update Rule ( IUR) Technical Support Document: Selection of Consumer and Commercial End Use Categories,'' OPPT, 1996.

22. USEPA,    Economic Analysis of Proposed Amendments to the TSCA Section 8 Inventory Update Rule,'' OPPT/ EETD/ EPAB, March 1, 1999.

23. USEPA, " Revised Economic Analysis for the Amended Inventory Update Rule," OPPT, August 2000. Date will need to be updated 24. USEPA,    A Review of Existing Exposure Related Data Sources and Approaches to Screening Chemicals: A Response to CMA,'' OPPT, March 1999.

25. USEPA, " Methodology Used for the Initial Selection of Chemicals for the Inventory Update Rule Amendments ( IURA) ` Low Current Interest' Partial Reporting Exemption," OPPT, July 24, 2002.

26. USEPA, " Inorganic Chemicals: Sources of Information Suggested by Commenters to the Proposed Inventory Update Rule Amendments," OPPT, June 2000.

27. Letter from John DeYoung, Chief Scientist, U. S. Geological Survey, to Mary Ellen Weber, EPA,

July 25, 2002.

28. USEPA, " Clarification of the Interpretation of ' Article' Under TSCA," OTS, October 1, 1985.

29. USEPA, " Report to Congress: Wastes from the Combustion of Fossil Fuels," OSW, April 25,

2000, available at http:// www. epa. gov/ epaoswer/ other/ fossil/ index. htm.

30. Confidential Business Information Data Review, Georgia Department of Natural Resources,

Docket entry 00125 B2a 010 filed June 19, 1996, page 4.

31. Letter from Mark N. Duvall, Union Carbide, to EPA,    Additional Comments of Union Carbide Corporation on EPA's Preliminary Actions to Reform TSCA Confidential Business Information, Docket No. OPPTS 00125,'' August 31, 1993.

32. USEPA. 1997b. UEIP ICR Database. Summary table. Page 158 of 159 Appendix 1: Docket Commenter Number Cross Reference List of Legacy Docket to E Docket Each comment summary is followed by a list of sources used to compile the comment. The source numbers refer to the legacy docket from the proposed rule ( Docket # 82503). The Agency now has an EDocket ( Docket # OPPT 2002 0054), which incorporated the legacy docket but uses a new numbering system. Below is a table providing a cross reference between the two docket numbering systems.

Legacy Docket E Docket Legacy Docket E Docket C1 001 0148 C1 041 0191 C1 002 0159 C1 042 0192 C1 003 0150 C1 043 0193 0196 C1 004 0151 C1 044 0197 0201 C1 005 0152 C1 045 0202 C1 006 0153 C1 046 0203 C1 007 0154 0156 C1 047 0204 C1 008 0157 C1 048 0205 0209 C1 009 0158 C1 049 0210 C1 010 0159 C1 050 0211 C1 011 0160 C1 051 0212 C1 012 0161 C1 052 0213 C1 013 0162 C1 053 0214 C1 014 0163 C1 054 0228 C1 015 0164 0165 C1 055 0216 C1 016 0166 C1 056 0217 C1 017 0167 C1 057 0218 C1 018 0168 C1 058 0219 C1 019 0169 C1 059 0220 C1 020 0170 C1 060 0221 Page 159 of 159 C1 021 0171 C1 061 0222 C1 022 0172 C1 062 0223 C1 023 0173 C1 063 0224 C1 024 0174 C1 064 0225 C1 025 0175 C1 065 0226 C1 026 0176 C1 066 0227 C1 027; 027( 1) 0177; 0231 C1 067 0215 C1 028 0178 C1 068 0229 C1 029 0179 C1 069 0230 C1 030 0180 C1 070 0231 C1 031 0181 C1 071 0232 C1 032 0182 C1 072 0233 C1 033 0183 C1 073 0234 C1 034 0184 C1 035 0185 C1 036 0186 C1 037 0187 C1 038 0188 C1 039 0189 C1 040 0190


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 183 (Friday, September 24, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Page 53128]
[FR Doc No: 2021-20942]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Sunshine Act Meeting

TIME AND DATE: Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of
the Government in the Sunshine Act, Public Law 94-409, the Securities
and Exchange Commission will hold an Open Meeting on Wednesday,
September 29, 2021 at 10 a.m.

PLACE: The meeting will be webcast on the Commission's website at
www.sec.gov.

STATUS: This meeting will begin at 10 a.m. (ET) and will be open to the
public via webcast on the Commission's website at www.sec.gov.

MATTER TO BE CONSIDERED:
    1. The Commission will consider whether to propose form amendments
to enhance the information certain registered investment companies
report about their proxy votes. The Commission will also consider
proposing a new rule and form amendments to require institutional
investment managers subject to section 13(f) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 to report proxy votes relating to executive compensation
matters, as required by section 14A of the Exchange Act.

CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION: For further information and to
ascertain what, if any, matters have been added, deleted or postponed,
please contact Vanessa A. Countryman, Office of the Secretary, at (202)
551-5400.

    Dated: September 22, 2021.
Vanessa A. Countryman,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2021-20942 Filed 9-22-21; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 194 (Friday, October 5, 2018)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 50255-50256]
[FR Doc No: 2018-21657]

========================================================================
Rules and Regulations
                                                Federal Register
________________________________________________________________________

This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains regulatory documents
having general applicability and legal effect, most of which are keyed
to and codified in the Code of Federal Regulations, which is published
under 50 titles pursuant to 44 U.S.C. 1510.

The Code of Federal Regulations is sold by the Superintendent of Documents.

========================================================================

Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 194 / Friday, October 5, 2018 / Rules
and Regulations

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2018-0199; Airspace Docket No. 18-ANE-3]
RIN 2120-AA66

Amendment of Class E Airspace, Belfast, ME

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This action amends Class E airspace extending upward from 700
feet above the surface at Belfast Municipal Airport, Belfast, ME, to
accommodate airspace reconfiguration due to the decommissioning of the
Belfast non-directional radio beacon and cancellation of the NDB
approach. Controlled airspace is necessary for the safety and
management of instrument flight rules (IFR) operations at this airport.
This action also updates the geographic coordinates of this airport.

