[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 190 (Thursday, October 1, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 59210-59213]
[FR Doc No: 2015-24884]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-75987; File No. SR-NASDAQ-2015-112]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC;
Notice of Filing of Proposed Rule Change To Amend Rule 4758

September 25, 2015.
    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 September 21, 2015, The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC (``NASDAQ'' or
``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I, II,
and III below, which Items have been prepared by the 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

    The Exchange proposes to amend NASDAQ Rule 4758 (Order Routing) to
adopt a new routing option, the Retail Order Process (``RTFY'').
    The text of the proposed rule change is available at http://nasdaq.cchwallstreet.com/, at the Exchange's principal office, and at
the Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

    In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements
concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and
discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The
text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in
Item IV below. The Exchange 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 4758, which describes its order routing
processes, to add the new RTFY order routing option under NASDAQ Rule
4758(a)(1)(A)(v) for Designated Retail Orders (``DROs'').\3\ Retail
order firms often send non-marketable order flow, that is--orders that
are not executable against the best prices available in the market
place based on their limit price--to post and display on exchanges.
Some of the orders that have been deemed to be non-marketable by the
entering firm become marketable by the time the exchange receives them
and ultimately remove liquidity from the exchange order book. As
discussed more fully below, the RTFY order routing option is designed
to enhance execution quality and benefit retail investors by providing
price improvement opportunities to retail order flow.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See NASDAQ Rule 7018.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange is proposing RTFY, which is similar to TFTY,\4\ as an
alternative method for posting non-marketable order flow on the
Exchange order book. Rather than allowing the marketable DROs to
immediately remove liquidity from the Exchange order book (unless
explicitly instructed to do so), the order will be routed to
destinations in the System routing table \5\ to increase price
improvement opportunities for the DROs. RTFY may remove liquidity from
the Exchange book after routing to other destinations. Any non-
marketable RTFY orders will post on the Exchange book. In this regard,
the RTFY routing option does not differ from the TFTY routing option.
Specifically, members using TFTY will not check the NASDAQ book (unless
so instructed by the entering firm) for available shares and will
instead route to the destination with lower transaction fees.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See NASDAQ Rule 4758(a)(1)(A)(v).
    \5\ The term ``System routing table'' refers to the proprietary
process for determining the specific trading venues to which the
System routes orders and the order in which it routes them. NASDAQ
reserves the right to maintain a different System routing table for
different routing options and to modify the System routing table at
any time without notice. See NASDAQ Rule 4758(a)(1)(A).
    \6\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 61460 (Feb. 1,
2010), 75 FR 66183 (Feb. 5, 2010) (SR-NASDAQ-2010-018).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The destinations in the System routing table for RTFY will include
OTC market makers,\7\ which may also be registered NASDAQ market makers
\8\ (``Market Makers''). The Exchange believes Market Makers will
likely provide the greatest opportunity for price improvement for the
DROs. The Exchange believes the RTFY routing option will benefit DROs
by providing additional price improvement opportunities for retail
investors that they do not otherwise enjoy today.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ An ``OTC market maker'' in a stock is defined in Rule
600(b)(52) of Regulation NMS as, in general, a dealer that holds
itself out as willing to buy and sell the stock, otherwise than on a
national securities exchange, in amounts of less than block size
(less than 10,000 shares).
    \8\ See NASDAQ Rule 4612.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    If a RTFY order is posted on the Exchange, either because it was
non-marketable when it was received or it has exhausted all available
liquidity within its limit price--including the Exchange, Reg NMS
protected quotations and other destinations in the System routing
table--and the order is subsequently locked or crossed by another
market center, the System will not route to the locking or crossing
market center.

