[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 196 (Thursday, October 14, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Page 57193]
[FR Doc No: 2021-22382]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-4607-DR; Docket ID FEMA-2021-0001]

Michigan; Amendment No. 1 to Notice of a Major Disaster
Declaration

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice amends the notice of a major disaster declaration
for the State of Michigan (FEMA-4607-DR), dated July 15, 2021, and
related determinations.

DATES: This amendment was issued September 24, 2021.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dean Webster, Office of Response and
Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW,
Washington, DC 20472,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The notice of a major disaster declaration
for the State of Michigan is hereby amended to include the following
areas among those areas determined to have been adversely affected by
the event declared a major disaster by the President in his declaration
of July 15, 2021.

    Macomb and Oakland Counties for Individual Assistance.

    The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers
(CFDA) are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030,
Community Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis
Counseling; 97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster
Unemployment Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance
Grant; 97.048, Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and
Households In Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049,
Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance--Disaster Housing
Operations for Individuals and Households; 97.050 Presidentially
Declared Disaster Assistance to Individuals and Households--Other
Needs; 97.036, Disaster Grants--Public Assistance (Presidentially
Declared Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant.

Deanne Criswell,
Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2021-22382 Filed 10-13-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111-23-P


[Federal Register: November 2, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 212)]
[Notices]
[Page 62228]
[DOCID:fr02no07-42]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2007-0038; FRL-8155-3]

The Cadmus Group, Inc.; Transfer of Data

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice announces that pesticide related information
submitted to EPA's Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP) pursuant to the
Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) and the
Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), including information
that may have been claimed as Confidential Business Information (CBI)
by the submitter, will be transferred to The Cadmus Group, Inc. in
accordance with 40 CFR 2.307(h)(3) and 2.308(i)(2). The Cadmus Group,
Inc. has been awarded multiple contracts to perform work for OPP, and
access to this information will enable The Cadmus Group, Inc. to
fulfill the obligations of the contract.

DATES:  The Cadmus Group, Inc. will be given access to this information
on or before November 9, 2007.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Felicia Croom, Information Technology
and Resources Management Division (7502P), Office of Pesticide
Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW.,
Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail
address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. Does this Action Apply to Me?

    This action applies to the public in general. As such, the Agency
has not attempted to describe all the specific entities that may be
affected by this action. If you have any questions regarding the
applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the person
listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

B. How Can I Get Copies of this Document and Other Related Information?

    1. Docket. EPA has established a docket for this action under
docket identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2007-0038. Publicly
available docket materials are available either in the electronic
docket at http://www.regulations.gov, or, if only available in hard

copy, at the Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP) Regulatory Public
Docket in Rm. S-4400, One Potomac Yard (South Bldg.), 2777 S. Crystal
Drive, Arlington, VA. The hours of operation of this Docket Facility
are from 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal
holidays. The Docket Facility telephone number is<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    2. Electronic access. You may access this Federal Register document
electronically through the EPA Internet under the ``Federal Register''
listings at http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr.

II. Contractor Requirements

    Under Contract No. EP-C-07-022, the contractor will review and
evaluate the most recent toxicity, occurrence and exposure information
for atrazine and triazines (simazine and propazine) and other
pesticides in water to support health effect reviews under the Safe
Drinking Water Act and the Clean Water Act. Access by The Cadmus Group
Inc. to this information will enable the Office of Water to have
increased support and use of the best available, peer reviewed science
to support decisions and develop the analyses required under both the
Safe Drinking Water Act and the Clean Water Act.
    This contract involves no subcontractors.
    OPP has determined that the contract described in this document
involves work that is being conducted in connection with FIFRA, in that
pesticide chemicals will be the subject of certain evaluations to be
made under this contract. These evaluations may be used in subsequent
regulatory decisions under FIFRA.
    Some of this information may be entitled to confidential treatment.
The information has been submitted to EPA under sections 3, 4, 6, and 7
of FIFRA and under sections 408 and 409 of FFDCA.
    In accordance with the requirements of 40 CFR 2.307(h)(3), the
contract with The Cadmus Group, Inc., prohibits use of the information
for any purpose not specified in the contract; prohibits disclosure of
the information to a third party without prior written approval from
the Agency; and requires that each official and employee of the
contractor sign an agreement to protect the information from
unauthorized release and to handle it in accordance with the FIFRA
Information Security Manual. In addition, The Cadmus Group, Inc. is
required to submit for EPA approval a security plan under which any CBI
will be secured and protected against unauthorized release or
compromise. No information will be provided to The Cadmus Group, Inc.
until the requirements in this document have been fully satisfied.
Records of information provided to The Cadmus Group, Inc. will be
maintained by EPA Project Officers for this contract. All information
supplied to The Cadmus Group, Inc. by EPA for use in connection with
this contract will be returned to EPA when The Cadmus Group, Inc. has
completed its work.