DATES: Effective 0901 UTC, January 3, 2019. The Director of the Federal
Register approves this incorporation by reference action under title 1,
Code of Federal Regulations, part 51, subject to the annual revision of
FAA Order 7400.11 and publication of conforming amendments.

ADDRESSES: FAA Order 7400.11C, Airspace Designations and Reporting
Points, and subsequent amendments can be viewed on line at http://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/. For further information, you can
contact the Airspace Policy Group, Federal Aviation Administration, 800
Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20591; telephone: (202) 267-
8783. The Order is also available for inspection at the National
Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the
availability of FAA Order 7400.11C at NARA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>, or go
to https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.
    FAA Order 7400.11, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, is
published yearly and effective on September 15.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John Fornito, Operations Support
Group, Eastern Service Center, Federal Aviation Administration, 1701
Columbia Ave, College Park, GA 30337; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Authority for This Rulemaking

    The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is
found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106
describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII,
Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's
authority. This proposed rulemaking is promulgated under the authority
described in Subtitle VII, Part, A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under
that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign
the use of airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the
efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that
authority as it amends Class E airspace at Belfast Municipal Airport,
Belfast, ME to support IFR operations in standard instrument approach
procedures at this airport.

History

    The FAA published a notice of proposed rulemaking in the Federal
Register (83 FR 33163, July 17, 2018) for Docket No. FAA-2018-0199 to
amend Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface
at Belfast Municipal Airport, Belfast, ME. Interested parties were
invited to participate in this rulemaking effort by submitting written
comments on the proposal to the FAA. No comments were received.
    Class E airspace designations are published in paragraph 6005 of
FAA Order 7400.11C dated August 13, 2018, and effective September 15,
2018, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR part 71.1. The Class
E airspace designations listed in this document will be published
subsequently in the Order.

Availability and Summary of Documents for Incorporation by Reference

    This document amends FAA Order 7400.11C, Airspace Designations and
Reporting Points, dated August 13, 2018, and effective September 15,
2018. FAA Order 7400.11C is publicly available as listed in the
ADDRESSES section of this document. FAA Order 7400.11C lists Class A,
B, C, D, and E airspace areas, air traffic service routes, and
reporting points.

The Rule

    This amendment to Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR)
part 71 amends Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above
the surface to within a 9.4-mile (increased from a 6.4-mile) radius of
Belfast Municipal Airport, Belfast, ME, due to the decommissioning of
the Belfast NDB and cancellation of the NDB approach. These changes are
necessary for continued safety and management of IFR operations at this
airport. The geographic coordinates also are updated to be in concert
with the FAA's aeronautical database.

Regulatory Notices and Analyses

    The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an
established body of technical regulations for which frequent and
routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current.
It, therefore: (1) Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under
Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a ``significant rule'' under DOT
Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979);
and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the
anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that
only affects air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified
that this rule, when promulgated, does not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of
the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

Environmental Review

    The FAA has determined that this action qualifies for categorical
exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act in accordance
with FAA Order 1050.1F, ``Environmental Impacts: Policies and
Procedures,'' paragraph 5-6.5a. This airspace action

is not expected to cause any potentially significant environmental
impacts, and no extraordinary circumstances exist that warrant
preparation of an environmental assessment.

Lists of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

Adoption of the Amendment

    In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation
Administration amends 14 CFR part 71 as follows:

PART 71--DESIGNATION OF CLASS A, B, C, D, AND E AIRSPACE AREAS; AIR
TRAFFIC SERVICE ROUTES; AND REPORTING POINTS

0
1. The authority citation for part 71 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g); 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O.
10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.

Sec.  71.1  [Amended]

0
2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of FAA Order 7400.11C,
Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 13, 2018,
effective September 15, 2018, is amended as follows:

Paragraph 6005 Class E Airspace Areas Extending Upward From 700
feet or More Above the Surface of the Earth.

* * * * *

ANE ME E5 Belfast, ME [Amended]

Belfast Municipal Airport, ME
    (Lat. 44[deg]24'34'' N, long. 69[deg]00'43'' W)

    That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface
within a 9.4-mile radius of Belfast Municipal Airport.

    Issued in College Park, Georgia, on September 27, 2018.
Christopher Cox,
Acting Manager, Operations Support Group, Eastern Service Center, Air
Traffic Organization.
[FR Doc. 2018-21657 Filed 10-4-18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register: July 18, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 139)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 41275-41277]
[DOCID:fr18jy08-18]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R03-OAR-2008-0186; FRL-8693-3]

Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
Pennsylvania; Section 110(a)(1) 8-Hour Ozone Maintenance Plan and 2002
Base-Year Inventory for the Northumberland County Area

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is approving a State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision
submitted by the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. The Pennsylvania
Department of Environmental Protection (PADEP) submitted a SIP revision
consisting of a maintenance plan that provides for continued attainment
of the 8-hour ozone national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS) for
at least 10 years after the April 30, 2004 designations, as well as a
2002 base-year inventory for the Northumberland County Area. EPA is
approving the maintenance plan and the 2002 base-year inventory for the
Northumberland County Area as revisions to the Pennsylvania SIP in
accordance with the requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA).

EFFECTIVE DATE: This final rule is effective on August 18, 2008.