    An order using the RTFY option will be sent to the primary listing
exchange for opening, reopening, and closing auctions. Orders received
in non-NASDAQ listed securities prior to market open that are not
eligible for the pre-market session will be submitted to the primary
listing market for inclusion in that market's opening process. Orders
received in NASDAQ-listed securities prior to market open that are not
eligible for the pre-market session will follow normal pre-market
processing.\9\ Orders received prior to the market open that are
eligible for the pre-market session will be posted (and routed if
marketable) for potential execution. Approximately two minutes prior to
market open, active pre-market session orders in the Exchange's
possession will be routed to the primary listing exchange. When a
security that is listed on an exchange other than NASDAQ is halted,
RTFY orders (including RTFY orders received during the halt) will be
sent to the primary listing exchange for inclusion in that exchange's
reopening process. All RTFY orders will be sent to the primary listing
exchange approximately two minutes prior to that exchange's closing
process.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See NASDAQ Rule 4752.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This additional RTFY order routing option under NASDAQ Rule
4758(a)(1)(A)(v) is substantially similar to the current TFTY routing
option under the same rule. The proposed new RTFY routing option
differs from TFTY in three ways: (i) RTFY is only available to DROs;
(ii) RTFY uses a separate and distinct routing table, as permitted
under NASDAQ Rule 4758(a)(1)(A); and (iii) RTFY orders will be sent to
the primary listing exchange for opening, reopening, and closing
auctions. Additionally, RTFY is also not unlike other exchange order
routing options. TRIM \10\ is an example of a BATS Exchange, Inc.
(``BATS'') order routing option under which an order checks the system
for available shares only if so instructed by the entering firm and
then is sent to destinations on the system routing table.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 63147 (Oct. 21,
2010), 75 FR 66183 (Oct. 27, 2010) (SR-BATS-2010-029). More
recently, BATS reaffirmed that they offer several routing strategies
(e.g., TRIM, TRIM2, TRIM3 and SLIM) under which an order checks the
BATS system for available shares if so instructed by the entering
member and then is sent to destinations on the applicable BATS
system routing table. See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 73412
(Oct. 23, 2014), 79 FR 64431 (Oct. 29, 2014) (SR-BATS-2014-052).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange proposes to offer RTFY to firms that send DROs because
the needs of a retail order firm are unique when compared to
institutional or proprietary trading firms. As retail orders are
generally smaller on average, they are often able to receive better
prices than the prevailing national best bid and offer (``NBBO'').
Primarily, this is achieved through a process whereby retail order
firms \11\ send their orders to OTC market makers that provide some
level of price improvement to the orders they receive. DROs may also
participate in exchange mechanisms geared towards DROs such as the BX
Retail Price Improvement (``RPI'') program.\12\ The Exchange is
proposing to offer another mechanism through which DROs will seek price
improvement. The Exchange anticipates that the RTFY order routing
option will route to trading centers in the System routing table that
have experience executing and providing price improvement to DROs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ As used in this proposal, the term ``retail order firms''
refers to NASDAQ member firms that provide orders that qualify as
Designated Retail Orders under NASDAQ Rule 7018.
    \12\ See BX Rule 4780.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    When a participant chooses to use a particular routing strategy,
various trade-offs need to be weighed against each other. First and
foremost is a decision as to whether to use an exchange routing
strategy at all. There are many broker-dealers and vendors that provide
customized routing strategies and order execution algorithms. Further,
an order flow firm may choose to make its own routing decisions based
on proprietary routing processes. Many retail order firms use other
firms to enhance their routing capabilities. As mentioned above, retail
order firms often route orders to OTC market makers who provide price
improvement, routing, and other services. Additionally, retail order
firms often also post non-marketable orders on exchanges. In
conjunction with the posted order flow, the retail order firm may also
employ one of the exchanges order routing strategies to assist in
achieving best execution for the retail investors they represent.
    NASDAQ offers multiple routing options and each has its own set of
strengths and trade-offs. STGY,\13\ one of the most used routing
options, aggressively searches for executions without taking
transaction fees into account. Also, once it is posted, if it is locked
or crossed it will route to the locking or crossing market. SCAN \14\
is a slightly less aggressive strategy that will not route once it is
posted on the Exchange book, even if locked or crossed by an away
market. TFTY is a less aggressive strategy and takes fees into account.
The TFTY strategy does not access the NASDAQ book before routing
(unless specified to do so by the entering party) and instead focuses
on low-cost trading destinations. Only after routing to the
destinations specific to TFTY does it access the NASDAQ book. The user
of TFTY is giving the transaction cost more weight when deciding which
routing option to use, recognizing that it may miss an execution on
NASDAQ in its attempt to access other destinations first. The reason
the Exchange offers various routing options is because each market
participant's view of how to achieve best execution is different and
thus the submitting firm makes its own decision based on its view as to
which routing option best meets its needs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ See NASDAQ Rule 4758(a)(1)(A)(iii).
    \14\ See NASDAQ Rule 4758(a)(1)(A)(iv).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NASDAQ aims to offer functionality and order options that meet the
needs of its diverse membership. In particular, the Exchange believes
the new RTFY routing option will meet the needs of the retail order
flow firms that opt to use it based on their routing technology,
business model or level of retail order flow. Based on NASDAQ's
analysis, as well as information provided by potential users of the
RTFY routing option, approximately 96% of the DROs that use this new
routing option once it is available will add liquidity on the Exchange.
The remainder will be routed to destinations on the System routing
table for potential price improvement, including to OTC market makers
who are also NASDAQ market makers. NASDAQ also believes this latter
feature will provide additional price improvement opportunities to
retail order flow, which ultimately benefits the retail investors whose
individual orders are included in that order flow.
    To illustrate how the RTFY routing option would work, consider the
following:
    NASDAQ Quote: $50.00 x $50.02 (100 x 100)

