[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 206 (Thursday, October 24, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 63551-63555]
[FR Doc No: 2013-24916]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-70717; File No. SR-NYSEMKT-2013-81]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE MKT LLC; Notice of Filing and
Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Amending Rule 975NY

October 18, 2013.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) \1\ of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 (the ``Act'') \2\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\3\ notice is hereby
given that on October 7, 2013, NYSE MKT LLC (the ``Exchange'' or ``NYSE
MKT'') 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 975NY to specify that options
transactions that involve Obvious Error or Catastrophic Error will (1)
if the parties to the transaction are not Customers, be automatically
adjusted by the Exchange, unless the parties agree to their own
adjustments or to bust the transactions; or (2) if at least one of the
parties to the transaction determined to be a Catastrophic Error is a
Customer, be adjusted if the adjustment price would be within the
Customer's limit price; otherwise, the transaction will be busted by
the Exchange, unless the Customer accepts the Exchange's adjustment
price or the parties to the transaction agree to an adjustment price.
The text of the proposed rule change is available on the

Exchange's Web site at www.nyse.com, at the principal office of the
Exchange, at the Commission's Public Reference Room, and on the
Commission's Web site at http://www.sec.gov.

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 is proposing to amend Rules 975NY(a)(3)(A)-(B),
(d)(1), and (d)(3)(B), add a [sic] new paragraphs (d)(3)(D) and
(d)(3)(F), re-designate previous (d)(3)(D) as (d)(3)(C) and make
revisions to that paragraph, and re-designate previous (d)(3)(C) as
(d)(3)(E) and make revisions to that paragraph. Current Rule 975NY
adjusts the price of or busts transactions with respect to which there
are Obvious or Catastrophic Errors, as those terms are defined in the
rule. Whether an Obvious Error transaction is automatically adjusted or
automatically busted depends on whether both parties to the transaction
are Market Makers.\4\ Specifically, if each party to an Obvious Error
transaction is a Market Maker, the Exchange adjusts the transaction to
a price determined in accordance with current Rule 975NY(a)(3)(A)(i)-
(ii), unless the parties agree to adjust the transaction to a different
price or to bust the trade within 10 minutes of being notified of the
Obvious Error by the Exchange. Under current Rule 975NY(a)(3)(B), if at
least one party to the Obvious Error is not a Market Maker, the
Exchange busts the trade, unless both parties agree to an adjustment
price for the transaction within 30 minutes of being notified by the
Exchange of the Obvious Error.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ For the purposes of Rule 975NY, the term ``Market Maker''
means an ATP Holder acting as a Market Maker on the Exchange
pursuant to Rule 920NY. See Rule 975NY, Commentary .05.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Under current Rule 975NY(d)(3)(B), a Catastrophic Error Review
Panel (the ``Panel''), upon notification from a Market Maker or an ATP
Holder, determines if a Catastrophic Error has occurred. If so, the
Panel instructs the Exchange to adjust the execution price(s) of the
transaction(s) as set out in Rule 975NY(d)(3)(D), unless the parties
agree to adjust the transaction to a different price. The remedies
available to the parties to a Catastrophic Error under current Rule
975NY transaction [sic] do not depend on their status as Market Makers
or non-Market Makers. Rather, if the Panel determines that a
Catastrophic Error has occurred, the parties to the transaction,
irrespective of their status, are obligated to take a price adjustment;
the rule does not provide for busting a trade. The Panel's
determination on Catastrophic Error constitutes final Exchange action
on the issue.
    In summary, under the current rule, the Exchange nullifies Obvious
Error transactions unless all parties to the trade are Market Makers,
in which case the Exchange adjusts the price of the transaction. With
respect to Catastrophic Errors, the Exchange currently adjusts all
transactions even if they involve non-Market Makers. The Exchange notes
that while market professionals generally would prefer that all
transactions be adjusted rather than nullified, there is an equally
valid opposing view because adjustments can result in Customer orders
being adjusted to prices that may be greater (less) than their limit
order price, potentially by a large amount, which Customers would not
expect.
    To better balance the expectations of both market professionals and
Customers, the Exchange is proposing to amend Rules 975NY(a)(3)(A)-(B),
(d)(1), and (d)(3)(B), add a [sic] new paragraphs (d)(3)(D) and
(d)(3)(F), re-designate previous (d)(3)(D) as (d)(3)(C) and make
revisions to that paragraph, and re-designate previous (d)(3)(C) as
(d)(3)(E) and make revisions to that paragraph. The Exchange is
amending Rule 975NY to (1) provide that whether an Obvious Error or
Catastrophic Error transaction is automatically adjusted or
automatically busted depends on whether at least one of the parties to
the transaction is a ``Customer,'' as that term is defined in Rule
900.2NY(18),\5\ rather than a Market Maker; (2) generally conform the
remedies available for both Obvious Error and Catastrophic Error
transactions; (3) adjust the Theoretical Prices and the minimum amounts
away from those Theoretical Prices at which transactions are deemed to
be Catastrophic Errors; and (4) provide that a Trading Official,\6\
rather than the Panel, will determine if a Catastrophic Error has
occurred, subject to an appeal to the Panel, which would be renamed the
CER Panel to distinguish it from the Obvious Error Panel (``OE
Panel'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Rule 900.2NY(18) defines ``Customer'' as ``an individual or
organization that is not a Broker/Dealer; when not capitalized,
`customer' refers to any individual or organization whose order is
being represented, including a Broker/Dealer.''
    \6\ Rule 900.2NY(83) [sic] defines ``Trading Official'' as ``an
Exchange employee or officer, who is designated by the Chief
Executive Officer, or its designee or by the Chief Regulatory
Officer or its designee. Any Exchange employee or officer designated
as a Trading Official will from time to time as provided in these
rules have the ability to recommend and enforce rules and
regulations relating to trading access, order, decorum, safety and
welfare on the Exchange.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    If no party to an Obvious Error transaction is a Customer, the
Exchange will adjust the execution price of the transaction as set out
in the proposed amendments to Rule 975NY(a)(3)(A). Alternatively, the
parties to the transaction could agree to adjust the transaction to a
different price or to bust the trade within 10 minutes of being
notified of the Obvious Error by the Exchange. This amendment is
consistent with current Rule 975NY(a)(3)(A), but rather than apply to
transactions that involve only Market Makers, it applies more broadly
to transactions that do not involve Customers.
    If at least one party to an Obvious Error transaction is a
Customer, the Exchange will bust the trade under the proposed
amendments to Rule 975NY(a)(3)(B), unless the parties agree to an
adjustment price for the transaction within 30 minutes of being
notified of the Obvious Error by the Exchange, consistent with how
Obvious Errors involving Customers are handled today. The Exchange
believes that this approach provides a means of addressing an Obvious
Error trade that involves Customers while allowing trades involving
non-Customers or market professionals to stand, albeit at adjusted
prices. These adjusted prices potentially could be through the non-
Customers' limit order price (in other words, the adjusted price could
be higher than the limit price if it is a buy and lower than the limit
price if it is a sell order). This approach, moreover, is consistent
with that taken by the International Securities Exchange (``ISE'') in
its Rule 720.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See Exchange Act Release No. 69467 (Apr. 26, 2013), 78 FR
25777, 25778 (May 2, 2013) (SR-ISE-2013-15).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange is also amending the procedures for addressing
transactions involving Catastrophic Errors. Consistent with the
proposed amendments to the Obvious Error provisions, if no party to a
Catastrophic