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID
Number EPA-R03-OAR-2008-0186. All documents in the docket are listed in
the www.regulations.gov Web site. Although listed in the electronic
docket, some information is not publicly available, i.e., confidential
business information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted
material, is not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available
only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are
available either electronically through www.regulations.gov or in hard
copy for public inspection during normal business hours at the Air
Protection Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region III,
1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103. Copies of the State
submittal are available at the Pennsylvania Department of Environment
Protection, Bureau of Air Quality Control, P.O. Box 8468, 400 Market
Street, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17105.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Melissa Linden,<PHONE_NUMBER>, or by
e-mail at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    On May 27, 2008 (73 FR 30345), EPA published a notice of proposed
rulemaking (NPR) for the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. The NPR proposed
approval of Pennsylvania's SIP revision that establishes a maintenance
plan for the Northumberland County Area that provides for continued
attainment of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS for at least 10 years after
designation, and a 2002 base-year emissions inventory. The formal SIP
revisions were submitted by PADEP

on December 17, 2007. Other specific requirements of Pennsylvania's SIP
revision and the rationales for EPA's proposed actions are explained in
the NPR and will not be restated here. No public comments were received
on the NPR.

II. Final Action

    EPA is approving the maintenance plan and the 2002 base-year
inventory for the Northumberland County Area, submitted on December 17,
2007, as revisions to the Pennsylvania SIP. EPA is approving the
maintenance plan and 2002 base-year inventory for the Northumberland
County Area because it meets the requirements of section 110(a)(1) of
the CAA.

III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

A. General Requirements

    Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve a
SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and
applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a).
Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state
choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act.
Accordingly, this action merely approves state law as meeting Federal
requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those
imposed by state law. For that reason, this action:
     Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     Does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the Clean Air Act; and
     Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    In addition, this rule does not have tribal implications as
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000),
because the SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in
the state, and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct
costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.

B. Submission to Congress and the Comptroller General

    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. EPA will submit a report containing this action and
other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2).

C. Petitions for Judicial Review

    Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for
judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court
of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by September 16, 2008. Filing a
petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule
does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of
judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for
judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness
of such rule or action.
    This action approving the maintenance plan and the 2002 base-year
inventory for the Northumberland County Area may not be challenged
later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section
307(b)(2).)

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Volatile organic compounds.

    Dated: July 3, 2008.
Donald S. Welsh,
Regional Administrator, Region III.

0
40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:

PART 52--[AMENDED]

0
1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

Subpart NN--Pennsylvania

0
2. In Sec.  52.2020, the table in paragraph (e)(1) is amended by adding
an entry for the 8-Hour Ozone Maintenance Plan and 2002 Base-Year
Inventory for Northumberland County at the end of the table to read as
follows:

Sec.  52.2020  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (e) * * *
    (1) * * *

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Name of non-regulatory SIP      Applicable geographic       State
             revision                        area          submittal date             EPA approval date                    Additional explanation
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                                      * * * * * * *
8-Hour Ozone Maintenance Plan and   Northumberland County        12/17/07  07/18/08 [Insert page number where the
 2002 Base-Year Inventory.                                                  document begins].
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *
 [FR Doc. E8-16271 Filed 7-17-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register: September 14, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 176)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 46965]
[DOCID:fr14se09-25]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R06-OAR-2008-0815; FRL-8954-6]

Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; New Mexico;
Excess Emissions

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The EPA is proposing to approve revisions to the New Mexico
State Implementation Plan (SIP) submitted by the Governor of New Mexico
on behalf of the New Mexico Environment Department (NMED) in a letter
dated October 7, 2008 (the October 7, 2008 SIP submittal). The October
7, 2008 SIP submittal concerns revisions to New Mexico Administrative
Code Title 20, Chapter 2, Part 7 Excess Emissions (20.2.7 NMAC--Excess
Emissions) occurring during startup, shutdown, and malfunction related
activities. We are proposing to approve the October 7, 2008 SIP
submittal because the rule is consistent with the Clean Air Act (the
Act). This action is in accordance with section 110 of the Act.

DATES: Written comments must be received on or before October 14, 2009.

ADDRESSES: Comments may be mailed to Mr. Guy Donaldson, Chief, Air
Planning Section (6PD-L), Environmental Protection Agency, 1445 Ross
Avenue, Suite 1200, Dallas, Texas 75202-2733. Comments may also be
submitted electronically or through hand delivery/courier by following
the detailed instructions in the Addresses section of the direct final
rule located in the rules section of this Federal Register.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Alan Shar, Air Planning Section
(6PD-L), Environmental Protection Agency, Region 6, 1445 Ross Avenue,
Suite 700, Dallas, Texas 75202-2733, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, fax
(214) 665-7263, e-mail address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the final rules section of this Federal
Register, EPA is approving the State's SIP submittal as a direct final
rule without prior proposal because the Agency views this as a
noncontroversial submittal and anticipates no adverse comments. A
detailed rationale for the approval is set forth in the direct final
rule. If no relevant adverse comments are received in response to this
action, no further activity is contemplated. If EPA receives adverse
comments, the direct final rule will be withdrawn and all public
comments received will be addressed in a subsequent final rule based on
this proposed rule. The EPA will not institute a second comment period.
Any parties interested in commenting on this action should do so at
this time. Please note that if EPA receives adverse comment on an
amendment, paragraph, or section of this rule and if that provision may
be severed from the remainder of the rule, EPA may adopt as final those
provisions of the rule that are not the subject of an adverse comment.
    For additional information, see the direct final rule, which is
located in the rules section of this Federal Register.

    Dated: August 28, 2009.
Lawrence E. Starfield,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 6.
[FR Doc. E9-21830 Filed 9-11-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 228 (Wednesday, December 1, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Page 68247]
[FR Doc No: 2021-26129]

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

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: PR22-7-000.
    Applicants: Kinder Morgan Border Pipeline LLC.
    Description: NGPA Section 311 Rate Approval to be effective 11/1/
2021.
    Filed Date: 11/23/2021.
    Accession Number: 20211123-5156.
    Comments/Protests Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/14/21.

    Docket Numbers: RP22-339-000.
    Applicants: Columbia Gas Transmission, LLC.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: OTRA and Settlement Interim
Rate Clarification to be effective 12/1/2021.
    Filed Date: 11/23/21.
    Accession Number: 20211123-5123.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 12/6/21.