List of Subjects

    Environmental protection, Business and industry, Government
contracts, Government property, Security measures.

    Dated: October 26, 2007.
Oscar Morales,
Acting Director, Office of Pesticide Programs.
[FR Doc. E7-21598 Filed 11-1-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-S


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 115 (Thursday, June 17, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 32288-32292]
[FR Doc No: 2021-12750]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-92153; File No. SR-NYSEAMER-2021-29]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE American LLC; Notice of
Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Change Amending the NYSE
American Equities Price List and Fee Schedule To Establish Pricing for
Orders Designated as Retail Orders

June 11, 2021.
    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 June 1, 2021, NYSE American LLC (``NYSE American'' or
``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I, II,
and III below, which Items have been prepared by the 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 the NYSE American Equities Price
List and Fee Schedule (``Price List'') to establish pricing for orders
designated as ``Retail Orders.'' The Exchange proposes to implement the
fee changes effective June 1, 2021. The proposed 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 the Price List to establish pricing
for orders designated as ``Retail Orders,'' as defined below.
    The proposed changes respond to the current competitive environment
where order flow providers have a choice of where to direct Retail
Orders by offering further incentives for ETP Holders \4\ to send such
orders to the Exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See Rules 1.1E(m) (definition of ETP) & (n) (definition of
ETP Holder).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange proposes to implement the fee changes effective June
1, 2021.
Competitive Environment
    The Exchange operates in a highly competitive market. The
Commission has repeatedly expressed its preference for competition over
regulatory intervention in determining prices, products, and services
in the securities markets. In Regulation NMS, the Commission
highlighted the importance of market forces in determining prices and
SRO revenues and, also, recognized that current regulation of the
market system ``has been remarkably successful in promoting market
competition in its broader forms that are most important to investors
and listed companies.'' \5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 51808 (June 9,
2005), 70 FR 37496, 37499 (June 29, 2005) (File No. S7-10-04) (Final
Rule) (``Regulation NMS'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    While Regulation NMS has enhanced competition, it has also fostered
a ``fragmented'' market structure where trading in a single stock can
occur across multiple trading centers. When multiple trading centers
compete for order flow in the same stock, the Commission has recognized
that ``such competition can lead to the fragmentation of order flow in
that stock.'' \6\ Indeed, cash equity trading is currently dispersed
across 16 exchanges,\7\ numerous alternative trading systems,\8\ and
broker-dealer internalizers and wholesalers, all competing for order
flow. Based on publicly-available information, no single exchange
currently has more than 17% market share.\9\ Therefore, no exchange
possesses significant pricing power in the execution of cash equity
order flow. More specifically, the Exchange currently has less than 1%
market share of executed volume of cash equities trading.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 61358, 75 FR 3594,
3597 (January 21, 2010) (File No. S7-02-10) (Concept Release on
Equity Market Structure).
    \7\ See Cboe U.S Equities Market Volume Summary, available at
https://markets.cboe.com/us/equities/market_share. See generally
https://www.sec.gov/fast-answers/divisionsmarketregmrexchangesshtml.html.
    \8\ See FINRA ATS Transparency Data, available at https://otctransparency.finra.org/otctransparency/AtsIssueData. A list of
alternative trading systems registered with the Commission is
available at https://www.sec.gov/foia/docs/atslist.htm.
    \9\ See Cboe Global Markets U.S. Equities Market Volume Summary,
available at http://markets.cboe.com/us/equities/market_share/.
    \10\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that the ever-shifting market share among the
exchanges from month to month demonstrates that market participants can
move order flow, or discontinue or reduce use of certain categories of
products. While it is not possible to know a firm's reason for shifting
order flow, the Exchange believes that one such reason is because of
fee changes at any of the registered exchanges or non-exchange venues
to which the firm routes order flow. The competition for Retail Orders
is even more stark, particularly as it relates to exchange versus off-
exchange venues.
    The Exchange thus needs to compete in the first instance with non-
exchange venues for Retail Order flow, and with the 15 other exchange
venues for the portion of Retail Order flow that is not directed off-
exchange. Accordingly, competitive forces compel the Exchange to use
exchange transaction fees and credits, particularly as they relate to
competing for Retail Order flow, because market participants can
readily trade on competing venues if they deem pricing levels at those
other venues to be more favorable.
Proposed Rule Change
    In response to this competitive environment, the Exchange proposes
to amend its Price List to establish pricing for orders designated as
``Retail Orders.''
Proposed Definition of Retail Orders
    To define Retail Orders, the Exchange proposes to amend the
``General'' section of the Fee Schedule and add a new subheading ``III.
Retail Orders'' to establish requirements for Retail Orders on the
Exchange that are based on the requirements to enter orders with
``retail'' modifiers for purposes of rates available for such orders on
the Exchange's affiliates, New York Stock Exchange, LLC (``NYSE'') and
NYSE Arca, Inc. (``NYSE Arca'').\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See NYSE Rule 13 regarding Retail Modifiers and the NYSE
Arca procedures for designating orders with a retail modifier for
purposes of fee rates. See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 67540
(July 30, 2012), 77 FR 46539 (August 3, 2012) (SR-NYSEArca-2012-77).
These requirements are distinct from, but related to, the
requirements for a ``Retail Order'' on the Retail Liquidity Programs
available on NYSE and NYSE Arca. See NYSE Rule 7.44 and NYSE Arca
Rule 7.44-E. The Exchange does not offer a ``Retail Liquidity
Program.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Proposed paragraph (a) would define ``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 ETP Holder, 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.
    Proposed paragraph (b) would specify that in order for an ETP
Holder to access the proposed Retail Order pricing, the ETP Holder
would be required to designate an order as a Retail Order in the form
and/or manner prescribed by the Exchange.
    Proposed paragraph (c) would specify that in order to submit a
Retail Order, an ETP Holder must submit an attestation, in a form
prescribed by the Exchange, that substantially all orders designated as
``Retail Orders'' will meet the requirements set out in the definition
above.
    Proposed paragraph (d) would specify that an ETP Holder must have
written policies and procedures reasonably