Error transaction is a Customer, the Exchange will adjust the execution
price of the transaction as set out in the proposed amendments to Rule
975NY(d)(3)(B) and new paragraph (d)(3)(C). Alternatively, the parties
to the transaction can agree to adjust the transaction to a different
price or to bust the trade within 10 minutes of being notified of the
Catastrophic Error by the Exchange. If at least one party to a
Catastrophic Error transaction is a Customer, the Exchange will adjust
the trade under the proposed amendments to Rule 975NY(d)(3)(B), and
such trades will be adjusted in accordance with new paragraph
(d)(3)(C). If the adjustment price will violate the Customer's limit
price, the Customer will have 30 minutes from the time the Exchange
notifies the Customer of the adjusted price to accept it; otherwise,
the Exchange will bust the trade. Notwithstanding the foregoing, both
parties may agree to an adjustment price for the transaction within 30
minutes of being notified of the Catastrophic Error by the Exchange. As
with Obvious Error transactions, the Exchange's approach to
Catastrophic Errors as described above is generally consistent with
ISE's approach in ISE Rule 720. In addition the Exchanges [sic]
proposal to adjust, rather than bust, the trade when such adjustment
price is within the Customer's limit price is consistent with the
manner in which NASDAQ OMX PHLX (``PHLX'') handles Customer trades that
involve a Catastrophic Error.\8\ The Exchange believes such treatment
is reasonable because the adjustment price will still be within the
Customer's expectations for the price of the trade--the limit price set
by the Customer.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See NASDAQ PHLX Rule 1092(f)(ii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange also is proposing to amend the minimum amounts away
from the Theoretical Prices at which transactions will be deemed to
have been executed in Catastrophic Error and the adjustment amount by
which Theoretical Prices will be adjusted to determine execution
prices. The revised Theoretical Prices, minimum amounts, and adjustment
amounts will be set out in amended Rule 975NY(d)(1) and (d)(3)(E) so
that the threshold for determining whether a Catastrophic Error has
occurred will also be the same amount used to adjust any trades deemed
to be Catastrophic Errors. The Theoretical Price category of ``Above
$10 to $50'' will change to ``Above $10 to $20,'' and a new category of
``Above $20 to $50'' will be added. Moreover, the minimum amount away
from the Theoretical Prices at which transactions will be deemed to
have been executed in Catastrophic Error and the corresponding
adjustment amounts will increase at Theoretical Prices above $50 as
compared to the minimum amounts set out in current Rule 975NY. This is
consistent with the approach that the Chicago Board Options Exchange
takes in its CBOE Rule 6.25(d)(4).\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 59981 (May 27,
2009), 74 FR 26447 (June 2, 2009) (SR-CBOE-2009-024).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange is also proposing to amend Rule 975NY(d)(3)(B) and add
new paragraph (d)(3)(D) to provide that a Trading Official, rather than
the Panel, will determine if a Catastrophic Error has occurred, subject
to an appeal to the Panel, which will be renamed the CER Panel to
distinguish it from the Obvious Error Panel (``OE Panel''). The ISE
similarly uses its exchange personnel to determine if a Catastrophic
Error has occurred.\10\ If a party disagrees with the Trading
Official's Catastrophic Error determination with respect to a
transaction, the party can appeal that determination to the CER Panel
within 30 minutes of receiving notification of the determination. As
noted above, all determinations by the CER Panel constitute final
Exchange action on the matter at issue.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ ISE Rule 720; see 78 FR at 25778.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Pursuant to existing Rule 975NY(d)(3)(B), if upon review a CER
Panel determines that a Catastrophic Error has not occurred, the ATP
Holder requesting the review is subject to a charge of $5,000. Pursuant
to this proposal, there will be no fee assessed if an ATP Holder
requests that the Exchange review a transaction and make a
determination as to whether a Catastrophic Error occurred. However, if
an ATP Holder appeals the determination made by the Trading Official to
a CER Panel and the CER Panel confirms the determination made by the
Trading Official, a $5,000 fee will apply. The Exchange is proposing to
move existing text regarding the $5,000 fee from subsection (d)(3)(B)
to proposed subsection (d)(3)(F) to make clear when the fee applies.
Assessing the $5,000 only in the event of an appeal to the CER Panel,
but not for initial determinations made by the Trading Official, is
consistent with the application of a similar $5,000 fee by ISE.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See ISE Rule 720(d)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, in order to make the definition of Professional Customer
found in Rule 900.2NY(18A) consistent with the proposed treatment of
Professional Customers, the Exchange is amending the text to indicate
that Professional Customers are to be treated the same as broker-
dealers for purposes of Rule 975NY.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposal is consistent with Section
6(b) of the Act,\12\ in general, and furthers the objectives of Section
6(b)(5),\13\ in particular, in that it is designed to promote just and
equitable principles of trade, to remove impediments to and perfect the
mechanism of a free and open market and, in general, to protect
investors and the public interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \13\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In particular, regarding Obvious Errors, the Exchange believes the
proposed rule change relating to busting trades involving Customers and
adjusting trade prices if none of the parties is a Customer will help
market participants better manage risk associated with potential
erroneous trades. In addition, regarding Catastrophic Errors, the
Exchange believes that the proposal provides a fair process that will
ensure that Customers are not forced to accept a trade that was
executed in violation of the Customer's limit order price.
    The automatic remedies applicable to Obvious or Catastrophic Error
transactions involving only non-Customers differ from those applicable
to such transactions involving at least one party that is a Customer,
but the Exchange does not believe that the proposal is unfairly
discriminatory. As discussed above, an Obvious or Catastrophic Error
transaction involving only non-Customer parties is subject to an
automatic price adjustment in accordance with terms set out in Rule
975NY, unless the parties agree to a different price adjustment or to
bust the transaction within the applicable timeframe. Obvious or
Catastrophic Error Transactions involving at least one party that is a
Customer, by contrast, are subject to being adjusted automatically only
if the adjustment price is within the Customer's limit price.
Otherwise, the transaction is busted, unless the Customer accepts an
adjustment price from the Exchange, or the parties to the transaction
agree to adjust the price of the trade within the applicable timeframe,
which is longer than the applicable timeframe for non-Customer
transactions. The different treatment accorded Customers versus non-
Customers recognizes that Customers are not necessarily immersed in the
day-to-day trading of the markets, are less likely to be watching
trading activity in a particular option throughout the day,