    Docket Numbers: RP22-340-000.
    Applicants: Mississippi Hub, LLC.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: Mississippi Hub, LLC Tariff
Housekeeping Filing to be effective 12/23/2021.
    Filed Date: 11/23/21.
    Accession Number: 20211123-5127.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 12/6/21.

    Docket Numbers: RP22-341-000.
    Applicants: ANR Pipeline Company.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: Removal of Fuel Surcharges to
be effective 1/1/2022.
    Filed Date: 11/23/21.
    Accession Number: 20211123-5195.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 12/6/21.

    Docket Numbers: RP22-342-000.
    Applicants: Dominion Energy Overthrust Pipeline, LLC.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: Statement of Negotiated Rates
Version 14, Rockies Express TSA No. 6693 to be effective 12/1/2021.
    Filed Date: 11/23/21.
    Accession Number: 20211123-5204.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 12/6/21.

    Docket Numbers: RP22-343-000.
    Applicants: Caledonia Energy Partners, L.L.C.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: Caledonia Energy Partners, LLC
Housekeeping Filing to be effective 12/23/2021.
    Filed Date: 11/23/21.
    Accession Number: 20211123-5215.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 12/6/21.

    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: RP18-923-009.
    Applicants: Enable Mississippi River Transmission, LLC.
    Description: Compliance filing: Implement Settlement SCT Tariff
Sheet in Dockets RP18-923, RP20-131 and RP20-212 to be effective 2/1/
2022.
    Filed Date: 11/23/21.
    Accession Number: 20211123-5210.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 12/6/21.

    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 pm Eastern time on the specified
comment date.
    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system
(https://elibrary.ferc.gov/idmws/search/fercgensearch.asp) by querying
the docket number.
    eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing
requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying
facilities filings can be found at: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For other information, call<PHONE_NUMBER>
(toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: November 24, 2021.
Debbie-Anne A. Reese,
Deputy Secretary.
 [FR Doc. 2021-26129 Filed 11-30-21; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 19 (Monday, January 30, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Pages 5948-5952]
[FR Doc No: 2023-01743]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-96741; File No. SR-NYSEARCA-2023-06]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE Arca, Inc.; Notice of Filing
of Proposed Rule Change To Amend Rule 7.44-E Relating to the Retail
Liquidity Program

January 24, 2023.
    Pursuant to section 19(b)(1) \1\ of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 (``Act'') \2\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\3\ notice is hereby given
that, on January 10, 2023, NYSE Arca, Inc. (``NYSE Arca'' or the
``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the
``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I and II
below, which Items have been prepared by the self-regulatory
organization. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit
comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange proposes to amend Rule 7.44-E relating to the Retail
Liquidity Program. The proposed rule change is available on the
Exchange's website at www.nyse.com, at the principal office of the
Exchange, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

    In its filing with the Commission, the self-regulatory organization
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 those statements may be examined at
the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared
summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most
significant parts of such statements.

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to amend Rule 7.44-E, which sets forth the
Exchange's Retail Liquidity Program (the ``Program'').\4\ The purpose
of the Program is to attract retail order flow to the Exchange and
allow such order flow to receive potential price improvement. Rule
7.44-E currently provides for a class of market participant called
Retail Liquidity Providers (``RLPs'') who, along with non-RLP ETP
Holders, are able to provide potential price improvement to retail
investor orders in the form of a non-displayed order that is priced
better than the best protected bid or offer, called a Retail Price
Improvement Order (``RPI Order'').\5\ When there is an RPI Order in a
particular security, the Exchange disseminates an indicator, known as
the Retail Liquidity Identifier, that such interest exists.\6\ Retail
Member Organizations (``RMOs'') can submit a Retail Order to the
Exchange, which interacts, to the extent possible, with available
contra-side RPI Orders and then may interact with other liquidity on
the Exchange or elsewhere, depending on the Retail Order's
instructions.\7\ The segmentation in the Program allows retail order
flow to receive potential price improvement as a result of their order
flow being deemed more desirable by liquidity providers. The Exchange
recently modified the Program to be available for all securities traded
on the Exchange.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ The Program was established on a pilot basis in 2013 and was
approved by the Commission to operate on a permanent basis in 2019.
See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 87350 (October 18, 2019), 84
FR 57106 (October 24, 2019) (SR-NYSEArca-2019-63). In connection
with the Commission's approval of the Program on a pilot basis, the
Commission granted the Exchange's request for exemptive relief from
Rule 612 of Regulation NMS, 17 CFR 242.612 (the ``Sub-Penny Rule''),
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. See Securities Exchange Act
Release No. 71176 (December 23, 2013), 78 FR 79524 (December 30,
2013) (SR-NYSEArca-2013-107).
    \5\ See Rules 7.44-E(a)(1) (defining an RLP) and 7.44-E(a)(4)
(defining RPI Order).
    \6\ See Rule 7.44-E(j).
    \7\ See Rule 7.44-E(a)(2) (defining RMO); Rules 7.44-E(a)(3) and
7.44-E(k) (describing Retail Orders).
    \8\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 96111 (October 20,
2022), 87 FR 64830 (October 26, 2022) (SR-NYSEARCA-2022-70) (Notice
of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change to
Modify Rule 7.44-E).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As described in further detail below, the Exchange now proposes to
substantively amend the Program to (1) modify the Program to provide
Retail Orders with price improvement at the midpoint or better by
proposing that both RPI Orders and Retail Orders would function as Mid-
Point Liquidity Orders (``MPL Orders'') and (2) eliminate the role of
RLPs.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ The Exchange notes that, with the proposed modification of
the Program to provide Retail Orders with price improvement at the
midpoint or better, the Exchange would no longer accept and rank RPI
Orders in increments smaller than $0.01, as ordinarily prohibited by
the Sub-Penny Rule. Accordingly, the operation of the Program, as
proposed, would no longer be dependent on the exemptive relief from
the Sub-Penny Rule previously granted by the Commission in
connection with its original approval of the Program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Proposed Midpoint Program
    The Exchange proposes to modify the Program to provide Retail
Orders with price improvement at the midpoint or better, which change
the Exchange believes would further the purpose of the Program to offer
price improvement opportunities to retail order flow. The Exchange
believes that the proposed change would provide more deterministic
price improvement opportunities for Retail Orders and could attract
additional retail order flow to the Exchange.
RPI Orders
    Rule 7.44-E(a)(4) currently provides that an RPI Order consists of
non-displayed interest that would trade at prices better than the PBB
or PBO by at least $0.001 and that is identified as