designed to assure that it will only designate orders as ``Retail
Orders'' if all requirements of a Retail Order are met. Such written
policies and procedures must require the ETP Holder to (i) exercise due
diligence before entering a Retail Order to assure that entry as a
Retail Order is in compliance with the requirements specified by the
Exchange, and (ii) monitor whether orders entered as Retail Orders meet
the applicable requirements. If an ETP Holder represents Retail Orders
from another broker-dealer customer, the ETP Holder's supervisory
procedures must be reasonably designed to assure that the orders it
receives from such broker-dealer customer that it designates as Retail
Orders meet the definition of a Retail Order. The ETP Holder must (i)
obtain an annual written representation, in a form acceptable to the
Exchange, from each broker-dealer customer that sends it orders to be
designated as Retail Orders that entry of such orders as Retail Orders
will be in compliance with the requirements specified by the Exchange,
and (ii) monitor whether its broker-dealer customer's Retail Order flow
continues to meet the applicable requirements.
    Proposed paragraph (e) would specify that an ETP Holder that fails
to abide by the requirements specified in paragraphs (a)-(d) would not
be eligible for the Retail Order rates for orders it designates as
``Retail Orders.''
Proposed Rates for Retail Orders
    The Exchange proposes that the rates for Retail Orders would be
available only for transactions in securities priced at or above $1.00.
To effect this change, the Exchange proposes to amend the Price List
for transactions in securities priced at or above $1.00, other than
transactions by Electronic Designated Market Makers in assigned
securities, to specify that the current fees are ``Standard Rates'' and
to add new ``Retail Order Rates.'' Specifically, the Exchange proposes
to delete the column labeled ``Category'' from the existing table and
to insert subheadings ``1. Securities at or above $1'' and ``a.
Standard Rates'' above the existing table. The Exchange does not
propose to make any changes to the rates in the table.
    Below the first row of the existing table, the Exchange proposes to
add subheading ``b. Retail Order Rates *,'' below which the Exchange
proposes to specify the rates that orders designated by an ETP Holder
as ``Retail Orders'' would be eligible for. As proposed, orders
designated by an ETP Holder as ``Retail Orders'' may qualify for the
following fees and credits:
     A credit of $0.0030 per displayed share for orders
designated as Retail Orders that add liquidity. This credit is higher
than the Exchange's standard credit that ranges between $0.0024 per
share to $0.0027 per share for displayed and MPL orders adding
liquidity, depending on Adding ADV.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ As defined in the Fee Schedule, Adding ADV means an ETP
Holder's average daily volume of shares executed on the Exchange
that provided liquidity.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     A fee of $0.0010 per share for MPL orders designated as
Retail Orders that remove liquidity. This fee is lower than the
Exchange's standard fee of either $0.0026 per share or $0.0030 per
share for orders that remove liquidity, depending on Adding ADV.
     A fee of $0.0005 per share for orders designated as Retail
Orders executed in an opening auction, unless a more favorable rate
applies. This fee is equivalent to the Exchange's standard fee for
orders executed in an opening auction.
    Below the proposed new Retail Order Rates subsection, the Exchange
proposes to insert a new heading ``2. Securities Below $1,'' followed
by the second row of the existing table. The Exchange proposes to