and may have limited funds in their trading accounts. Automatically
busting a Customer trade involving a Catastrophic Error to protect the
Customer's limit order price, while giving the Customer a longer period
of time than a non-Customer to choose a different remedy, i.e., price
adjustment, is not unfairly discriminatory because it is reasonable and
fair to provide Customers, who are typically less sophisticated in
trading matters than non-Customers, with additional options to protect
themselves against the consequences of Catastrophic Errors.
    The Exchange acknowledges that the proposal contains some
uncertainty regarding whether a trade will be adjusted or busted,
depending on whether one of the parties is a Customer, because a party
would not know, when entering into the trade, whether the other party
is a Customer. The Exchange believes that the proposal nevertheless
promotes just and equitable principles of trade and protects investors
and the public interest, because it eliminates a more serious
uncertainty in the rule's operation today, which is price uncertainty.
Today, a Customer's order can be adjusted to a significantly different
price in the case of a Catastrophic Error, which is potentially more
impactful than the possibility of busting the trade.
    Furthermore, there is uncertainty in the current Obvious Error
portion of Rule 975NY that market participants have dealt with for a
number of years. Specifically, Rule 975NY(a)(3)(A) provides that if it
is determined that an Obvious Error has occurred where each party to
the transaction is a Market Maker on the Exchange, the execution price
of the transaction will be adjusted by the Exchange (in accordance with
subsection (i) and (ii) of the rule), unless both parties agree to
adjust to a different price or to nullify the transaction within 10
minutes of being notified by the Exchange of the Obvious Error.
Additionally, Rule 975NY(a)(3)(B) provides that if it is determined
that an Obvious Error has occurred where at least one party to the
transaction to the Obvious Error is not an Exchange Market Maker, the
trade will be busted by the Exchange, unless both parties agree to
adjust the price of the transaction within 30 minutes of being notified
by the Exchange of the Obvious Error. Therefore, a Market Maker who
prefers price adjustments over busting a trade cannot guarantee that
outcome because, if he trades with a non-Market Maker, a resulting
Obvious Error would only be adjusted if the party on the other side of
the trade agrees to an adjustment. This uncertainty has been embedded
in the rule and accepted by market participants. The Exchange believes
that this proposal, despite the uncertainty based on whether a Customer
is involved in a trade, is nevertheless consistent with the Act because
the ability to nullify a Customer's trade involving an Obvious or a
Catastrophic Error should prevent the price uncertainty that mandatory
adjustment with respect Catastrophic Error creates under the current
rule. The Exchange believes that the benefits afforded to Customers by
knowing with certainty what the adjustment price of a Catastrophic
Error will be, and being able to nullify the trade if they choose to do
so, far outweighs any uncertainty that might arise by not knowing
whether a Customer was involved as the contra-side on a given trade. A
[sic] The Exchange believes that affording Customers this heightened
degree of certainty which [sic] should promote just and equitable
principles of trade and protect investors and the public interest.
    The Exchange has also weighed carefully the need to assure that one
market participant is not permitted to receive a windfall at the
expense of another market participant that made an Obvious or a
Catastrophic error against the need to assure that market participants
are not simply being given an opportunity to reconsider poor trading
decisions.
    Further, the Exchange believes that the proposed rule change
relating to a Trading Official making the determination of whether a
Catastrophic Error has occurred will promote just and equitable
principles of trade because the Exchange believes such determinations
will be made in a more timely manner than is the case today. As the
determinations will likely be more timely, the proposed change will
reduce the length of time before participants gain certainty as to the
outcome of Catastrophic Error review. The Exchange's Obvious and
Catastrophic Error rule and the procedures that carry out the rule have
consistently been based on specific and objective criteria. The
Exchange believes this proposed rule change furthers that principle by
adopting objective guidelines for the determination of which trades may
be busted or adjusted and for the determination of whether or not a
trade is deemed to be a Catastrophic Error.
    In addition, the Exchange believes that the proposed changes to the
pricing tables used in determining theoretical and adjustment values
for transactions subject to Catastrophic Error reviews will remove
impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market
because the proposed changes will conform the theoretical and
adjustment values applicable to Catastrophic Errors on other market
venues.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ Supra Footnote No. 11 [sic].
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, the Exchange believes that moving existing text regarding
the $5,000 fee, as described above, will promote just and equitable
principles of trade because the amendment will make clear when the fee
is applicable. The amendment will clarify that the $5,000 fee will not
be applicable when the Trading Official makes the initial determination
as to whether a Catastrophic Error occurred, but will be applicable if,
upon appeal, the CER Panel confirms the determinations made by the
Trading Official. Further, the Exchange believes that the amendment
will remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open
market because the amendment will conform the Exchange's application of
the $5,000 fee to similar fees on other market venues. The Exchange
also believes that assessing such a fee ensures the proper balance
between allowing ATP Holders to seek review of determinations made by
the Exchange and recovering the costs associated with requiring an
additional layer of review by the CER Panel.

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

    The Exchange believes the proposed rule change will not impose any
burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The proposed rule change is
intended to help market participants better manage the risk associated
with erroneous options trades, and therefore, does not impose any
burden on competition. Moreover, the Exchange believes the proposed
rule change will enhance competition by conforming the Exchange's rules
governing Obvious and Catastrophic Errors more closely to those of
other exchanges. The treatment of Customers differently from non-
Customers under the proposed rule amendments may result in market
participants choosing to route orders to the Exchange, and therefore,
attract order flow to the Exchange, rather than a competing exchange.

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 Exchange has filed the proposed rule change pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act \15\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder.\16\
Because the proposed rule change does not: (i) Significantly affect the
protection of investors or the public interest; (ii) impose any
significant burden on competition; and (iii) become operative prior to
30 days from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as
the Commission may designate, if consistent with the protection of
investors and the public interest, the proposed rule change has become
effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \17\ and Rule 19b-
4(f)(6)(iii) thereunder.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(iii).
    \16\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). In addition, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)
requires the Exchange to give the Commission written notice of the
Exchange's intent to file the proposed rule change, along with a
brief description and text of the proposed rule change, at least
five business days prior to the date of filing of the proposed rule
change, or such shorter time as designated by the Commission. The
Exchange has satisfied this requirement.
    \17\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \18\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A proposed rule change filed under Rule 19b-4(f)(6) \19\ normally
does not become operative prior to 30 days after the date of the
filing. However, pursuant to Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii),\20\ the Commission
may designate a shorter time if such action is consistent with the
protection of investors and the public interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
    \20\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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) of the Act \21\ to determine whether the proposed
rule change should be approved or disapproved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ 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-NYSEMKT-2013-81 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NYSEMKT-2013-81. 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 Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml
). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written
statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with
the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed
rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those
that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions
of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and printing in
the Commission's Public Reference Section, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549-1090, on official business days between the hours
of 10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of the filing will also be available
for inspection and copying at the NYSE's principal office and on its
Internet Web site at www.nyse.com. All comments received will be posted
without change; the Commission does not edit personal identifying
information from submissions. You should submit only information that
you wish to make available publicly. All submissions should refer to
File Number SR-NYSEMKT-2013-81 and should be submitted on or before
November 14, 2013.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2013-24916 Filed 10-23-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 94 (Thursday, May 14, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Page 28938]
[FR Doc No: 2020-10326]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. CP20-417-000]

Transwestern Pipeline Company, LLC; Notice of Request Under
Blanket Authorization

    Take notice that on May 1, 2020, Transwestern Pipeline Company, LLC
(Transwestern), 1300 Main Street, Houston TX 77002, filed in the above
referenced docket a prior notice request pursuant to sections 157.205,
157.208, and 157.210 of the Commission's regulations under the Natural
Gas Act and its blanket certificate issued in Docket No. CP82-534-000
for authorization to construct, own, operate, and maintain a new
compressor unit. The Station 8 Project comprises a 5,000 HP site-rated
motor, compressor, compressor building and other ancillary facilities
at its Compressor Station 8 in Lincoln County, New Mexico. Transwestern
estimates the cost of the project to be approximately $11.4 million,
all as more fully set forth in the request which is on file with the
Commission and open to public inspection.
    Any questions regarding this application should be directed to Mr.
Kelly Allen, Manager Regulatory Affairs Department for Transwestern
Pipeline Company, LLC, 1300 Main Street, Houston, TX 77002, or call
(713)-989-2606, or by email at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    In addition to publishing the full text of this document in the
Federal Register, the Commission provides all interested persons an
opportunity to view and/or print the contents of this document via the
internet through the Commission's Home Page (http://ferc.gov) using the
``eLibrary'' link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three
digits in the docket number field to access the document. At this time,
the Commission has suspended access to the Commission's Public
Reference Room, due to the proclamation declaring a National Emergency
concerning the Novel Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19), issued by the
President on March 13, 2020. For assistance, contact FERC at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call toll-free,<PHONE_NUMBER> or TYY,
(202) 502-8659.
    Any person or the Commission's staff may, within 60 days after
issuance of the instant notice by the Commission, file pursuant to Rule
214 of the Commission's Procedural Rules (18 CFR 385.214) a motion to
intervene or notice of intervention and pursuant to section 157.205 of
the regulations under the NGA (18 CFR 157.205), a protest to the
request. If no protest is filed within the time allowed therefore, the
proposed activity shall be deemed to be authorized effective the day
after the time allowed for filing a protest. If a protest is filed and
not withdrawn within 30 days after the allowed time for filing a
protest, the instant request shall be treated as an application for
authorization pursuant to section 7 of the NGA.
    Pursuant to section 157.9 of the Commission's rules, 18 CFR 157.9,
within 90 days of this Notice the Commission staff will either:
Complete its environmental assessment (EA) and place it into the
Commission's public record (eLibrary) for this proceeding; or issue a
Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review. If a Notice of Schedule
for Environmental Review is issued, it will indicate, among other
milestones, the anticipated date for the Commission staff's issuance of
the EA for this proposal. The filing of the EA in the Commission's
public record for this proceeding or the issuance of a Notice of
Schedule for Environmental Review will serve to notify federal and
state agencies of the timing for the completion of all necessary
reviews, and the subsequent need to complete all federal authorizations
within 90 days of the date of issuance of the Commission staff's EA.
    Persons who wish to comment only on the environmental review of
this project should submit an original and two copies of their comments
to the Secretary of the Commission. Environmental commenters will be
placed on the Commission's environmental mailing list and will be
notified of any meetings associated with the Commission's environmental
review process. Environmental commenters will not be required to serve
copies of filed documents on all other parties. However, the non-party
commenters will not receive copies of all documents filed by other
parties or issued by the Commission and will not have the right to seek
court review of the Commission's final order.
    The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings of comments,
protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the eFiling link at
http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically may mail
similar pleadings to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888
First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426. Hand delivered submissions in
docketed proceedings should be delivered to Health and Human Services,
12225 Wilkins Avenue, Rockville, Maryland 20852.