     Order 1 is received to buy 100 shares at $50.02 RTFY
     Order 1 does not check the NASDAQ book
     Order 1 is routed and receives an execution for 100 shares
at $50.01--$1.00 in price improvement.

    [cir] Order 2 is received to buy 100 shares at $50.02 RTFY
    [cir] Order 2 does not check the NASDAQ book
    [cir] Order 2 is routed but receives no execution
    [cir] The NASDAQ quote updates to $50.00 x $50.03 (100 x 100) while
Order 2 is routing
    [cir] Order 2 is posted on the NASDAQ book at $50.02
    [cir] The NASDAQ quote now reflects Order 2 $50.02 x $50.03 (100 x
100)

    [ssquf] Order 3 is received to buy 100 shares at $50.03 RTFY
    [ssquf] Order 3 does not check the NASDAQ book
    [ssquf] Order 3 is routed and receives an execution for 100 shares
at $50.03 (its limit price)

    [sdiam4] Order 4 is received to sell 100 shares at $50.02 (non-
routable order)
    [sdiam4] Order 4 executes against Order 2 at $50.02

    [rtarr8] RTFY Order 1 received $1.00 price improvement
    [rtarr8] RTFY Order 2 executed at its limit price
    [rtarr8] RTFY Order 3 executed at its limit price

    [rtarr8] The average price improvement per order is $0.33
    [rtarr8] The average price improvement per share across the three
orders is $0.0033
    [rtarr8] Although Order 2 missed an execution on NASDAQ at its
limit price, all three orders taken together are better off, on
average, by $0.33.