such.\10\ RPI Orders are non-displayed and are ranked Priority 3--Non-
Display Orders.\11\ Currently, Exchange systems monitor whether RPI buy
or sell interest is eligible to trade with incoming Retail Orders, and
an RPI Order to buy (sell) with a limit price at or below (above) the
PBB (PBO) or at or above (below) the PBO (PBB) will not be eligible to
trade with incoming Retail Orders to sell (buy), and such an RPI will
cancel if a Retail Order to sell (buy) trades with all displayed
liquidity at the PBB (PBO) and then attempts to trade with the RPI. If
not cancelled, an RPI to buy (sell) with a limit price that is no
longer at or below (above) the PBB (PBO) or at or above (below) the PBO
(PBB) will again be eligible to trade with incoming Retail Orders.\12\
An RPI Order may be an odd lot, round lot, or mixed lot, may be
designated as either a Limit Non-Displayed Order or an MPL Order, and
will not interact with Type 2--Retail Orders resting on the NYSE Arca
Book.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ Rule 7.44-E(a)(4)(C) currently provides that an RLP may
only enter an RPI in its RLP capacity for securities to which it is
assigned and is permitted, but not required, to submit RPIs for
securities to which it is not assigned (and would be treated as a
non-RLP ETP Holder with respect to those securities). As discussed
below, the Exchange proposes to delete current Rule 7.44-E(a)(4)(C)
in connection with the proposed elimination of the RLP function.
    \11\ See Rule 7.44-E(a)(4)(A).
    \12\ See Rule 7.44-E(a)(4)(B).
    \13\ See Rule 7.44-E(a)(4)(D).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To effect the proposed change that the Program would function to
provide Retail Orders with price improvement at the midpoint or better,
the Exchange proposes to modify RPI Orders to function only as MPL
Orders. An MPL Order is defined in Rule 7.31-E(d)(3) as a Limit Order
to buy (sell) that is not displayed and does not route, with a working
price at the lower (higher) of the midpoint of the PBBO or its limit
price.\14\ The Exchange believes that modifying RPI Orders to function
as MPL Orders would increase the potential pool of midpoint-eligible
liquidity with which a Retail Order could interact. In addition,
because all RPI Orders would be priced at the midpoint, the Retail
Liquidity Identifier would provide more deterministic information about
the potential liquidity available to interact with Retail Orders at the
midpoint.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ An MPL Order may be entered during any Exchange trading
session, is ranked Priority 3--Non-Display Orders, and does not
participate in auctions. See Rule 7.31-E(d)(3). An MPL Order to buy
(sell) must be designated with a limit price in the minimum price
variation for the security and will be eligible to trade at its
working price. See Rule 7.31-E(d)(3)(A). If there is no PBB or PBO,
or if the PBBO is locked or crossed, an arriving or resting MPL
Order will not be eligible to trade until the PBBO is not locked or
crossed. See Rule 7.31-E(d)(3)(B). An Aggressing MPL Order to buy
(sell) will trade at the working price of resting orders to sell
(buy) when such resting orders have a working price at or below
(above) the working price of the MPL Order. Resting MPL Orders to
buy (sell) will trade against all Aggressing Orders to sell (buy)
priced at or below (above) the working price of the MPL Order. See
Rule 7.31-E(d)(3)(C).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To effect this change, the Exchange first proposes to modify
current Rule 7.44-E(a)(4) (which, as discussed below, would be
renumbered as 7.44-E(a)(3)) and to combine current Rule 7.44-E(a)(4)(A)
into new Rule 7.44-E(a)(3), with non-substantive changes to improve the
clarity of the rule text. Rule 7.44-E(a)(3), as proposed, would thus
define an RPI Order as an MPL Order that is eligible to trade only with
incoming Retail Orders submitted by an RMO. The Exchange also proposes
to add text to new Rule 7.44-E(a)(3) to clarify that an RPI Order may
not be designated IOC, ALO, or with a Minimum Trade Size (``MTS'')
Modifier.\15\ In addition, the Exchange proposes to delete current
Rules 7.44-E(a)(4)(B) and 7.44-E(a)(4)(D) because the text of those
rules would no longer be necessary.\16\ Specifically, the provisions of