    Dated: May 8, 2020.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2020-10326 Filed 5-13-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 216 (Wednesday, November 7, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 66907-66908]
[FR Doc No: 2012-27129]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-68129; File No. SR-NASDAQ-2012-120]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC;
Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To
Modify the Annual Fees for Companies Listed on the Nasdaq Capital
Market

November 1, 2012.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that
on October 18, 2012, The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC (``NASDAQ'' or the
``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') a proposed rule change as described in Items I, II,
and III below, which Items have been prepared by the Exchange. The
Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the
proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    NASDAQ is proposing a change to modify the annual fees for
companies listed on the Nasdaq Capital Market.
    The text of the proposed rule change is below. Proposed new
language is in italics; proposed deletions are in [brackets].
5920. The Nasdaq Capital Market
    (a)-(b) No change.
    (c) Annual Fee
    (1)
    (A) The issuer of each class of securities that is a domestic or
foreign issue, other than American Depositary Receipts (ADRs), listed
on the Nasdaq Capital Market shall pay to Nasdaq an annual fee in the
amount of [$27,500] $32,000.
    (B) [The] Effective January 1, 2013, the issuer of each class of
securities that is an ADR listed on [The] the Nasdaq Capital Market
shall pay to Nasdaq an annual fee in the amount of $25,000. Effective
January 1, 2014, the issuer of each class of securities that is an ADR
listed on the Nasdaq Capital Market shall pay to Nasdaq an annual fee
in the amount of $32,000. [calculated on ADRs outstanding according to
the following schedule:

Up to 10 million ADRs $17,500
Over 10 million ADRs $21,000]

    (2)-(8) No change.
    (d)-(e) No change.
* * * * *

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
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

1. Purpose
    Nasdaq proposes to modify the annual fee charged to companies that
list securities on the Nasdaq Capital Market (``Capital Market''),
effective January 1, 2013. Currently, the annual fee for securities
other than American Depositary Receipts (``ADRs'') is $27,500. Nasdaq
proposes to increase this fee to $32,000. This fee was last changed in
2007.
    In addition, the annual fee charged for ADRs is currently tiered,
based on the number of ADRs outstanding. Issuers with 10 million or
fewer ADRs outstanding pay an annual fee of $17,500, while issuers with
more than 10 million ADRs outstanding pay an annual fee of $21,000.
Nasdaq has determined that companies that list ADRs on the Capital
Market should be charged the same fee as other companies. However,
given that these companies currently pay lower annual fees than other
companies, Nasdaq proposes to reduce the impact of this change by
phasing in the increase over two years. Specifically, Nasdaq proposes
that effective January 1, 2013, the annual fee for ADRs will be $25,000
and effective January 1, 2014, the annual fee for ADRs will be $32,000.
    Companies currently listed on the Capital Market have already paid
their 2012 annual fee. However, any company that lists prior to
December 31, 2012 will owe a prorated annual fee based on the existing
$27,500 fee schedule or the existing tiered structure applicable to
ADRs. The new fees will become effective on January 1, 2013, and
companies will be billed their 2013 annual fee based on the new fee
schedule shortly thereafter.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Until January 1, 2013, the online Nasdaq rule book will
reflect the currently effective fees with a note indicating that
this fee change is pending and will become effective on January 1,
2013. The online Nasdaq rule book will also contain a link to the
text of the revised rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    Nasdaq believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with
the provisions of Section 6 of the Act,\4\ in general and with Section
6(b)(4) of the Act,\5\ in particular in that it provides for the
equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees, and other charges among
its members, issuers and other persons using its facilities and does
not unfairly discriminate between customers, issuers, brokers or
dealers.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ 15 U.S.C. 78f.
    \5\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).
    \6\ The Commission notes that Section 6(b)(5) of the Act
contains the provision that states rules of an exchange ``are not
designed to permit unfair discrimination between customers, issuers,
brokers, or dealers.'' See 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Nasdaq believes that the proposed increase in the annual fee for
companies listing on the Capital Market is reasonable because the
revised fee will better reflect Nasdaq's costs related to companies
listed on the Capital Market and the value that such a listing provides
to the company. In that regard, Nasdaq notes that it has not increased
the annual fees for listing on the Capital Market since January 1,
2007,\7\ but has

continued to enhance the listing experience and has invested in its
regulatory and compliance program.\8\ These initiatives have been
funded through listing fees, including the Capital Market annual fee.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ Securities Exchange Act Release No. 55202 (January 30,
2007), 72 FR 6017 (February 8, 2007) (approving SR-NASDAQ-2006-040).
The annual fees for ADRs have not been changed since 2005.
Securities Exchange Act Release No. 50838 (December 10, 2004), 69 FR
75578 (December 17, 2004) (approving SR-NASD-2004-128).
    \8\ For example, Nasdaq now accepts many notifications from
listed companies through a web-based interface and provides detailed
compliance information to companies through the Nasdaq Listing
Center's Reference Library. See https://listingcenter.nasdaqomx.com/Show_Doc.aspx?File=listing_information.html#forms and https://listingcenter.nasdaqomx.com/assets/Get_Started_Guide.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Nasdaq also believes that the proposed changes are equitable and
not unfairly discriminatory because they would apply equally to all
companies listed on the Capital Market. While the increase on ADRs
would be implemented over two years, this is also equitable and not
unfairly discriminatory because these companies currently pay lower
fees based on a recognition that the U.S. listing is not typically
their primary listing. While Nasdaq believes it is equitable to charge
them the same fee as other companies because they receive the same
benefits from their listing, the Exchange also believes that
implementing the increase over two years will help reduce its impact
and is appropriate given the currently reduced fees that they pay.
Nasdaq also notes that other exchanges charge the same annual fee for
ADRs as for other securities.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See, e.g., NYSE MKT Listed Company Guide Section 220(b);
NYSE Listed Company Manual Section 902.03.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, NASDAQ notes that it operates in a highly competitive
market in which market participants can readily switch exchanges if
they deem the listing fees excessive.\10\ In such an environment,
NASDAQ must continually review its fees to assure that they remain
competitive. In that regard, Nasdaq notes that the proposed fees remain
similar to the fees charged by NYSE MKT.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ The Justice Department recently noted the intense
competitive environment for exchange listings. See ``NASDAQ OMX
Group Inc. and IntercontinentalExchange Inc. Abandon Their Proposed
Acquisition Of NYSE Euronext After Justice Department Threatens
Lawsuit'' (May 16, 2011), available at http://www.justice.gov/atr/public/press_releases/2011/271214.htm.
    \11\ NYSE MKT has proposed to charge annual fees in 2013 that
range from $30,000 to $45,000, based on a company's shares
outstanding. See SR-NYSEMKT-2012-51 (filed September 28, 2012)
[sic].
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    Nasdaq does not believe that the proposed rule change will result
in any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act, as amended. The market for
listing services is extremely competitive and listed companies may
freely choose alternative venues. For this reason, and the reasons
discussed in connection with the statutory basis for the proposed rule
change, Nasdaq does not believe that the proposed rule change will
result in any burden on competition for listings.