    As with all routing options (other than Directed Orders),\15\ the
RTFY routing table will be monitored and approved by a best execution
committee (the ``Committee'').\16\ The Committee determines how to
organize the System routing table and which trading destinations are
included in the routing table. The Committee considers best execution
by reviewing various parameters, such as price improvement, fill rate,
latency, interaction rate, experience of the execution venue operator,
and the volume the execution venue handles on a daily basis. As
execution quality is dynamic, the parameters considered by the
Committee evolve over time; often resulting in new parameters being
considered.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ See NASDAQ Rule 4758(a)(1)(A)(ix).
    \16\ The best execution committee consists of several internal
NASDAQ participants representing product management, internal audit,
economic research, broker-dealer compliance, and market operations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In order to maximize price improvement and execution quality for
the retail investor, the Exchange (or any of its affiliates) will not
accept payment for order flow from any OTC market maker to which an
RTFY order is sent. If the trading venue pays a standard rebate for
DROs to all of its subscribers or another exchange pays a rebate to
remove liquidity, the Exchange will accept and retain those rebates.
However, the Exchange expects and believes that most, if not all,
orders routed using the RTFY routing option will be sent to and
executed by an OTC market maker that may also be a registered NASDAQ
market maker.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with
the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder, including the
requirements of Section 6(b) of the Act.\17\ In particular, the
Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with the
Section 6(b)(5) \18\ requirements that the rules of an exchange be
designed to promote just and equitable principles of trade, to prevent
fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to foster cooperation
and coordination with persons engaged in facilitating transactions in
securities, to remove impediments to and to perfect the mechanism for a
free and open market and a national market system, and, in general, to
protect investors and the public interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \18\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with these principles for several reasons. First, it would increase
competition among execution venues since this routing option would
allow the Exchange to compete more aggressively for retail order flow.
Competition results in innovation and better services provided at lower
prices. RTFY is an innovation born from competition and will encourage
additional liquidity on the Exchange as more DRO liquidity will be
posted on NASDAQ resulting in improved price discovery for all market
participants. Additionally, this routing option provides a means for
retail investors to receive potential price improvement in a manner
that is not today offered by an exchange. The Exchange notes that a
significant percentage of the orders from individual investors are
executed over-the-counter.\19\ The Exchange believes that this new
Exchange functionality will enhance coordination and cooperation with
market participants and produce a more efficient market because the
Exchange believes more retail investor orders will be sent to the
Exchange to add liquidity or to obtain price improvement. Price
improvement for retail orders has been a hallmark and goal of U.S.
equity markets. Marketable retail orders that are sent to an OTC market
maker using RTFY for potential price improvement is an example of an
Exchange proposal to create another way for a DRO to receive such price
improvement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ See Concept Release on Equity Market Structure, Securities
Exchange Act Release No. 61358 (January 14, 2010), 75 FR 3594
(January 21, 2010) (noting that dark pools and internalizing broker-
dealers executed approximately 25.4% of share volume in September
2009). See also Mary L. Schapiro, Strengthening Our Equity Market
Structure (Speech at the Economic Club of New York, Sept. 7, 2010)
(available on the Commission's Web site). In her speech, Chairman
Schapiro noted that nearly 30 percent of volume in U.S.-listed
equities was executed in venues that do not display their liquidity
or make it generally available to the public and the percentage was
increasing nearly every month.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NASDAQ believes that the proposed rule change promotes just and
equitable principles of trade, as well as serves to remove impediments
to and to perfect the mechanism for a free and open market and a
national market system, and, in general, to protect investors and the
public interest because the Exchange is creating a new routing option
for processing orders that are meant to be posted passively on the
Exchange book but are nonetheless marketable orders. The creation of
different approaches to market challenges is what drives innovation,
market quality, and ultimately competition. The Exchange competes
vigorously for order flow in a marketplace where participants have many
trading venue choices. The Exchange believes the RTFY routing option
will increase competition by providing value to retail order firms and
their retail investor customers, which will in turn result in more
order flow being sent to the Exchange.

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate
in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The proposed rule change is
designed to attract greater retail order flow to NASDAQ, which will
benefit both retail investors by providing potential price improvement
and market participants in general by making the market more efficient.
If the proposed routing option is successful in attracting retails
order flow, the proposal will likely increase competition among
exchanges and other trading venues for such order flow.
    Moreover, the proposed rule change is not designed to place the
Exchange in competition with broker-dealers since it provides this new
routing process option to assist broker-dealers not affiliated with the
Exchange to conduct their order execution business and provides them
with greater choice of services available and enhanced opportunities
all of which are hallmarks of a highly-functioning, efficient and
competitive marketplace. As proposed, RTFY will offer NASDAQ members
another means to seek price improvement opportunities for retail orders
and it is designed to complement, not compete against, their

existing best execution processes. If a member believes that RTFY will
not complement their best execution efforts, the member can simply
choose not to use RTFY.
    The Exchange does not believe the proposed rule change will impact
non-exchange affiliated broker-dealers negatively and will not provide
any advantages to exchange affiliated broker-dealers because of the
following reasons: NASDAQ's affiliated broker-dealer \20\ offers a very
limited service to retail orders that complement the activities of non-
exchange affiliated broker-dealers by providing another novel way to
seek price improvement opportunities for retail orders. Additionally,
NES will act only on behalf of a NASDAQ member, through NASDAQ's
direction, if and only if requested by the member to do so via the use
of the RFTY order routing option and other NASDAQ order routing
options.\21\ In short, there is no obligation for a NASDAQ member to
use RTFY, as is the case today with TFTY and all other routing options
offered by NASDAQ.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ NASDAQ sends routable orders entered into the System to a
broker-dealer that it owns and operates, NASDAQ Execution Services,
LLC (``NES''). NES is a broker-dealer registered with the Commission
pursuant to Section 15 of the Act, and is considered a facility and
an affiliate of NASDAQ. NES's sole function is to provide outbound
routing services to NASDAQ.
    \21\ When NASDAQ routes an order to other venues it does not do
so directly but rather uses NES, which is a member of other
exchanges and market venues. A member's routable Order will be sent
by NASDAQ to NES for routing consistent with the member-selected
routing option.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed rule change is a result of a dialogue initiated by
NASDAQ more than a year ago with members and non-members regarding
various ways the Exchange can help improve execution quality for retail
investors and provide services that complement their existing routing
technology and related services. Based upon these discussions, NASDAQ
believes that neither members nor non-members would feel as though RTFY
provides NES with an advantage over non-exchange affiliated broker-
dealers or will compete with non-exchange affiliated broker-dealers in
any way.