Rule 7.44-E(a)(4)(B) would no longer apply in light of the Exchange's
proposal to modify RPI Orders to function as MPL Orders and the
provisions of Rule 7.44-E(a)(4)(D) are either duplicative of proposed
Rule 7.44-E(a)(3) (as renumbered) or no longer applicable based on the
proposed elimination Type 2 Retail Orders (as further discussed
below).\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ See Rules 7.31-E(b)(2) (providing that an order with an IOC
Modifier will be traded in whole or in part on the NYSE Arca
Marketplace as soon as such order is received, with any untraded
quantity cancelled); 7.31-E(e)(2) (providing that an ALO Order is a
Non-Routable Limit Order that, unless it receives price improvement,
will not remove liquidity from the NYSE Arca Book); 7.31-E(i)(3)
(providing that the MTS Modifier designates an order with a minimum
trade size and an order with an MTS Modifier will be rejected if the
MTS is less than a round lot or if the MTS is larger than the size
of the order).
    \16\ The proposed deletion of Rule 7.44-E(a)(4)(C) is discussed
below in connection with the proposed elimination of RLPs.
    \17\ The Exchange also proposes to delete text in Rule 7.44-
E(a)(4)(D) providing that an RPI Order may be an odd lot, round lot,
or mixed lot as extraneous, because Exchange rules provide that
orders are accepted in any size unless otherwise provided. See Rule
7.38-E(a). The Exchange further proposes a conforming change to Rule
7.38-E(a) to delete its reference to Rule 7.44-E, as Rule 7.44-E
does not specify that an order may not be entered as an odd lot or
mixed lot.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange also proposes to modify current Rule 7.44-E(j) (to be
renumbered as Rule 7.44-E(e), as discussed below), which describes the
Retail Liquidity Identifier that is currently disseminated via the
Consolidated Quotation System or the UTP Quote Data Feed, as
applicable, when RPI interest priced at least $0.001 better than the
PBB or PBO for a particular security is available in Exchange systems.
Consistent with the proposed change to modify RPI Orders to operate as
MPL Orders only, the Exchange proposes that new Rule 7.44-E(e) would
provide that the Retail Liquidity Identifier would be disseminated when
RPI interest is eligible to trade at the midpoint of the PBBO. The
dissemination of the Retail Liquidity Identifier would thus alert RMOs
to the availability of trading opportunities at the midpoint of the
PBBO.
Retail Orders
    Current Rule 7.44-E(a)(3), which as described below would be
renumbered as Rule 7.44-E(a)(2), defines a Retail Order as an agency
order or a riskless principal order that meets the criteria of FINRA
Rule 5320.03 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 or side of market and the order does
not originate from a trading algorithm or any other computerized
methodology. Current Rule 7.44-E(a)(3) also provides that a Retail
Order will operate in accordance with Rule 7.44-E(k) and may be an odd
lot, round lot, or mixed lot.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ Consistent with the proposed change to Rule 7.44-E(a)(4)(D)
regarding odd lots, round lots, or mixed lots, see id., the Exchange
also proposes to delete the similar provision in current Rule 7.44-
E(a)(3) for the same reasons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Rule 7.44-E(k) currently describes how RMOs can designate how a
Retail Order would interact with available contra-side interest and
provides for Type 1--Retail Orders and Type 2--Retail Orders. Type 1--
Retail Orders are Limit IOC Orders to buy (sell) that will trade only
with available RPI Orders to sell (buy) and all other orders to sell
(buy) with a working price below (above) the PBO (PBB) on the NYSE Arca
Book and will not route. The quantity of a Type 1--Retail Order to buy
(sell) that does not trade with eligible orders to sell (buy) will be
immediately and automatically cancelled. Type 2--Retail Orders may be
Limit Orders designated IOC or Day or Market Orders. A Type 2--Retail
Order IOC is a Limit IOC Order to buy (sell) that will trade first with
available RPI Orders to sell (buy) and all other orders to sell (buy)
with a working price below (above) the PBO (PBB) on the NYSE Arca Book.
Any remaining quantity of the Retail Order will trade with orders to
sell (buy) on the NYSE Arca Book at prices equal to or above

