[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 13 (Friday, January 22, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 6687-6694]
[FR Doc No: 2021-01402]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-90933; File No. SR-IEX-2021-01]

Self-Regulatory Organizations: Investors Exchange LLC; Notice of
Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To Modify
the Way It Handles Odd Lot Orders by Allowing Them To Be Displayed
Orders and To Aggregate To Form a Protected Quotation

January 15, 2021.
    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 January 6, 2021, the Investors Exchange LLC (``IEX'' or the
``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``SEC'' or ``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

    Pursuant to the provisions of Section 19(b)(1) under the Act,\3\
and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\4\ IEX is filing with the Commission a
proposed rule change to modify the way it handles odd lot orders by
allowing them to be displayed

orders and to aggregate to form a protected quotation. The Exchange has
designated this rule change as ``non-controversial'' under Section
19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \5\ and provided the Commission with the notice
required by Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \4\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \5\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \6\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The text of the proposed rule change is available at the Exchange's
website at www.iextrading.com, at the principal office of the Exchange,
and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to modify the way it handles odd lot orders
\7\ by allowing them to be displayed orders and to aggregate to form a
protected quotation. Specifically, the Exchange proposes to amend IEX
Rules 11.190(b), 11.220(a), and 11.240(c) to provide that a User may
enter displayed \8\ as well as non-displayed \9\ odd lot orders and to
allow displayed odd lot orders to aggregate to form a Protected
Quotation.\10\ Additionally, the Exchange proposes to make related
changes to IEX Rules 11.190(h) and 11.230(a)(4) to prevent a displayed
odd lot order that is not protected from resulting in a lock or cross
of IEX's Order Book.\11\ The Exchange also proposes to make conforming
changes to IEX Rules 11.190(b) and 11.240(c). This proposal would align
IEX's treatment of odd lot orders with that of the other national
securities exchanges that trade equities (i.e., equities exchanges), as
detailed below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ An odd lot order is generally any order of less than 100
shares (the size of a round lot order). See IEX Rule 11.180(a).
    \8\ See IEX Rule 11.190(b)(1). IEX offers three order types that
may be entered as displayed orders: limit, reserve, and
Discretionary Limit. See IEX Rule 11.190(a)(1), (b)(2), and (b)(7).
    \9\ See IEX Rule 11.190(b)(3).
    \10\ See IEX Rule 1.160(bb).
    \11\ See IEX Rule 1.160(p).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Background
    Currently, all odd lot orders on IEX are treated as non-displayed,
whether the User \12\ entered the order into the System \13\ as an odd
lot, or if the order began as a displayed round \14\ or mixed \15\ lot
order, and was subsequently decremented to an odd lot order by
execution or User order amendment.\16\ When a displayed round or mixed
lot order decrements to a non-displayed odd lot order, the order also
loses its execution priority as a displayed order and also receives a
new timestamp resulting in the order being ranked behind all resting
displayed and non-displayed orders on the Order Book at the same price
level.\17\ Additionally, a displayed order that becomes non-displayed
because it decremented to an odd lot will no longer be disseminated on
IEX's TOPS,\18\ DEEP,\19\ and Data Platform \20\ data feeds
(collectively, the ``Data Feeds''), as applicable.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ See IEX Rule 1.160(qq).
    \13\ See IEX Rule 1.160(nn).
    \14\ A round lot order is generally any order of 100 shares or a
multiple thereof (e.g., a 1,000 share order constitutes ten (10)
round lots). See IEX Rule 11.180(a).
    \15\ A mixed lot order is generally any order of more than 100
shares that is not a multiple of 100 shares (e.g., orders for 101
shares and 299 shares are both mixed lot orders). See IEX Rule
11.180(a).
    \16\ See IEX Rule 11.190(b)(4).
    \17\ See IEX Rule 11.220(a)(1)(C)(vii).
    \18\ See IEX Rule 11.330(a)(1) (describing how, among other
things, TOPS offers aggregated top of book quotations for all
displayed orders resting on the Order Book).
    \19\ See IEX Rule 11.330(a)(3) (describing how, among other
things, DEEP provides ``aggregated depth of book quotations for all
displayed orders resting on the Order Book at each price level'').