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

    Written comments were neither solicited nor received.

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

    The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act.\12\ At any time within 60 days of the
filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may
temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission
that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest,
for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the
purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the
Commission shall institute proceedings to determine whether the
proposed rule should be approved or disapproved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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-NASDAQ-2012-120 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NASDAQ-2012-120. 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 Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20549-1090, on official business days between the hours
of 10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of such filing also will be
available for inspection and copying at the principal offices of the
Exchange. All comments received will be posted without change; the
Commission does not edit personal identifying information from
submissions. You should submit only information that you wish to make
available publicly. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-
NASDAQ-2012-120, and should be submitted on or before November 28,
2012.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-27129 Filed 11-6-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 106 (Monday, June 5, 2017)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 25726-25727]
[FR Doc No: 2017-11524]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 117

[Docket No. USCG-2017-0453]

Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Columbia River, Portland, OR and
Vancouver, WA

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of deviation from drawbridge regulation.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard has issued a temporary deviation from the
operating schedule that governs the Interstate 5 (I-5) Bridges across
the Columbia River, mile 106.5, between Portland, Oregon, and
Vancouver, Washington. The deviation is necessary to facilitate the
movement of heavier than normal roadway traffic associated with the
Independence Day fireworks show near the I-5 Bridges. This deviation
allows the bridges to remain in the closed-to-navigation position
during the event.

DATES: This deviation is effective from 9 p.m. to 11:59 p.m. on July 4,
2017.

ADDRESSES: The docket for this deviation, USCG-2017-0453 is available
at http://www.regulations.gov. Type the docket number in the ``SEARCH''
box and click ``SEARCH.'' Click on Open Docket Folder on the line
associated with this deviation.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this
temporary deviation, call or email Mr. Steven Fischer, Bridge
Administrator, Thirteenth Coast Guard District; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>,
email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Oregon Department of Transportation (bridge
owner) requested a temporary deviation from the operating schedule for
the I-5 Bridges, mile 106.5, across the Columbia River between
Vancouver, WA, and Portland, OR, to facilitate safe passage of
participants in the Independence Day fireworks show event. The I-5
Bridges provides three designated navigation channels with vertical
clearances ranging from 39 to 72 feet above

Columbia River Datum 0.0 while the lift spans are in the closed-to-
navigation position. The normal operating schedule for the I-5 Bridges
is codified at 33 CFR 117.869. The subject bridges need not open to
marine vessels during the deviation period from 9 p.m. to 11:59 p.m. on
July 4, 2017. The bridge shall operate in accordance with 33 CFR
117.869 at all other times. Waterway usage on this part of the Columbia
River includes vessels ranging from large commercial ships, tug and tow
vessels to recreational pleasure craft.
    Vessels able to pass under the bridges in the closed-to-navigation
positions may do so at any time. The bridge will be able to open for
emergencies, and there is no immediate alternate route for vessels to
pass. The Coast Guard will also inform the users of the waterways
through our Local and Broadcast Notices to Mariners of the change in
operating schedule for the bridge so that vessels can arrange their
transits to minimize any impact caused by the temporary deviation.
    In accordance with 33 CFR 117.35(e), the drawbridges must return to
their regular operating schedule immediately at the end of the
effective period of this temporary deviation. This deviation from the
operating regulations is authorized under 33 CFR 117.35.

    Dated: May 24, 2017
Steven M. Fischer
Bridge Administrator, Thirteenth Coast Guard District.
[FR Doc. 2017-11524 Filed 6-2-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register: March 26, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 59)]
[Notices]
[Page 16084-16086]
[DOCID:fr26mr08-133]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-57534; File No. SR-NASDAQ-2008-015]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC;
Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change,
and Amendment No. 1 Thereto, To Modify Fees Associated With Proceedings
Under Rule 11890

March 20, 2008.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that
on February 29, 2008, The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC (``Nasdaq'') filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'') the
proposed rule change as described in Items I, II, and III below, which
Items have been substantially prepared by Nasdaq. On March 18, 2008,
Nasdaq submitted Amendment No. 1 to the proposed rule change.\3\ Nasdaq
filed the proposal pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act \4\
and Rule 19b-4(f)(2) \5\ thereunder, as establishing or changing a due,
fee, or other charges applicable to a member, which renders the
proposed rule change effective upon filing with the Commission. The
Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the
proposed rule change, as amended, from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ In Amendment No. 1, the Exchange made clarifying changes to
the proposed rule text and the purpose section of the filing.
    \4\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii).
    \5\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    Nasdaq proposes to modify fees associated with proceedings under
Rule 11890. Nasdaq will implement this rule change on March 3, 2008.
    The text of the proposed rule change is below. Proposed new
language is italicized; proposed deletions are in brackets.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Changes are marked to the rule text that appears in the
electronic Nasdaq Manual found at http://nasdaq.complinet.com.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

11890. Clearly Erroneous Transactions
    (a)-(b) No change.
    (c) Review by the Market Operations Review Committee (``MORC'')
    (1)-(3) No change.
    [(4) The party initiating the appeal shall be assessed a $500.00
fee if the MORC upholds the decision of the Nasdaq officer. In
addition, in instances where Nasdaq, on behalf of a member, requests a
determination by another market center that a transaction is clearly
erroneous, Nasdaq will pass any resulting charges through to the
relevant member.]
    (d) No change.
    (e) Fees
    (1) Filing Fees
    No fee shall be assessed to a member for filing two or fewer
unsuccessful clearly erroneous complaints pursuant to paragraph (a)(2)
during a calendar month. A member shall be assessed a fee of $250.00
for each additional unsuccessful complaint filed thereafter during the
calendar month. An unsuccessful complaint is one in which Nasdaq does
not break any of the trades included in the complaint. Each security
filed on is considered a separate complaint. In cases where the member
files on multiple securities at the same time, Nasdaq calculates the
fee separately for each security depending upon whether Nasdaq breaks
any trades filed on by the member in that security. Adjustments or
voluntary breaks negotiated by Nasdaq to trades executed at prices that
meet the percentage thresholds in IM-11890-4 count as breaks by Nasdaq
for purposes of this paragraph. A member is defined by each unique
broker Web CRD Number. All MPIDs associated with that Web CRD Number
shall be included when calculating the number of unsuccessful clearly
erroneous complaints for that member during the calendar month. No fee
pursuant to this paragraph (e)(1) shall be assessed for a complaint
that is (A) successful, where the final decision by Nasdaq (including
after appeal, if any) is to break at least one of the trades filed on
by the member, (B) not timely filed under the parameters in paragraph
(a)(2)(A), (C) withdrawn by the complainant within five (5) minutes of
filing and before Nasdaq has performed any substantial work on the
complaint, or (D) adjudicated by Nasdaq on its own motion under Rule
11890(b).
    (2) Appeal Fees
    The party initiating an appeal shall be assessed a $500.00 fee if
the MORC upholds the decision of the Nasdaq officer.
    (3) Fees Charged By Another Market Center
    In instances where Nasdaq, on behalf of a member, requests a
determination by another market center that a transaction is clearly
erroneous, Nasdaq will pass any resulting charges through to the
relevant member.
* * * * *

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

    In its filing with the Commission, Nasdaq included statements
concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the proposed rule change and
discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The
text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in
Item IV below. Nasdaq has prepared summaries, set forth in Sections A,
B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.