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

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

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-NASDAQ-2015-112 on the subject line.

Paper comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NASDAQ-2015-112. 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, on official business days between the hours of
10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of such filing will also be available
for inspection and copying at the principal office 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-2015-112 and should
be submitted on or before October 22, 2015.

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

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

Robert W. Errett,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2015-24884 Filed 9-30-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 233 (Wednesday, December 8, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 69695-69697]
[FR Doc No: 2021-26596]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[SEC File No. 270-22, OMB Control No. 3235-0006]

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:
    Form 13F

    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 (the ``Commission'') has submitted to the Office of
Management and Budget a request for extension of the previously
approved collection of information discussed below.
    Section 13(f) \1\ of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 \2\ (the
``Exchange Act'') empowers the Commission to: (1) Adopt rules that
create a reporting and disclosure system to collect specific
information; and (2) disseminate such information to the public. Rule
13f-1 \3\ under the Exchange Act requires institutional investment
managers that exercise investment discretion over accounts that have in
the aggregate a fair market value of at least $100,000,000 of certain
U.S. exchange-traded equity

securities, as set forth in rule 13f-1(c), to file quarterly reports
with the Commission on Form 13F.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78m(f).
    \2\ 15 U.S.C. 78a et seq.
    \3\ 17 CFR 240.13f-1.
    \4\ 17 CFR 249.325.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The information collection requirements apply to institutional
investment managers that meet the $100 million reporting threshold.
Section 13(f)(6)(A) of the Exchange Act defines an ``institutional
investment manager'' as any person, other than a natural person,
investing in or buying and selling securities for its own account, and
any person exercising investment discretion with respect to the account
of any other person. Rule 13f-1(b) under the Exchange Act defines
``investment discretion'' for purposes of Form 13F reporting.
    The reporting system required by Section 13(f) of the Exchange Act
is intended, among other things, to create in the Commission a central
repository of historical and current data about the investment
activities of institutional investment managers, and to improve the
body of factual data available to regulators and the public.
    The currently approved burden estimates include a total hour burden
of 472,521.6 hours, with an internal cost burden of $31,186,425.60, to
comply with Form 13F.\5\ Consistent with a recent rulemaking proposal
that made adjustments to these estimates due primarily to the
Commission's belief that the currently approved estimates do not
appropriately reflect the information collection costs associated with
Form 13F,\6\ the table below reflects the revised estimates.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ This estimate is based on the last time the rule's
information collection was submitted for PRA renewal in 2018.
    \6\ See Electronic Submission of Applications for Orders under
the Advisers Act and the Investment Company Act, Confidential
Treatment Requests for Filings on Form 13F, and Form ADV-NR;
Amendments to Form 13F, Investment Company Release No. (Nov. 4,
2021).