delete the ``Category'' column of the table and to add the ``Adding
Liquidity,'' ``Removing Liquidity,'' and ``Executions at Open and
Close'' column headings that appear in the existing table. The Exchange
does not propose to make any changes to the rates for transactions in
securities below $1.
    As noted above, the proposed new subheading ``b. Retail Order Rates
*'' would include an asterisk. The Exchange proposes to add the
following text regarding the asterisk: ``* See section III under
`General' at the end of this Price List for information on designating
orders as `Retail Orders.' ''
    The proposed pricing available for Retail Orders would be optional
for ETP Holders. Accordingly, an ETP Holder that does not opt to
identify qualified orders as Retail Orders would choose not to (i) make
an attestation to the Exchange, or (ii) maintain the policies and
procedures described above.
    This proposed change is intended to encourage greater participation
from ETP Holders and to promote additional liquidity in Retail Orders.
As described above, ETP Holders have a choice of where to send such
orders. The Exchange believes that the proposed lower fees could lead
to more ETP Holders choosing to route their Retail Orders to the
Exchange for execution rather than to a competing exchange.
    The Exchange does not know how much Retail Order flow ETP Holders
choose to route to other exchanges or to off-exchange venues. Without
having a view of ETP Holders' activity on other markets and off-
exchange venues, the Exchange has no way of knowing whether this
proposed rule change would result in any ETP Holders sending more of
their Retail Orders to the Exchange. The Exchange cannot predict with
certainty how many ETP Holders would avail themselves of this
opportunity, but additional Retail Orders would benefit all market
participants because it would provide greater execution opportunities
on the Exchange.
    The proposed rule change is designed to be available to all ETP
Holders on the Exchange and is intended to provide ETP Holders a
greater incentive to direct more of their Retail Orders to the
Exchange.
    The proposed changes are not otherwise intended to address any
other issues, and the Exchange is not aware of any significant problems
that market participants would have in complying with the proposed
changes.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with Section 6(b) of the Act,\13\ in general, and furthers the
objectives of Sections 6(b)(4) and (5) of the Act,\14\ in particular,
because it provides for the equitable allocation of reasonable dues,
fees, and other charges among its members, issuers and other persons
using its facilities, is designed to prevent fraudulent and
manipulative acts and practices and to promote just and equitable
principles of trade, and does not unfairly discriminate between
customers, issuers, brokers or dealers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \14\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4) and (5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Proposed Fee Change Is Reasonable
    As discussed above, the Exchange operates in a highly fragmented
and competitive market. The Commission has repeatedly expressed its
preference for competition over regulatory intervention in determining
prices, products, and services in the securities markets. Specifically,
in Regulation NMS, the Commission highlighted the importance of market
forces in determining prices and SRO revenues and, also, recognized
that current regulation of the market system ``has been remarkably
successful in promoting market competition in its broader forms that
are most important to investors and listed companies.'' \15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ See Regulation NMS, supra note 5, 70 FR at 37499.