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

1. Purpose
    Nasdaq is amending Rule 11890, which covers the breaking of trades
determined to be clearly erroneous, to add a new Rule 11890(e) that
would consolidate Nasdaq's existing appeal fee, without substantive
change, with a new fee of $250.00 for the filing of certain
unsuccessful clearly erroneous adjudication complaints.
    Self-regulatory organizations like Nasdaq have authority to
adjudicate trade disputes and break trades in appropriate circumstances
to maintain a fair and orderly market. This authority is codified in
Nasdaq Rule 11890. Nasdaq believes that this authority provides an
important protection to the market by preventing trading errors and
system problems from distorting the price discovery process. Rule 11890
also provides a number of procedural steps intended to protect the
integrity of the adjudicatory process.
    While these steps are a necessary part of the process, they require
significant staff time to process each complaint. This benefits all
market participants, including Nasdaq members. Despite this, Nasdaq
historically has not charged members for this process.
    The costs to Nasdaq of providing this service to members have
increased in recent years as the number of

complaints has increased. In 2005, 2006 and 2007, Nasdaq processed 841,
3,859 and 5,676 complaints, respectively. In addition, the size and
complexity of trading events have increased. There has been an increase
in the number of large events (defined as 8 or more contraparties),
from 81 such filings in 2005 to 394 in 2007. There also has been a
significant increase in the number of complaints involving trades
routed to or from other market centers, further increasing the
complexity of processing filings. Discussions with other electronic
market centers suggest that these markets also are receiving
significantly more trade break requests.
    In order to increase transparency in the adjudication process,
Nasdaq provided guidance in IM-11890-4 on which trades are likely to be
considered clearly erroneous. This guidance focused on numerical
thresholds below which trades would likely stand \7\ and above which
trades would likely be broken.\8\ Despite this guidance, Nasdaq
continues to receive a significant number of filings that do not meet
the thresholds or have material news that seemed to affect the price of
the security.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ As provided in the guidance, the circumstances in which
trades below the thresholds could be broken are extremely limited.
Trades in a stock subject to an initial public offering that execute
prior to the opening of the offering are an example of trades that
would be broken at prices below the threshold.
    \8\ The guidance also included factors Nasdaq would consider in
deviating from these numerical thresholds, including material news,
trading activity and reasons for the error.
    \9\ Nasdaq received 1,478 timely clearly erroneous complaints
during 2007 where it declined to break any trades because the trades
did not meet the guidance or parameters in the rule. This represents
approximately 26% of the total complaints received that year.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Nasdaq considered the amount of effort incurred to process
complaints in calculating the $250 filing fee. Rule 11890 outlines a
number of procedural steps for processing complaints. Once MarketWatch
receives a complaint, an analyst must complete the following steps:\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ In certain circumstances where Nasdaq is processing a large
number of complaints, the call out process may be streamlined in
order to provide rapid decisions and market certainty as to which
trades will stand.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Review the filing for completeness and call the filer to
confirm the information, which must often be updated or revised;
     Confirm the trades at issue and the events surrounding the
error;
     Call each of the contraparties and see if they are
interested in an adjustment of the terms, or a mutual break of, the
trade(s), which may require additional rounds of calls to relay the
offer or further negotiate the settlement;
     Identify portions of the disputed trades that were routed
to other markets and requesting adjudication by those markets;
     Present the information to the Nasdaq Officer for a
decision;
     Notify the filer and contraparties of Nasdaq's decision on
the complaint; and
     Assemble the required documentation for Nasdaq's records.

Nasdaq estimates that on average it takes 20-25 minutes to process a
small complaint and may take up to an hour to process larger events
under Rule 11890(a). Nasdaq is required to go through these steps even
in cases where the guidance in IM-11890-4 makes it clear that all
trades will stand.
    Under Nasdaq's proposal, the filing fee would only apply to
unsuccessful clearly erroneous complaints, where Nasdaq does not break
any of the trades filed on by the member. Adjustments or voluntary
breaks negotiated by Nasdaq to trades executed at prices that meet the
percentage thresholds in IM-11890-4 count as a break by Nasdaq for
purposes of determining whether a complaint is successful. The fee
would not apply to the first two unsuccessful complaints filed by the
member during a calendar month. The $250 fee would only apply to any
additional unsuccessful complaints filed by the member during that
month. The fee is calculated on a per-security basis so that each
security filed on is considered a separate complaint, even if there are
multiple securities included in the firm's clearly erroneous filing.
For example, if a firm files on trades in three securities and Nasdaq
breaks trades in one of the three, Nasdaq would consider the firm to
have filed two unsuccessful complaints and one successful complaint.
Only the two unsuccessful complaints would be counted for purposes of
the fee. The fee would apply to final decisions of Nasdaq. Therefore,
if the Nasdaq officer refused to break trades and the Market Operations
Review Committee (``MORC'') overturned the officer and broke at least
some of the trades, no fee would be due with respect to that security
and the complaint would not count towards the unsuccessful complaint
calculation.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ The MORC is composed of independent persons who are not
employees of Nasdaq and who have no economic interest in the trades
or the assessment of the fee.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In calculating how many unsuccessful complaints a member had filed
during the month, Nasdaq will look to the member's broker Web CRD
Number.\12\ All Market Participant Identifiers (``MPIDs'') associated
with that Web CRD Number shall be included in the calculation for that
member. This removes any incentive for firms to request additional
MPIDs solely to avoid paying the fee.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (``FINRA'')
maintains the Central Registration Depository (``CRD''). This data
base includes information on more than half a million registered
securities employees of member firms through the automated Web CRD
system. Each member receives a unique Web CRD Number.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Nasdaq considered whether each complaint should be subject to the
filing fee in light of the administrative costs associated with both
successful and unsuccessful filings, but concluded that the fee should
be limited to unsuccessful filers. Nasdaq believes that this
application encourages appropriate use of clearly erroneous complaints
by assessing costs on firms who do not properly consider the merits of
their request. Instead of filing on any trading error, the filing fee
may incentivize firms to consider carefully whether:
     The trades meet the thresholds set forth in IM-11890-4;
     the amount of money at risk merits filing a complaint;\13\
and
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ During December 2007, Nasdaq received 48 complaints for
fewer than 100 shares, including six filings for fewer than 5
shares.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     an investment in system safeguards that might reduce
trading errors.

Charging firms only for unsuccessful complaints is consistent with
Nasdaq's existing appeal fee, which is assessed only on unsuccessful
appeals. In addition, Nasdaq believes that exempting two unsuccessful
complaints from the fee will assist members in close calls where news
or other factors might result in Nasdaq not breaking trades that
otherwise meet the numerical thresholds for trade breaks. Based on an
analysis of complaint filings in December 2007, 13 members had more
than two unsuccessful erroneous complaints.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ Nasdaq received complaints from an average of 98 members a
month during 2007. Accordingly, a comparatively small number of
members would be affected by the filing fee.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed filing fee would not be assessed for a complaint that
is:
     Successful, in that Nasdaq breaks at least one of the
trades on which the member filed;
     filed late under the time parameters in Rule
11890(a)(2)(A) and therefore rejected;
     withdrawn by the complainant within five (5) minutes of
filing and before Nasdaq has performed any substantial work on the
complaint; or

     adjudicated by Nasdaq under its motion pursuant to Rule
11890(b) as part of a large market event.
    While Nasdaq may incur some cost in reviewing complaints for
timeliness and prior to withdrawal, this exception will allow firms to
withdraw or correct mistaken complaints without such filings counting
towards their monthly allotment. While Nasdaq incurs considerable
expense in processing clearly erroneous events under Rule 11890(b),
such large systemic events often impact multiple filers and may not
easily be billed to a particular party. Therefore, Nasdaq will continue
to absorb costs related to Rule 11890(b) adjudications. Any filer with
trades included in such events will not be charged and the filing will
not count towards calculation of a member's unsuccessful complaints.
    Finally, the proposal reorganizes Rule 11890 to consolidate the
fee-related provisions in one section, Rule 11890(e), titled ``Clearly
Erroneous Fees.'' Nasdaq believes this will make it easier for readers
to locate these provisions in the rule. No substantive change has been
made to the existing fee for appeal of clearly erroneous decisions or
the provisions enabling Nasdaq to pass through to members charges it is
assessed by other markets for requesting erroneous review by that venue
on behalf of members.
2. Statutory Basis
    Nasdaq believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with
the provisions of Section 6 of the Act,\15\ in general, and with
Section 6(b)(4) of the Act,\16\ in particular, in that it provides for
the equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees, and other charges
among its members and issuers and other persons using any facility or
system which Nasdaq operates or controls. Nasdaq believes that the fees
will be reasonably allocated to members that file unsuccessful
complaints under Rule 11890, thereby allowing Nasdaq to recoup a
portion of the costs associated with filings that lack merit.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ 15 U.S.C. 78f.
    \16\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    Nasdaq does not believe that the proposed rule change will result
in any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act.