    \20\ The IEX Data Platform, known as the ``TOPS Viewer,'' offers
both aggregated top of book and aggregated depth of book quotations
for all displayed orders resting on the Order Book. See IEX Rule
11.330(a)(2). The IEX Data Platform can be accessed at https://iextrading.com/apps/tops/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Odd lots comprise an increasingly large portion of all securities
transactions--in October 2020, 35.6% of all trades on IEX were odd lot
executions. Odd lots account for an even larger percentage of trades on
other equities exchanges--in October 2019, nearly half of all trades on
equities exchanges were odd lot trades, which was nearly double the
number of odd lot trades in 2016.\21\ IEX understands that this growth
in odd lot trading is driven by the increasing prevalence of stocks
priced above $1,000 per share (which translates to more than $100,000
in notional value for the standard round lot of 100 shares), as well as
computerized trading strategies that increasingly employ odd lots.\22\
However, odd lots are not subject to the same requirements as round lot
orders under Regulation NMS, primarily in that only round lots can be
protected quotations.\23\ Thus, the Commission's Division of Trading
and Markets has provided guidance that:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ See Osipovich, Alexander: ``Tiny `Odd Lot' Trades Reach
Record Share of U.S. Stock Market,'' Wall Street Journal (October
23, 2019).
    \22\ See supra note 21.
    \23\ Regulation NMS defines ``bids'' and ``offers'' as the bid
price or offer price for one or more round lots of an NMS security,
and those definitions are referenced in the definitions of
``quotations,'' ``protected bids,'' and ``protected offers.'' See 17
CFR 242.600(b)(8), (b)(66), and (b)(61).

    trading centers are permitted to establish their own rules for
handling odd-lot orders and the odd-lot portions of mixed-lot
orders. For example, although trading centers are not required to
handle odd-lot orders or the odd-lot portions of mixed lot orders in
accordance with the requirements for automated quotations set forth
in Rule 600(b)([4]), they are free to incorporate such requirements
in their rules if they wish to do so.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ See FAQ 7.03: ``Odd-Lot Orders and Odd-Lot Portions of
Mixed-Lot Orders,'' Division of Trading and Markets: Responses to
Frequently Asked Questions Concerning Rule 611 and Rule 610 of
Regulation NMS (April 4, 2008), available at https://www.sec.gov/divisions/marketreg/nmsfaq610-11.htm#sec7.

    Consistent with the above guidance, other equities exchanges have
adopted rules that allow for odd lot orders to be displayed, which
affects the orders' execution priority and quotation dissemination on
each exchange's depth of book feed, where applicable.\25\ In addition,
equities exchanges enable displayed odd lot orders to aggregate at the
same or multiple price points that equal at least one round lot to form
a protected quotation under Rule 600(b)(62) of Regulation NMS.\26\
Similarly, displayed odd lot orders can also be aggregated with
displayed round and mixed lot orders at the same price level to form a
protected quotation. When displayed odd lot orders aggregate to at
least one round lot (either with other odd lot orders or with displayed
round and/or mixed lot orders) and comprise the best bid or offer for
an exchange, the other equities exchanges treat the aggregated
quotation as their top of book quotation, which they disseminate to the
appropriate Securities Information Processor (``SIP'')

and their own top of book feeds, as applicable.\27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ See, e.g., The New York Stock Exchange LLC (``NYSE'') Rule
7.36(b) (``Display'') (describing how unless otherwise instructed,
``odd-lot sized Limit Orders . . . are considered displayed for
ranking purposes'').
    \26\ See, e.g., The Nasdaq Stock Market LLC (``Nasdaq'') Rule
4756(c) (``Entry and Display of Quotes and Orders'') (describing the
process for how Nasdaq aggregates displayed odd lot orders with
other displayed interest to calculate its best ranked displayed
orders for dissemination as the exchange's top of book quotation).
    \27\ See, e.g., Nasdaq Rule 4756(c).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Based upon informal feedback from Members,\28\ IEX understands that
there is general interest in having IEX offer displayed odd lot orders,
so that such orders are visible on the Exchange's depth of book feeds,
are eligible to aggregate to form a protected quotation, and retain
their execution priority consistent with how displayed odd lot orders
are treated on other equities exchanges.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ See IEX Rule 1.160(s).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Proposal
    The Exchange proposes to amend IEX Rules 11.190(b), 11.220(a), and
11.240(c) to provide that Users may enter odd lot orders as either
displayed or non-displayed, rank displayed odd lot orders before non-
displayed orders at the same price, show displayed odd lot orders on
IEX's DEEP and Data Platform data feeds (collectively the ``Depth of
Book Data Feeds''), and aggregate displayed odd lot orders at the same
or multiple price points that equal at least one round lot for purposes
of transmitting the Exchange's best ranked displayed orders to the
appropriate SIP for each security and to IEX's TOPS and Data Platform
data feeds (collectively the ``Top of Book Data Feeds'').\29\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ These proposed rule changes are consistent with how other
equities exchanges handle displayed odd lot orders. See supra notes
25 and 26.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, the Exchange proposes two related changes to prevent a
displayed odd lot order that is not aggregated to form a protected
quotation from resulting in a lock or cross of IEX's Order Book, as
well as conforming changes to IEX Rules 11.190(b) and 11.240(c), each
as described below.