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

    The Exchange believes that the ever-shifting market share among the
exchanges from month to month demonstrates that market participants can
shift order flow, or discontinue to reduce use of certain categories of
products, in response to fee changes. With respect to Retail Orders,
ETP Holders can choose from any one of the 16 currently operating
registered exchanges, and numerous off-exchange venues, to route such
order flow. Accordingly, competitive forces constrain exchange
transaction fees that relate to Retail Orders on an exchange. Stated
otherwise, changes to exchange transaction fees can have a direct
effect on the ability of an exchange to compete for order flow.
    Given this competitive environment, the Exchange believes that this
proposal to establish pricing for orders designated as Retail Orders
represents a reasonable attempt to attract additional Retail Orders to
the Exchange. The Exchange believes the proposed change is also
reasonable because it is designed to attract higher volumes of Retail
Orders transacted on the Exchange by ETP Holders, which would benefit
all market participants by offering greater price discovery and an
increased opportunity to trade on the Exchange.
    The Exchange believes that proposed General sub-section III is
reasonable because it would define ``Retail Order'' based on existing
requirements for orders designated as ``retail'' on NYSE and NYSE Arca,
and therefore is not novel. The Exchange further believes that the
designation, attestation, and written policies and procedures required
by proposed sub-section III are reasonable because they are also based
on existing procedures for similarly-defined orders on NYSE and NYSE
Arca, and therefore are not novel.
    In light of the competitive environment in which the Exchange
currently operates, the proposed rule change is a reasonable attempt to
increase liquidity on the Exchange and improve the Exchange's market
share relative to its competitors.
The Proposed Fee Change Is an Equitable Allocation of Fees and Credits
    The Exchange believes its proposal to establish pricing for orders
designated as Retail Orders equitably allocates its fees among its
market participants because all ETP Holders that participate on the
Exchange may qualify for the proposed credits and fees if they elect to
send their Retail Orders to the Exchange and properly designate them as
Retail Orders. Without having a view of ETP Holders' activity on other
markets and off-exchange venues, the Exchange has no way of knowing
whether this proposed rule change would result in any ETP Holder
sending more of their Retail Orders to the Exchange. The Exchange
cannot predict with certainty how many ETP Holders would avail
themselves of this opportunity, but additional Retail Orders would
benefit all market participants because it would provide greater
execution opportunities on the Exchange. The Exchange anticipates that
multiple ETP Holders that engage in retail trading activity would
endeavor to send more of their Retail Orders for execution on the
Exchange, thereby earning the proposed higher credits and paying the
proposed lower fees.
    The Exchange further believes that the proposed change is equitable
because it is reasonably related to the value to the Exchange's market
quality associated with higher volume in Retail Orders. The Exchange
believes that establishing pricing for orders designated as Retail
Orders would attract order flow and liquidity to the Exchange, thereby
contributing to price discovery on the Exchange and benefiting
investors generally.
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is equitable
because maintaining or increasing the proportion of Retail Orders in
exchange-listed securities that are executed on a registered national
securities exchange (rather than relying on certain available off-
exchange execution methods) would contribute to investors' confidence
in the fairness of their transactions and would benefit all investors
by deepening the Exchange's liquidity pool, supporting the quality of
price discovery, promoting market transparency, and improving investor
protection.
The Proposed Fee Change Is Not Unfairly Discriminatory
    The Exchange believes that the proposal is not unfairly
discriminatory. In the prevailing competitive environment, ETP Holders
are free to disfavor the Exchange's pricing if they believe that
alternatives offer them better value.
    The Exchange believes that the proposed change is not unfairly
discriminatory because it would apply to all ETP Holders on an equal
and non-discriminatory basis. The Exchange believes that the proposed
rule change is not unfairly discriminatory because maintaining or
increasing the proportion of Retail Orders in exchange-listed
securities that are executed on a registered national securities
exchange (rather than relying on certain available off-exchange
execution methods) would contribute to investors' confidence in the
fairness of their transactions and would benefit all investors by
deepening the Exchange's liquidity pool, supporting the quality of
price discovery, promoting market transparency, and improving investor
protection. This aspect of the proposed rule change also is consistent
with the Act because all similarly-situated ETP Holders would earn the
same credits and pay the same fees for Retail Orders executed on the
Exchange.
    Finally, the submission of Retail Orders is optional for ETP
Holders in that they could choose whether to submit Retail Orders to
the Exchange and, if they do, they can choose the extent of their
activity in this regard. The Exchange believes that it is subject to
significant competitive forces, as described below in the Exchange's
statement regarding the burden on competition.
    For the foregoing reasons, the Exchange believes that the proposal
is consistent with the Act.