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

    Written comments were neither solicited nor received.

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

    The foregoing proposed rule change has become effective upon filing
with the Commission pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act \17\
and Rule 19b-4(f)(2) \18\ thereunder, because it establishes or changes
a due, fee, or other charge applicable only to a member.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule
change, the Commission may summarily abrogate such rule change if it
appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate
in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise
in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ See 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(C). For purposes of calculating the
60-day period within which the Commission may summarily abrogate the
proposed rule change under Section 19(b)(3)(C) of the Act, the
Commission considers the period to commence on March 18, 2008, the
date on which Nasdaq submitted Amendment No. 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://
www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-NASDAQ-2008-015 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NASDAQ-2008-015. This
file number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used.
To help the Commission process and review your comments more
efficiently, please use only one method. The Commission will post all
comments on the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/
rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments,
all written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that
are filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating
to the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person,
other than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance
with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for inspection
and copying in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street,
NE., Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours
of 10 a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of such filing also will be available for
inspection and copying at the principal office of Nasdaq. All comments
received will be posted without change; the Commission does not edit
personal identifying information from submissions. You should submit
only information that you wish to make available publicly. All
submissions should refer to File Number SR-NASDAQ-2008-015 and should
be submitted on or before April 16, 2008.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\20\
Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E8-6127 Filed 3-25-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 59 (Monday, March 28, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 17131-17132]
[FR Doc No: 2011-7188]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2011-N-0016]

Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission for Office
of Management and Budget Review; Comment Request; Recordkeeping and
Records Access Requirements for Food Facilities

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing that a
proposed collection of information has been submitted to the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) for review and clearance under the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.

DATES: Fax written comments on the collection of information by April
27, 2011.

ADDRESSES: To ensure that comments on the information collection are
received, OMB recommends that written comments be faxed to the Office
of Information and Regulatory Affairs, OMB, Attn: FDA Desk Officer,
FAX:<PHONE_NUMBER>, or e-mailed to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>All
comments should be identified with the OMB control number 0910-0560.
Also include the FDA docket number found in brackets in the heading of
this document.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Denver Presley, Jr., Office of
Information Management, Food and Drug Administration, 1350 Piccard Dr.,
PI50-400B, Rockville, MD 20850,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In compliance with 44 U.S.C. 3507, FDA has
submitted the following proposed collection of information to OMB for
review and clearance.

Recordkeeping and Records Access Requirements for Food Facilities--21
CFR 1.337, 1.345, and 1.352 (OMB Control Number 0910-0560)--Extension

    The Public Health Security and Bioterrorism Preparedness and
Response Act of 2002 (the Bioterrorism Act) added section 414 of the
Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the FD&C Act) (21 U.S.C. 350c),
which requires that persons who manufacture, process, pack, hold,
receive, distribute, transport, or import food in the United States
establish and maintain records identifying the immediate previous
sources and immediate subsequent recipients of food. Sections 1.326
through 1.363 of FDA's regulations (21 CFR 1.326 through 1.363) set
forth the requirements for recordkeeping and records access. The
requirement to establish and maintain records improves FDA's ability to
respond to, and further contain, threats of serious adverse health
consequences or death to humans or animals from accidental or
deliberate contamination of food.
    Description of Respondents: Persons that manufacture, process,
pack, hold, receive, distribute, transport, or import food in the
United States are required to establish and maintain records, including
persons that engage in both interstate and intrastate commerce.
    FDA's regulations require that records for non-transporters include
the name and full contact information of sources, recipients, and
transporters, an adequate description of the food including the
quantity and packaging, and the receipt and shipping dates (Sec. Sec.
1.337 and 1.345). Required records for transporters include the names
of consignor and consignee, points of origin and destination, date of
shipment, number of packages, description of freight, route of movement
and name of each carrier participating in the transportation, and
transfer points through which shipment moved (Sec.  1.352). Existing
records may be used if they contain all of the required information and
are retained for the required time period.
    In the Federal Register of January 13, 2011 (76 FR 2396), FDA
published a 60-day notice requesting public comment on the proposed
collection of information. FDA received one letter containing multiple
comments in response to the notice.
    (Comment 1) One comment was generally supportive of the necessity
of the information collection and its practical utility.
    (Response) FDA agrees. As discussed previously in this document,
the requirement to establish and maintain records improves FDA's
ability to respond to, and further contain, threats of serious adverse
health consequences or death to humans or animals from accidental or
deliberate contamination of food.
    (Comment 2) Another comment stated that accurate recordkeeping is
integral to the effective and timely tracing of food products through
the supply chain and, to support effective product tracing, suggested
that industry should determine the Critical Tracking Events (CTEs) and
the Key Data Elements (KDEs) necessary for product tracing; FDA should
encourage the adoption of standard ways to express this

information as well as the adoption of electronic recordkeeping and
electronic submission of data to the agency; and, review of product
tracing procedures should be part of standard audits.
    (Response) FDA agrees that recordkeeping is key to effective
product tracing. However, to the extent that the comments suggest
changes to the requirements of the recordkeeping regulations in
sections 1.326 through 1.363, such requests are outside the scope of
the four collection of information topics on which the notice solicits
comments. Such changes to the current recordkeeping requirements can
only be accomplished by notice and comment rulemaking.
    FDA estimates the burden of this collection of information as
follows:

                               Table 1--Estimated Annual Recordkeeping Burden \1\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                      Annual
         21 CFR Section              Number of     frequency per   Total annual      Hours per      Total hours
                                   recordkeepers   recordkeeping      records         record
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1.337, 1.345, and 1.352 (Records         379,493               1         379,493          13.228       5,020,000
 maintenance)...................
1.337, 1.345, and 1.352                   18,975               1          18,975           4.790          90,890
 (Learning for new firms).......
                                 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total.......................  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............       5,110,890
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ There are no capital costs or operating and maintenance costs associated with this collection of
  information.

    This estimate is based on FDA's estimate of the number of
facilities affected by the final rule entitled ``Establishment and
Maintenance of Records Under the Public Health Security and
Bioterrorism Preparedness and Response Act of 2002,'' published in the
Federal Register of December 9, 2004 (69 FR 71562 at 71630). With
regard to records maintenance, FDA estimates that approximately 379,493
facilities will spend 13.228 hours collecting, recording, and checking
for accuracy of the limited amount of additional information required
by the regulations, for a total of 5,020,000 hours annually. In
addition, FDA estimates that new firms entering the affected businesses
will incur a burden from learning the regulatory requirements and
understanding the records required for compliance. In this regard, the
Agency estimates the number of new firms entering the affected
businesses to be 5 percent of 379,493, or 18,975 firms. Thus, FDA
estimates that approximately 18,975 facilities will spend 4.790 hours
learning about the recordkeeping and records access requirements, for a
total of 90,890 hours annually. Therefore, the total annual
recordkeeping burden is estimated to be 5,110,890 hours.

    Dated: March 23, 2011.
David Dorsey,
Acting Deputy Commissioner for Policy, Planning and Budget.
[FR Doc. 2011-7188 Filed 3-25-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4160-01-P


[Federal Register: June 3, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 106)]
[Notices]
[Page 31432-31433]
[DOCID:fr03jn10-60]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OPPT-2009-0105; FRL-9158-7]

Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission to OMB for
Review and Approval; Comment Request; Voluntary Cover Sheet for TSCA
Submissions; EPA ICR No. 1780.05, OMB Control No. 2070-0156

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501
et seq.), this document announces that an Information Collection
Request (ICR) has been forwarded to the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) for review and approval: Voluntary Cover Sheet for TSCA
Submissions; ICR No. 1780.05, OMB No. 2070-0156. The ICR, which is
abstracted below, describes the nature of the information collection
activity and its expected burden and costs.