                                                  Table--Form 13F Current and Revised Burden Estimates
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                    Initial
                                     hours           Annual hours                     Wage rate          Internal time cost        External costs \1\
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                        REVISIONS TO CURRENT PRA BURDEN ESTIMATES
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                           Revised Burdens for 13F-HR Filings
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Current estimated annual burden    .........  80.8 hours................     x   $66 \2\............  $5,332.80...............
 of Form 13F-HR per filer.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Revised current annual estimated   .........  10 hours \3\..............     x   $202.50 (blended     $2,025..................  $789.\6\
 burden per filer.                                                                rate for senior
                                                                                programmer and
                                                                                compliance clerk)
                                                                                \4\.
                                             ----------------------------       -----------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total revised estimated burden     .........  11 hours..................         ...................  $2,393..................  $789.
 per filer.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of filers.................  .........  5,466 filers \7\..........         ...................  5,466 filers............  5,466 filers.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Revised current annual burden of   .........  60,126 hours..............         ...................  $13,080,138.............  $4,312,674.
 Form 13F-HR filings.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                           Revised Burdens for 13F-NT Filings
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Current estimated annual burden    .........  80.8 hours................
 of Form 13F-NT.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Revised current annual burden of   .........  4 hours...................     x   $71 (wage rate for   $284....................  $300.
 Form 13F-NT per filer.                                                           compliance clerk).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of filers.................  .........  1,535 filers \8\..........         ...................  1,535 filers............  1,535 filers.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                              6,140 hours...............         ...................  $435,940................  $460,500.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                     Revised Burdens for Form 13F Amendment Filings
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Current estimated burden per       .........  4 hours...................         $66.00.............  $264....................
 amendment filing.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Revised current estimated burden   .........  3.5 hours \9\.............     x   $202.50 (blended     $708.75.................  $300.
 per amendment.                                                                   rate for senior
                                                                                programmer and
                                                                                compliance clerk).
                                             ----------------------------       -----------------------------------------------
                                              0.5 hour \9\..............         $368 (compliance     $184....................
                                                                                attorney rate).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total revised estimates burden     .........  4 hours...................         ...................  $892.75.................  $300.
 per amendment.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of amendments.............  .........  244 amendments \10\.......         ...................  244 amendments..........  244 amendments.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Revised current annual estimated   .........  976 hours.................         ...................  $217,831................  $73,200.
 burden of all amendments.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                             TOTAL ESTIMATED FORM 13F BURDEN
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Currently approved burden                     472,521.6 hours                    ...................  $31,186,425.60..........  $0.
 estimates.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Revised current burden estimates.               67,242 hours                     ...................  $13,733,909.............  $4,846,374.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notes:

\1\ The external costs of complying with Form 13F can vary among filers. Some filers use third-party vendors for a range of services in connection with
  filing reports on Form 13F, while other filers use vendors for more limited purposes such as providing more user-friendly versions of the list of
  section 13(f) Securities. For purposes of the PRA, we estimate that each filer will spend an average of $300 on vendor services each year in
  connection with the filer's four quarterly reports on Form 13F-HR or Form 13F-NT, as applicable, in addition to the estimated vendor costs associated
  with any amendments. In addition, some filers engage outside legal services in connection with the preparation of requests for confidential treatment
  or analyses regarding possible requests, or in connection with the form's disclosure requirements. For purposes of the PRA, we estimate that each
  manager filing reports on Form 13F-HR will incur $489 for one hour of outside legal services each year.
\2\ $66 was the estimated wage rate for a compliance clerk in 2018.
\3\ The estimate reduces the total burden hours associated with complying with the reporting requirements of Form 13F-HR from 80.8 to 11 hours. We
  believe that this reduction adequately reflects the reduction in the time managers spend complying with Form 13F-HR as a result of advances in
  technology that have occurred since Form 13F was adopted. The revised estimate also assumes that an in-house compliance attorney would spend 1 hour
  annually on the preparation of the filing, as well as determining whether a 13(f) Confidential Treatment Request should be filed. The remaining 10
  hours would be divided equally between a senior programmer and compliance clerk.
\4\ The $202.50 wage rate reflects current estimates of the blended hourly rate for an in-house senior programmer ($334) and in-house compliance clerk
  ($71). $202.50 is based on the following calculation: ($334+$71)/2 = $202.50. The $334 per hour figure for a senior programmer is based on salary
  information for the securities industry compiled by the Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association's Office Salaries in the Securities
  Industry 2013 (``SIFMA Report''), modified by Commission staff to account for an 1800-hour work-year and inflation, and multiplied by 5.35 to account
  for bonuses, firm size, employee benefits and overhead. The $71 per hour figure for a compliance clerk is based on salary information from the SIFMA
  Report, modified by Commission staff to account for an 1800-hour work-year and inflation, and multiplied by 2.93 to account for bonuses, firm size,
  employee benefits and overhead.
\5\ The $368 per hour figure for a compliance attorney is based on salary information for the securities industry compiled by the Securities Industry
  and Financial Markets Association's Office Salaries in the Securities Industry 2013 (``SIFMA Report''), modified by Commission staff to account for an
  1800-hour work-year and inflation, and multiplied by 5.35 to account for bonuses, firm size, employee benefits and overhead.
\6\ $789 includes an estimated $300 paid to a third-party vendor in connection with the Form 13F-HR filing as well as an estimated $489 for one hour of
  outside legal services. We estimate that Form 13F-HR filers will require some level of external legal counsel in connection with these filings.
\7\ This estimate is based on the number of 13F-HR filers as of December 2019.
\8\ This estimate is based on the number of Form 13F-NT filers as of December 2019.
\9\ The revised estimate assumes that an in-house compliance attorney would spend 0.5 hours annually on the preparation of the filing amendment, as well
  as determining whether a 13(f) Confidential Treatment Request should be filed. The remaining 3.5 hours would be divided equally between a senior
  programmer and compliance clerk.
\10\ This estimate is based on the number of Form 13F amendments filed as of December 2019.