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

    In accordance with Section 6(b)(8) of the Act,\16\ the Exchange
believes that the proposed rule change would not impose any burden on
competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the
purposes of the Act. Instead, as discussed above, the Exchange believes
that the proposed fee change would encourage the submission of
additional liquidity to a public exchange, thereby promoting market
depth, price discovery, and transparency and enhancing order execution
opportunities for ETP Holders. As a result, the Exchange believes that
the proposed change furthers the Commission's goal in adopting
Regulation NMS of fostering integrated competition among orders, which
promotes ``more efficient pricing of individual stocks for all types of
orders, large and small.'' \17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(8).
    \17\ See Regulation NMS, supra note 4, 70 FR at 37498-99.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Intramarket Competition. The Exchange believes the proposed change
would not impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or
appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The proposed
change is designed to attract additional Retail Orders to the Exchange.
The Exchange believes that the proposed higher credits and lower fees
would incentivize market participants to direct their Retail Orders to
the Exchange. Greater overall order flow, trading

opportunities, and pricing transparency benefit all market participants
on the Exchange by enhancing market quality and continuing to encourage
ETP Holders to send orders, thereby contributing towards a robust and
well-balanced market ecosystem.
    Intermarket Competition. The Exchange operates in a highly
competitive market in which market participants can readily choose to
send their orders to other exchange and off-exchange venues if they
deem fee levels at those other venues to be more favorable. As noted
above, the Exchange currently has less than 1% market share of executed
volume of equities trading. In such an environment, the Exchange must
continually adjust its fees and credits to remain competitive with
other exchanges and with off-exchange venues. Because competitors are
free to modify their own fees and credits in response, and because
market participants may readily adjust their order routing practices,
the Exchange does not believe its proposed fee change can impose any
burden on intermarket competition.
    The Exchange believes that the proposed change could promote
competition between the Exchange and other execution venues, including
those that currently offer similar order types and comparable
transaction pricing, by encouraging additional orders to be sent to the
Exchange for execution.