(below) the PBO (PBB) and will be traded as a Limit IOC Order and will
not route. A Type 2--Retail Order Day is a Limit Order to buy (sell)
that will trade first with available RPI Orders to sell (buy) and all
other orders to sell (buy) with a working price below (above) the PBO
(PBB) on the NYSE Arca Book. Any remaining quantity of the Retail
Order, if marketable, will trade with orders to sell (buy) on the NYSE
Arca Book or route, and if non-marketable, will be ranked in the NYSE
Arca Book as a Limit Order. Finally, a Type 2--Retail Order Market is a
Market Order that will trade first with available RPI Orders to sell
(buy) and all other orders to sell (buy) with a working price below
(above) the NBO (NBB). Any remaining quantity of the Retail Order will
function as a Market Order.
    To effect the change that Retail Orders in the Program would be
eligible to trade at the midpoint or better, the Exchange proposes to
amend Rule 7.44-E(k) (which is proposed to be renumbered as Rule 7.44-
E(f)). In new Rule 7.44-E(f), the Exchange proposes to both rename the
section ``Retail Order Operation'' rather than ``Retail Order
Designation'' and reflect the Exchange's proposal to offer only one
type of Retail Order, which, as noted above, would function as an MPL
Order.\19\ The Exchange proposes to delete text in current Rule 7.44-
E(k) providing that an RMO may designate how a Retail Order would trade
with contra-side interest, as such text would no longer apply with only
one type of Retail Order. The Exchange also proposes to move text in
current Rule 7.44-E(k)(1) into new Rule 7.44-E(f) and to modify the
description of a Type 1 Retail Order in current Rule 7.44-E(k)(1) to
describe the only Retail Order that would be available, as proposed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ See note 14, supra and accompanying text.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    New Rule 7.44-E(f) would thus provide that a Retail Order to buy
(sell) would be an MPL IOC Order with a working price at the lower
(higher) of the midpoint of the PBBO or its limit price and that will
trade only with available RPI Orders to sell (buy) and all other orders
to sell (buy) with a working price below (above) or equal to the
midpoint of the PBBO on the NYSE Arca Book and will not route. New Rule
7.44-E(f) would also continue to provide that the quantity of a Retail
Order to buy (sell) that does not trade with eligible orders to sell
(buy) will be immediately and automatically cancelled. The Exchange
proposes to delete references to Type 1 Retail Orders in current Rule
7.44-E(k)(1), as the proposed change would result in only one type of
Retail Order. The Exchange also proposes to update the remainder of
current Rule 7.44-E(k)(1) such that new Rule 7.44-E(f) would provide
that the quantity of a Retail Order to buy (sell) that does not trade
with eligible orders to sell (buy) will be rejected on arrival if there
is no PBBO or the PBBO is locked or crossed. The Exchange believes this
proposed change would simplify the Program by offering only one type of
Retail Order and, similar to the proposed change to RPI Orders, would
modify the Program to provide price improvement opportunities for
Retail Orders priced at the midpoint or better.
    The Exchange further proposes to add new text to new Rule 7.44-E(f)
to provide additional options to ETP Holders with respect to Retail
Orders. First, the Exchange proposes to add text to new Rule 7.44-E(f)
providing that a Retail Order may be designated with an MTS Modifier,
at the ETP Holder's option.\20\ The Exchange also proposes to add text
to new Rule 7.44-E(f) to introduce a new ``No Retail Modifier'' for use
at an ETP Holder's discretion. Proposed Rule 7.44-E(f) would provide
that the No Retail Modifier is available for use with MPL Orders and
MPL-ALO Orders only, and orders designated with the No Retail Modifier
would not trade with Retail Orders.\21\ Specifically, as proposed, an
incoming Retail Order would not interact with an MPL Order or MPL-ALO
Order designated with the No Retail Modifier and may trade through such
MPL Order or MPL-ALO Order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ Consistent with this proposed change, the Exchange proposes
to delete text in Rule 7.44-E(k) currently providing that a Retail
Order may not be designated with a minimum trade size.
    \21\ The Exchange also proposes to modify Rule 7.31-E(d)(3),
which defines MPL Orders, to add new subparagraph (G) regarding the
No Retail Modifier. Subparagraph (G) would, consistent with the
proposed addition to new Rule 7.44-E(f), provide that MPL Orders and
MPL-ALO Orders may be designated with a No Retail Modifier and that
orders so designated would not trade with Retail Orders. The
Exchange proposes to offer the No Retail Modifier to provide ETP
Holders with the ability to designate their MPL Orders and MPL-ALO
Orders to not interact with Retail Orders, which some ETP Holders
may choose to do based on their desired trading strategy.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange also proposes to delete current Rule 7.44-E(k)(2),
which currently describes Type 2 Retail Orders, as such order types
would no longer be offered, as proposed.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ The Exchange also proposes a conforming change in the final
paragraph of new Rule 7.44-E(g) to reflect the proposed elimination
of Type 2 Retail Orders. The Exchange proposes to delete the second
sentence in the final paragraph of current Rule 7.44-E(l), which
relates to Type 2 Market Retail Orders, as such rule text would no
longer have application following the elimination of Type 2 Retail
Orders.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, the Exchange proposes to modify Rule 7.44-E(l) (proposed
to be renumbered as Rule 7.44-E(g)), which currently describes priority
and order allocation of RPI Orders and Retail Orders, to reflect the
changes described above. Under current Rule 7.44-E(l), RPI Orders in
the same security will be ranked together with all other interest
ranked as Priority 3--Non-Display Orders. Odd-lot orders ranked as
Priority 2--Display Orders will have priority over orders ranked
Priority 3--Non-Display Orders at each price. Any remaining unexecuted
RPI interest will remain available to trade with other incoming Retail
Orders. Currently, any remaining unfilled quantity of the Retail Order
will cancel, execute, or post to the NYSE Arca Book in accordance with
Rule 7.44-E(k).
    The Exchange proposes to delete text from the last sentence of the
first paragraph under current Rule 7.44-E(l) referring to an unfilled
quantity of a Retail Order executing or posting to the NYSE Arca Book.
The Exchange proposes to eliminate this text because Retail Orders
would, as proposed, function as IOC orders only, and any remaining
unfilled quantity of a Retail Order would thus be cancelled. The
Exchange also proposes to delete the examples currently provided in
Rule 7.44-E(l) to illustrate priority and order allocation of RPI
Orders and Retail Orders. With the changes proposed in this filing to
modify RPI Orders and Retail Orders to function only as MPL Orders and
to offer only one type of Retail Order, RPI Orders and Retail Orders
would simply trade according to price/time priority as described in
Rule 7.36-E. The Exchange thus believes that new Rule 7.44-E(g) clearly
describes the ranking and priority of RPI Orders and Retail Orders and
that no examples are needed to further illustrate how such orders would
trade. The Exchange believes that removing unnecessary examples from
current Rule 7.44-E(l) would improve the clarity of the rule.
Proposed Elimination of Retail Liquidity Providers
    NYSE Arca Rules 7.44-E(a)(1), 7.44-E(a)(4)(C), and 7.44-E(c)
through (i) currently set forth rules pertaining to RLPs:
     Rule 7.44-E(a)(1) provides that RLPs are ETP Holders that
are approved by the Exchange and required to submit RPIs.
     Rule 7.44-E(a)(4)(C) describes how RLPs may enter RPIs for
their assigned and non-assigned securities.
     Rule 7.44-E(c) describes how an ETP Holder may qualify to
become an RLP.