    Accordingly, with respect to displaying odd lot orders, IEX
proposes to amend all the rules describing odd lot orders as non-
displayed to reflect that odd lot orders may be either displayed or
non-displayed, based upon User instruction per order. Consistent with
this change, a displayed round lot order that decrements to an odd lot
will retain its displayed status and execution priority, and IEX
therefore proposes to remove any references to how decrementing a
displayed round lot to an odd lot causes the order to lose its
displayed status and execution priority. Thus, displayed odd lot orders
would have priority over any non-displayed orders booked at the same
price.\30\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \30\ See IEX Rule 11.220(a)(1)(B).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As proposed, IEX will display odd lot orders in the same manner it
displays round or mixed lot orders, with the exception that an odd lot
order that cannot be aggregated with other orders to form at least a
round lot, will not be eligible to form a protected quotation and to be
disseminated as IEX's top of book quotation. The proposed changes also
enumerate the manner in which IEX will aggregate odd lot orders for
purposes of forming a quotation that is eligible to be a protected
quotation. Specifically, IEX will aggregate all of the displayed odd
lot orders at the highest price to buy (or lowest price to sell)
wherein the aggregate size of all displayed buy (sell) interest in the
System greater than or equal (less than or equal) to that price is one
round lot or greater. When the aggregate quotation is the Exchange's
best ranked displayed order, IEX will disseminate this top of book
quotation, rounded down to the nearest round lot,\31\ to the
appropriate SIP and the entire size of the top of book quotation to
IEX's Top of Book Data Feeds.\32\ As displayed orders, all of IEX's
displayed odd lot interest will also be aggregated at each price level
and disseminated to IEX's Depth of Book Data Feeds.\33\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \31\ The SIPS only accept quotations in round lots.
    \32\ See IEX Rule 11.330(a)(1) and (2).
    \33\ See IEX Rule 11.330(a)(2) and (3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The following example demonstrates how, as proposed, odd lot bids
\34\ would be aggregated both for dissemination to IEX's Data Products
and the SIPs, when applicable:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \34\ The example focuses on the aggregation of displayed odd lot
orders to buy, but the same process applies to aggregating displayed
odd lot orders to sell, with the exception that the displayed odd
lot orders to sell will aggregate at the lowest price wherein the
aggregate size of all displayed interest to sell is one round lot or
greater.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Protected NBBO \35\ for a stock is 10.00 x 10.10.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \35\ See IEX Rule 1.160(cc).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     IEX's order book has two resting displayed bids for the
stock:
    [cir] Order A is a displayed odd lot to buy 25 shares at $10.02.
    [cir] Order B is a displayed odd lot to buy 65 shares at $10.02.
     Orders A and B do not aggregate to a protected quotation
and will not be disseminated to the Top of Book Data Feeds and the
SIPs.
     IEX will disseminate to its Depth of Book Data Feeds that
it has interest to buy 90 shares at $10.02.
     Order C arrives: a displayed odd lot order to buy 30
shares at $10.01.
     Orders A, B, and C will aggregate to form a protected
quotation at 10.01, which is disseminated to the SIP (as one round lot)
and Top of Book Data Feeds as interest to buy 120 shares at $10.01.
     IEX will disseminate to its Depth of Book Data Feeds that
it has interest to buy 90 shares at $10.02 and 30 shares at $10.01.
    As noted above and discussed in the Statutory Basis section below,
these proposed changes would align IEX's treatment of odd lot orders
with that of the other equities exchanges. Specifically, other equities
exchanges allow odd lot orders to be treated as displayed or non-
displayed \36\ and to aggregate in the manner proposed.\37\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \36\ See, e.g., NYSE Rule 7.36(b)(1) (describing how unless
otherwise instructed, ``odd-lot sized Limit Orders . . . are
considered displayed for ranking purposes''); Cboe BZX Exchange,
Inc. (``Cboe BZX'') Rule 11.9(c)(2); Nasdaq Rule 4703(b); and MIAX
PEARL, LLC (``MIAX Pearl'') Rule 2611(a); and MEMX LLC (``MEMX'')
Rules 11.2(a) and 11.6(q)(2). See also Securities Exchange Act
Release No. 87221 (October 3, 2019), 84 FR 54195 (October 9, 2019)
(SR-LTSE-2019-02) (detailing how the Long Term Stock Exchange, Inc.