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

    The foregoing rule change is effective upon filing pursuant to
Section 19(b)(3)(A) \18\ of the Act and subparagraph (f)(2) of Rule
19b-4 \19\ thereunder, because it establishes a due, fee, or other
charge imposed by the Exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \19\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of such proposed rule
change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule
change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or
appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or
otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission
takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings under
Section 19(b)(2)(B) \20\ of the Act to determine whether the proposed
rule change should be approved or disapproved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2)(B).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-NYSEAMER-2021-29 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-NYSEAMER-2021-29. 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-NYSEAMER-2021-29 and should be submitted
on or before July 8, 2021.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Jill M. Peterson,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2021-12750 Filed 6-16-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 31 (Friday, February 14, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 8599-8600]
[FR Doc No: 2020-02986]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2018-D-1398]

Mitigation Strategies To Protect Food Against Intentional
Adulteration; Draft Guidance for Industry; Availability

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice of availability.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA, we, or Agency) is
announcing the availability of a supplemental draft guidance for
industry entitled ``Mitigation Strategies to Protect Food Against
Intentional Adulteration: Guidance for Industry.'' This supplemental
draft guidance document, when finalized, will help food facilities that
manufacture, process, pack, or hold food, and that are required to
register under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act)
comply with the requirements of our regulation entitled ``Mitigation
Strategies to Protect Food Against Intentional Adulteration.''

DATES: Submit either electronic or written comments on the draft
guidance by June 15, 2020 to ensure that the Agency considers your
comment on this draft guidance before it begins work on the final
version of the guidance.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments on any guidance at any time as
follows:

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-2018-D-1398 for ``Mitigation Strategies to Protect Food Against
Intentional Adulteration: Guidance for Industry.'' Received comments
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 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.govinfo.gov/content/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.
    You may submit comments on any guidance at any time (see 21 CFR
10.115(g)(5)).
    Submit written requests for single copies of the guidance to the
Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition, Food and Drug
Administration, 5001 Campus Dr., College Park, MD 20740. Send two self-
addressed adhesive labels to assist that office in processing your
requests. See the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for electronic
access to the draft guidance document.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ryan Newkirk, Center for Food Safety
and Applied Nutrition (HFS-005), Food and Drug Administration, 5001
Campus Dr., College Park, MD 20740,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    The FDA Food Safety Modernization Act (FSMA) (Pub. L. 111-353)
enables FDA to better protect public health by helping to ensure the
safety and security of the food supply. FSMA enables FDA to focus more
on preventing food safety problems rather than relying primarily on
reacting to problems after they occur.
    FSMA added to the FD&C Act several new sections that reference
intentional adulteration. For example, section 418 of the FD&C Act (21
U.S.C. 350g) addresses intentional adulteration in the context of
facilities that manufacture, process, pack, or hold food, and that are
required to register under section 415 (21 U.S.C. 350d). Section 420 of
the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 350i) addresses intentional adulteration in the
context of high-risk foods and exempts farms except for farms that
produce milk.
    We are announcing the availability of a supplemental draft guidance
for industry entitled ``Mitigation Strategies to Protect Food Against
Intentional Adulteration: Guidance for Industry.'' This multi-chapter
supplemental draft guidance for industry is intended to help food
facilities required to comply develop and implement some of the
components of a food defense plan, and meet other requirements under 21
CFR part 121. We are announcing the availability of the following
chapters and appendices:

 Chapter 5--Mitigation Strategies Management Components: Food
Defense Corrective Actions
 Chapter 6--Mitigation Strategies Management Components: Food
Defense Verification
 Chapter 7--Reanalysis
 Chapter 9--Records
 Appendix 2--Mitigation Strategies in the Food Defense
Mitigation Strategies Database
 Appendix 3--Determination of Status as a Very Small Business
or Small Business Under Part 121: Mitigation Strategies to Protect Food
Against Intentional Adulteration

II. Significance of Guidance

    This level 1 draft guidance is being issued consistent with FDA's
good guidance practices regulation (21 CFR 10.115). The draft guidance,
when finalized, will represent the current thinking of FDA on food
defense measures against intentional adulteration for the regulation
``Mitigation Strategies to Protect Food Against Intentional
Adulteration.'' It does not establish any rights for any person and is
not binding on FDA or the public. You can use an alternative approach
if it satisfies the requirements of the applicable statutes and
regulations.

III. Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995

    This draft guidance refers to previously approved collections of
information found in FDA regulations. These collections of information
are subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520). The
collections of information in 21 CFR part 121 have been approved under
OMB control number 0910-0812.

IV. Electronic Access

    Persons with access to the internet may obtain the draft guidance
at either https://www.fda.gov/regulatory-information/search-fda-guidance-documents or https://www.regulations.gov. Use the FDA website
listed in the previous sentence to find the most current version of the
guidance.

    Dated: February 10, 2020.
Lowell J. Schiller,
Principal Associate Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2020-02986 Filed 2-13-20; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4164-01-P


[Federal Register: August 4, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 148)]
[Notices]
[Page 38676]
[DOCID:fr04au09-83]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Proposed Extension of Existing Collection; Comment Request

Upon Written Request, Copies Available From: Securities and Exchange
Commission, Office of Investor Education and Advocacy, Washington, DC
20549-0213.

Extension:
    Rule 204, OMB Control No. 3235-0647, SEC File No. 270-586.

    Notice is hereby given that pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act
of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), the Securities and Exchange
Commission (``Commission'') is soliciting comments on the collection of
information summarized below. The Commission plans to submit this
existing collection of information to the Office of Management and
Budget for extension and approval.
    Rule 204 (17 CFR 242.204) under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(15 U.S.C. 78a et seq.) requires that, subject to certain limited
exceptions, if a participant of a registered clearing agency has a fail
to deliver position at a registered clearing agency it must immediately
close out the fail to deliver position by purchasing or borrowing
securities by no later than the beginning of regular trading hours on
the settlement day following the day the participant incurred the fail
to deliver position. Rule 204 is intended to help further the
Commission's goal of reducing fails to deliver by maintaining the
reductions in fails to deliver achieved by the adoption of temporary
Rule 204T, as well as other actions taken by the Commission. In
addition, Rule 204 is intended to help further the Commission's goal of
addressing abusive ``naked'' short selling in all equity securities.
    Several provisions under Rule 204 will impose a ``collection of
information'' within the meaning of the Paperwork Reduction Act.
    I. Allocation Notification Requirement: It is estimated that the
active broker-dealer respondents registered with the Commission incur
an aggregate burden of 394,626 hours per year to comply with this
provision of Rule 204.
    II. Demonstration Requirement for Fails to Deliver on Long Sales:
It is estimated that the active broker-dealer respondents registered
with the Commission incur an aggregate burden of 270,063 hours per year
to comply with this provision of Rule 204.
    III. Pre-Borrow Notification Requirement: It is estimated that the
active broker-dealer respondents registered with the Commission incur
an aggregate burden of 397,152 hours per year to comply with this
provision of Rule 204.
    IV. Certification Requirement: It is estimated that the active
broker-dealer respondents registered with the Commission incur an
aggregate burden of 394,626 hours per year to comply with this
provision of Rule 204.
    V. Pre-Fail Credit Demonstration Requirement: It is estimated that
the active broker-dealer respondents registered with the Commission
incur an aggregate burden of 394,626 hours per year to comply with this
provision of Rule 204.
    Written comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed
collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of
the functions of the Commission, including whether the information will
have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the Commission's estimate
of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (c) ways to
enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be
collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of
information on respondents, including through the use of automated
collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Consideration will be given to comments and suggestions submitted in
writing within 60 days of this publication.
    Comments should be directed to Charles Boucher, Director/Chief
Information Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission, c/o Shirley
Martinson, 6432 General Green Way, Alexandria, Virginia 22312 or send
an e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
    Dated: July 29, 2009.
Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. E9-18560 Filed 8-3-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010-01-P