     Rule 7.44-E(d) sets forth the process by which an ETP
Holder may apply to become an RLP, subject to the Exchange's approval
of such application.
     Rule 7.44-E(e) provides for an RLP's voluntary withdrawal
from RLP status.
     Rule 7.44-E(f) sets forth an RLP's obligations with
respect to entering RPIs.
     Rule 7.44-E(g) describes action the Exchange may take with
respect to an RLP that fails to meet the requirements of Rule 7.44-E.
     Rule 7.44-E(i) describes the process through which an ETP
Holder may appeal the Exchange's decision to disapprove or disqualify
it as an RLP.
    The Exchange proposes to modify the Program to eliminate the role
of RLPs, as there are no ETP Holders currently registered as RLPs.
Accordingly, the Exchange does not believe that modifying Rule 7.44-E
to remove text providing for the RLP function would impact the
effectiveness of the Program and notes that other exchanges currently
operate retail price improvement programs that do not include an RLP
function.\23\ To effect this change, the Exchange proposes to delete
Rules 7.44-E(a)(1), 7.44-E(a)(4)(C), and 7.44-E(c) through (g) in their
entirety and to modify Rule 7.44-E(i) to remove text relating to the
disapproval or disqualification of an RLP.\24\ The Exchange also
proposes to renumber current Rules 7.44-E(a)(2) through (4) as Rules
7.44-E(a)(1) through (3) to reflect the deletion of current Rule 7.44-
E(a)(1) and to renumber Rules 7.44-E(h) through (l) as Rules 7.44-E(c)
through (g) to reflect the proposed deletion of current Rules 7.44-E(c)
through (g).\25\ The Exchange believes that the proposed change would
simplify and add clarity to its Rules by removing the description of an
unutilized aspect of the Program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ See, e.g., Investors Exchange LLC (``IEX'') Rule 11.232
(describing IEX Retail Price Improvement Program); Nasdaq BX, Inc.
(``Nasdaq BX'') Rule 4780 (describing Nasdaq BX Retail Price
Improvement Program).
    \24\ In Rule 7.44-E(i) (which is proposed to be renumbered as
Rule 7.44-E(d)), the Exchange proposes to delete references to Rules
7.44-E(d) and 7.44-E(g), which currently provide for the process by
which an ETP Holder may apply to become an RLP and actions the
Exchange may take with respect to an RLP that fails to meet the
requirements of Rule 7.44-E, respectively. The Exchange also
proposes a conforming change to replace the reference to Rule 7.44-
E(h) with a reference to Rule 7.44-E(c) to reflect the proposed
renumbering of Rules 7.44-E(h) through (l). The Exchange also
proposes to delete current Rule 7.44-E(i)(1)(A) (which describes the
reassignment of securities from an RLP that has been disqualified)
because the rule would no longer have application. The Exchange
further proposes to delete the defined term ``appellant'' in current
Rule 7.44-E(i)(1), as such term would no longer be used following
the elimination of Rule 7.44-E(i)(1)(A).
    \25\ The Exchange also proposes conforming changes to renumbered
Rules 7.44-E(a)(2) (Retail Order) and 7.44-E(g) (Priority and Order
Allocation) to update references to Rule 7.44-E(k) to refer instead
to Rule 7.44-E(f), to account for the proposed renumbering described
above in connection with the elimination of RLPs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Subject to approval of this proposed rule change, the Exchange will
implement this change no later than in the second quarter of 2023 and
announce the implementation date by Trader Update.
2. Statutory Basis
    The proposed rule change is consistent with section 6(b) of the
Act,\26\ in general, and furthers the objectives of section
6(b)(5),\27\ in particular, because it is 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 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \27\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that the proposed changes to both Retail
Orders and RPI Orders in the Program would promote just and equitable
principles of trade and remove impediments to, and perfect the
mechanism of, a free and open market and a national market system
because modifying RPI Orders and Retail Orders to function as MPL
Orders would further the purpose of the Program by providing Retail
Orders with price improvement opportunities at the midpoint or better.
The Exchange believes that providing more deterministic price
improvement opportunities for Retail Orders would attract additional
retail order flow to the Exchange. The Exchange also believes that the
proposed change to the Program would allow it to compete with other
exchanges that operate retail price improvement programs that are
priced at the midpoint.\28\ The Exchange believes that the proposed
change to streamline how Retail Orders function would also promote just
and equitable principles of trade and remove impediments to, and
perfect the mechanism of, a free and open market and a national market
system by simplifying the operation of the Program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ See, e.g., IEX Rule 11.232 (providing for Retail Price
Improvement Program with Retail Order defined as a Discretionary Peg
order or Midpoint Peg order with a Time-in-Force of IOC or FOK, that
is only eligible to trade at a price between the NBB and the
Midpoint Price (for bids) or between the NBO and the Midpoint Price
(for offers)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange also believes that the proposed change to eliminate
RLPs as a class under the Program would promote just and equitable
principles of trade, remove impediments to, and perfect the mechanism
of, a free and open market and a national market system, and protect
investors and the public interest because there are no ETP Holders
currently registered as RLPs and, accordingly, deleting rule text
providing for RLPs would not have any impact on any existing ETP
Holders. Moreover, because any ETP Holder may enter RPI Orders,
eliminating RLPs as a class would not impact the ability of ETP Holders
to enter RPI Orders on the Exchange. The Exchange further notes that
other exchanges currently operate retail price improvement programs
that do not include RLPs.\29\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ See note 23, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate
in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The Exchange believes that
the proposed change could promote competition by modifying RPI Orders
and Retail Orders to function as MPL Orders, thereby encouraging
additional trading opportunities at the midpoint and supporting price
improvement opportunities at the midpoint of the PBBO or better for
retail investors. The Exchange also believes that the proposed change
to eliminate the RLP function would not impose any burden on
competition, as no ETP Holders are currently registered as RLPs. The
Exchange further believes that the proposed change could promote
competition between the Exchange and other exchanges that offer retail
price improvement programs, including an exchange that operates a
retail price improvement program intended to provide additional trading
opportunities at the midpoint.\30\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \30\ See note 28, supra; see also, e.g., Nasdaq BX Rule 4780
(describing BX's Retail Price Improvement Program); Cboe BYX
Exchange, Inc. (``BYX'') Rule 11.24 (describing BYX's Retail Price
Improvement Program).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the
proposed rule change.

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

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

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to [email protected]. Please include
File Number SR-NYSEARCA-2023-06 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NYSEARCA-2023-06. This
file number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's internet website (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml).
Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written
statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with
the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed
rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those
that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions
of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for website viewing and printing in
the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC
20549, on official business days between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and
3:00 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available for inspection
and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All comments
received will be posted without change. Persons submitting comments are
cautioned that we do not redact or edit personal identifying
information from comment submissions. You should submit only
information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions
should refer to File Number SR-NYSEARCA-2023-06 and should be submitted
on or before February 21, 2023.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \31\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\31\
Sherry R. Haywood,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2023-01743 Filed 1-27-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P