(``LTSE'') removed all references to odd lot orders being non-
displayed, including removing language about how round lots
decrementing to an odd lot become non-displayed and lose their
priority, and clarifying that displayed odd lots can aggregate to
form a protected quotation).
    \37\ See, e.g., Nasdaq Rule 4756(c); NYSE Rule 7.36(b)(3); Cboe
BZX Rule 21.6(d); MIAX Pearl Rule 2616(b); MEMX Rule 11.9(b)(2); and
LTSE Rule 11.410.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    IEX also proposes several related rule changes to prevent a
displayed odd lot order that is not protected from resulting in a lock
or cross of IEX's Order Book.
    First, IEX proposes to modify its non-displayed price sliding rules
to prevent a displayed odd lot order priced equal to or more
aggressively than the Midpoint Price \38\ from locking or crossing a
non-displayed incoming or resting order when the orders are unable to
execute against each other because of the non-displayed order's
specific conditions.\39\ This issue does not arise currently because
non-displayed orders are never priced more aggressively than the
Midpoint Price in accordance with the ``Midpoint Price Constraint''
\40\ and a displayed order priced equal to or more aggressively than
the Midpoint Price would result in a change in the NBB \41\ or NBO \42\
and a corresponding

change to the Midpoint Price. However, with the introduction of
displayed, but unprotected, odd lot orders, there is the potential that
a displayed odd lot order would post on the Order Book at a price equal
to or more aggressive than the Midpoint Price and would lock or cross
\43\ a contra-side resting non-displayed order (or be locked or crossed
by an incoming non-displayed order) if the non-displayed order's
specific conditions prevent it from matching with the displayed odd lot
order.\44\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \38\ See IEX Rule 1.160(t).
    \39\ The primary situation in which this would arise is if the
non-displayed order is a Minimum Quantity order with a User
instruction that it cannot match with an order the size of the
displayed odd lot. See IEX Rule 11.190(b)(11). Significantly, only
non-displayed orders can have specific conditions such as a Minimum
Quantity that could prevent a match. Id. It is also possible that a
non-displayed order would be subject to another specific condition
that would prevent matching with a displayed odd lot order in such
circumstances, such as a Corporate Discretionary Peg (``C-Peg'')
order that cannot match because of the pricing conditions applicable
to C-Peg orders. See IEX Rule 11.190(b)(16).
    \40\ See IEX Rule 11.190(h)(2).
    \41\ See IEX Rule 1.160(u).
    \42\ See IEX Rule 1.160(u).
    \43\ A non-displayed order would cross the odd lot order if the
non-displayed order is priced at the Midpoint and would lock if
priced at the same price as the odd lot order.
    \44\ This scenario would not arise if the contra-side order is a
displayed order because displayed orders cannot include a minimum
quantity and would execute against the odd lot order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In order to address this possible scenario, IEX proposes to amend
the non-displayed price-sliding rules so that the price of a non-
displayed order that, because of its specific conditions, is not
executable against a contra-side displayed odd lot order that is priced
equal to or more aggressively than the Midpoint Price is adjusted to
one (1) minimum price variant (``MPV'') \45\ less aggressive than the
price of the contra-side displayed odd lot order. Specifically, IEX
proposes to modify IEX Rule 11.190(h)(2), and add new subsection (A),
to specify that in such a circumstance, the non-displayed order will
book at a price one (1) MPV less aggressive than the price of the
contra-side displayed odd lot order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \45\ See IEX Rule 11.210.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    These proposed changes to the non-displayed price sliding rules are
thus designed to address the potential that an unprotected displayed
odd lot order will result in the IEX Order Book becoming locked or
crossed, by sliding orders in a reasonably expected manner based on
current IEX rules, and consistent with the rules of several other
equities exchanges. For example, Nasdaq re-prices non-displayed orders
to a price one (1) MPV less aggressive than the price of a resting
contra-side displayed odd lot order if the non-displayed order would
lock or cross the displayed odd lot order because the non-displayed
order's minimum quantity condition prevents the two orders from
matching.\46\ Similarly, to avoid a lock or cross on its order book,
NYSE reprices orders with a minimum trade size (``MTS'') modifier to a
less aggressive price than the price of a resting contra-side displayed
odd lot order with which it would have matched but for the MTS
modifier.\47\ And several other exchanges would execute a non-displayed
order only at a less aggressive price than a contra-side unprotected
displayed odd lot order to prevent the displayed odd lot order crossing
each exchange's order book.\48\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \46\ See Nasdaq Rule 4703(e).