DATES: Additional comments may be submitted on or before July 6, 2010.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, referencing docket ID Number EPA-HQ-
OPPT-2009-0105 to (1) EPA online using http://www.regulations.gov (our
preferred method), by email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or by mail to:
Document Control Office (DCO), Office of Pollution Prevention and
Toxics (OPPT), Environmental Protection Agency, Mail Code: 7407T, 1200
Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460, and (2) OMB at: Office of
Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget
(OMB), Attention: Desk Officer for EPA, 725 17th Street, NW.,
Washington, DC 20503.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Barbara Cunningham, Director,
Environmental Assistance Division, Office of Pollution Prevention and
Toxics, Environmental Protection Agency, Mailcode: 7408-M, 1200
Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone number: 202-
554-1404; e-mail address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: EPA has submitted the following ICR to OMB
for review and approval according to the procedures prescribed in 5 CFR
1320.12. On October 7, 2009 (74 FR 51580), EPA sought comments on this
renewal ICR pursuant to 5 CFR 1320.8(d). EPA received no comments
during the comment period. Any comments related to this ICR should be
submitted to EPA and OMB within 30 days of this notice.
    EPA has established a public docket for this ICR under Docket ID
No. EPA-HQ-OPPT-2009-0105, which is available for online viewing at
http://www.regulations.gov, or in person inspection at the OPPT Docket
in the EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC), EPA West, Room 3334, 1301
Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC. The EPA/DC Public Reading Room
is open from 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding
legal holidays. The telephone number for the Reading Room is 202-566-
1744, and the telephone number for the Pollution Prevention and Toxics
Docket is<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Use EPA's electronic docket and comment system at http://
www.regulations.gov to submit or view public comments, access the index
listing of the contents of the public docket, and to access those
documents in the public docket that are available electronically. Once
in the system, select ``docket search,'' then key in the docket ID
number identified above. Please note that EPA's policy is that public
comments, whether submitted electronically or in paper, will be made
available for public viewing in http://www.regulations.gov as EPA
receives them and without change, unless the comment contains
copyrighted material, confidential business information (CBI), or other
information whose public disclosure is restricted by statute. When EPA
identifies a comment containing copyrighted material, EPA will provide
a reference to that material in the version of the comment that is
placed in http://www.regulations.gov. The entire printed comment,
including the copyrighted material, will be available in the public
docket. Although identified as an item in the official docket,
information claimed as CBI, or whose disclosure is otherwise restricted
by statute, is not included in the official public docket, and will not
be available for public viewing in http://www.regulations.gov. For
further information about the electronic docket, go to http://
www.regulations.gov.
    Title: Voluntary Cover Sheet for TSCA Submissions.
    ICR Numbers: EPA ICR No. 1780.05, OMB Control No. 2070-0156.
    ICR Status: This is a request to renew an existing approved
collection. This ICR is scheduled to expire on July 31, 2010. Under OMB
regulations, the Agency may continue to conduct or sponsor the
collection of information while this submission is pending at OMB.
    Abstract: The Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) requires industry
to submit information and studies for existing chemical substances
under sections 4, 6, and 8, and requests voluntary submission of such
information under the Voluntary Children's Chemical Evaluation Program
(VCCEP). EPA typically receives thousands of such submissions each
year; each submission represents on average three studies. In addition,
EPA can impose specific data call-ins on industry.
    As a follow-up to industry experience with a 1994 TSCA data call-
in, the Chemical Manufacturers Association (CMA, now known as the
American Chemistry Council [ACC]), the Specialty Organics Chemical
Manufacturers Association (SOCMA), and the Chemical Industry Data
Exchange (CIDX), in cooperation with EPA, took an interest in pursuing
electronic transfer of TSCA summary data and of full submissions to
EPA. In particular, ACC developed a standardized cover sheet for
voluntary use by industry as a first step to an electronic future and
to begin familiarizing companies with standard requirements and
concepts of electronic transfer. This form is designed for voluntary
use as a cover sheet for submissions of information under TSCA sections
4, 8(d), 8(e) and VCCEP. The cover sheet facilitates submission of
information by displaying certain basic data elements, permitting EPA
more easily to identify, log, track, distribute, review and index
submissions, and to make information publicly available more rapidly
and at reduced cost, to the mutual benefit of both the respondents and
EPA.
    Responses to the collection of information are voluntary.
Respondents may claim all or part of a notice confidential. EPA will
disclose information that is covered by a claim of confidentiality only
to the extent permitted by, and in accordance with, the procedures in
TSCA section 14 and 40 CFR part 2.
    Burden Statement: The annual public reporting and recordkeeping
burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 0.5
hours per response. Burden means the total time, effort or financial
resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain or disclose
or provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the
time needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install and
utilize technology and systems for the purposes of collecting,
validating and verifying information, processing and maintaining
information, and disclosing and providing information; adjust the
existing ways to comply with any previously applicable instructions and
requirements; train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of

information; search data sources; complete and review the collection of
information; and transmit or otherwise disclose the information.
    Respondents/Affected Entities: Entities potentially affected by
this action are companies that manufacture, process, use, import or
distribute in commerce chemical substances that are subject to
reporting requirements under sections 4, 8(d) or 8(e) of TSCA, or are
subject to voluntary reporting under the Voluntary Children's Chemical
Evaluation Program (VCCEP).
    Frequency of Collection: On occasion.
    Estimated average number of responses for each respondent: 1.46.
    Estimated No. of Respondents: 831.
    Estimated Total Annual Burden on Respondents: 607 hours.
    Estimated Total Annual Costs: $35,716.
    Changes in Burden Estimates: There is a decrease of 454.5 hours
(from 1,061 hours to 607 hours) in the total estimated respondent
burden compared with that identified in the information collection most
recently approved by OMB. This reflects a decrease in the estimated
number of submissions, continuing the trend that was reported in the
prior ICR renewal.

    Dated: May 27, 2010.
John Moses,
Director, Collection Strategies Division.
[FR Doc. 2010-13385 Filed 6-2-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 77 (Monday, April 22, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Page 16701]
[FR Doc No: 2019-08035]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request

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

Extension:
    Rule 701, SEC File No. 270-306, OMB Control No. 3235-0522.

    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'') has submitted to the Office of Management
and Budget this request for extension of the previously approved
collection of information discussed below.
    Rule 701 (17 CFR 230.701) under the Securities Act of 1933
(``Securities Act'') (15 U.S.C. 77a et seq.) provides an exemption for
certain issuers from the registration requirements of the Securities
Act for limited offerings and sales of securities issued under
compensatory benefit plans or contracts. The purpose of Rule 701 is to
ensure that a basic level of information is available to employees and
others when substantial amounts of securities are issued in
compensatory arrangements. Information provided under Rule 701 is
mandatory. We estimate that approximately 800 companies annually rely
on the Rule 701 exemption and that it takes 2 hours to prepare each
response. We estimate that 25% of the 2 hours per response (0.5 hours)
is prepared by the company for a total annual reporting burden of 400
hours (0.5 hours per response x 800 responses).
    An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required
to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a
currently valid control number.
    An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required
to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a
currently valid control number.
    The public may view the background documentation for this
information collection at the following website, www.reginfo.gov.
Comments should be directed to: (i) Desk Officer for the Securities and
Exchange Commission, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs,
Office of Management and Budget, Room 10102, New Executive Office
Building, Washington, DC 20503, or by sending an email to:
[email protected]; and (ii) Charles Riddle, Acting Director/
Chief Information Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission, c/o
Candace Kenner, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549 or send an email
to: [email protected]. Comments must be submitted to OMB within 30
days of this notice.

     Dated: April 17, 2019.
Jill M. Peterson,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2019-08035 Filed 4-19-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P