    The estimate of average burden hours is made solely for the
purposes of the Paperwork Reduction Act. The estimate is not derived
from a comprehensive or even a representative survey or study of the
costs of Commission rules. 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) David Bottom, Director/Chief
Information Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission, c/o John R.
Pezzullo, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549 or send an email to:
[email protected]. Written comments and recommendations for the
proposed information collection should be sent within 60 days of
publication of this notice to www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain. Find
this particular information collection by selecting ``Currently under
30-day Review--Open for Public Comments'' or by using the search
function.

    Dated: December 3, 2021.
J. Matthew DeLesDernier,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2021-26596 Filed 12-7-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: January 29, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 18)]
[Notices]
[Page 5175-5176]
[DOCID:fr29ja09-76]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-1814-DR; Docket ID FEMA-2008-0018]

Hawaii; Major Disaster and Related Determinations

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This is a notice of the Presidential declaration of a major
disaster for the State of Hawaii (FEMA-1814-DR), dated January 5, 2009,
and related determinations.

DATES: Effective Date: January 5, 2009.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Peggy Miller, Disaster Assistance
Directorate, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street, SW.,
Washington, DC 20472,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is hereby given that, in a letter
dated January 5, 2009, the President issued a major disaster
declaration under the authority of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster
Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121-5207 (the Stafford
Act), as follows:

    I have determined that the damage in certain areas of the State
of Hawaii resulting from severe storms and flooding during the
period of December 10-16, 2008, is of sufficient severity and
magnitude to warrant a major disaster declaration under the Robert
T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C.
5121-5207 (the Stafford Act). Therefore, I declare that such a major
disaster exists in the State of Hawaii.
    In order to provide Federal assistance, you are hereby
authorized to allocate from funds available for these purposes such
amounts as you find necessary for Federal disaster assistance and
administrative expenses.
    You are authorized to provide Individual Assistance and Public
Assistance in the designated areas and Hazard Mitigation throughout
the State. Consistent with the requirement that Federal assistance
be supplemental, any Federal funds provided under the Stafford Act
for Public Assistance, Hazard Mitigation, and Other Needs Assistance
will be limited to 75 percent of the total eligible costs.
    Further, you are authorized to make changes to this declaration
to the extent allowable under the Stafford Act.

    The time period prescribed for the implementation of section
310(a), Priority to Certain Applications for Public Facility and Public
Housing Assistance, 42 U.S.C. 5153, shall be for a period not to exceed
six months after the date of this declaration.
    The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) hereby gives notice
that

pursuant to the authority vested in the Administrator, under Executive
Order 12148, as amended, Kenneth R. Tingman, of FEMA is appointed to
act as the Federal Coordinating Officer for this major disaster.
    The following areas of the State of Hawaii have been designated as
adversely affected by this major disaster:

    City and County of Honolulu for Individual Assistance and Public
Assistance.
    Kauai County for Public Assistance.
    All counties within the State of Hawaii are eligible to apply
for assistance under the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program.

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

R. David Paulison,
Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. E9-1874 Filed 1-28-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 9111-23-P