    \47\ See NYSE Rule 7.31(i)(3)(C)(i).
    \48\ These exchanges would execute the order at a price \1/2\
MPV less aggressive than the contra-side displayed odd lot. See Cboe
BZX Rules 11.13(a)(4)(C) and (D); MEMX Rules 11.10(a)(4)(C) and (D);
and MIAX Pearl Rules 2617(a)(4)(C) and (D). In the same situation,
IEX is proposing to re-price the non-displayed order to a price one
(1) MPV less aggressive than the contra-side displayed odd lot
order, which IEX believes is a minor distinction from the Cboe BZX,
MEMX, and MIAX \1/2\ MPV approach.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This proposed change to the non-displayed price sliding rules
applies to all non-displayed orders except for Discretionary Peg (``D-
Peg'') and C-Peg orders, which also can have specific conditions that
prevent them from matching an aggressively priced contra-side displayed
odd lot order with which they would otherwise match. However, because
D-Peg and C-Peg orders book at a price one (1) MPV less aggressive than
the NBBO,\49\ they are different from other non-displayed orders and
cannot lock or cross a displayed odd lot order priced equal to or more
aggressive than the Midpoint Price.\50\ However, both D-Peg and C-Peg
orders have a ``discretionary price'' that allows them to exercise
discretion and execute up to the less aggressive of the limit price (if
any) or the Midpoint Price. Therefore, there is a limited circumstance
in which a D-Peg or C-Peg could execute at a price that locks or
crosses a displayed odd lot order priced at or more aggressively than
the Midpoint Price. Accordingly, IEX also proposes to amend the non-
displayed price sliding rules to state that in this scenario, the D-Peg
or C-Peg order would not be able to exercise discretion up to the
Midpoint Price, and instead the discretionary price for a D-Peg or C-
Peg order will be either the less aggressive of the order's limit price
(if any) or one (1) MPV less aggressive than the price of the contra-
side unprotected displayed odd lot order. This manner of limiting the
amount of discretion a D-Peg or C-Peg can exercise to prevent locking
or crossing a contra-side displayed odd lot order is also consistent
with other aspects of the proposed rule change to avoid locking or
crossing an unprotected displayed odd lot order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \49\ See IEX Rule 1.160(u).
    \50\ See IEX Rule 11.190(b)(10) and (16).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Second, the Exchange proposes to revise IEX Rule 11.230(a)(4) to
provide that when a displayed order that was previously subject to
price sliding to avoid locking or crossing a contra-side protected
quotation of an another national securities exchange becomes eligible
to be re-priced to a more aggressive price as a result of a change in
the NBBO, it will trade with an unprotected displayed odd lot on the
IEX Order Book that it would lock or cross as it re-prices. In this
circumstance, the orders will execute according to the priority of each
order, and the remover of liquidity will be the order with the newest
timestamp.
    Under existing rules, any displayed orders that would be locked or
crossed by a displayed order subject to re-pricing would either change
the Protected NBBO \51\ (if the displayed order is the best bid or best
offer), or re-price such that the displayed order does not lock or
cross the Protected NBBO.\52\ With the introduction of unprotected
displayed odd lot orders, it is now possible for a displayed order
subject to display price sliding to re-price to a price where it locks
or crosses a contra-side unprotected displayed odd lot order. Because
IEX rules provide that it will never display a locked market, nor can a
locked or crossed market exist within the System,\53\ in such a
scenario IEX must either again re-price one or both orders, or allow
them to execute against each other. IEX believes that allowing these
two orders to match when they become executable after re-pricing is
consistent with investor expectations that marketable orders will match
and could result in price improvement when the trade is at a better
price than the NBBO. By contrast, IEX believes that subjecting
displayed orders to additional price sliding to avoid locking or
crossing a small odd lot order would not benefit investors, would
disadvantage the re-pricing orders (because they receive a new
timestamp and corresponding reduced priority), and would create
unnecessary complexity.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \51\ See IEX Rule 11.240(c)(1).
    \52\ Under existing rules, a displayed order (all of which are
currently protected quotations) that on entry would lock or cross
another order on the IEX Order Book will be executed against the
resting order. Further, a displayed order will be subject to
displayed price sliding to avoid locking or crossing a protected
quotation of another national securities exchange and be
subsequently re-priced to a more aggressive price if the NBBO
changes and it would no longer lock or cross a protected quotation
of another national securities exchange. However, a displayed order
will not be able to re-price to a more aggressive price if the NBBO
has not changed, even if the contra-side protected quotation is now
an IEX protected quotation. This is because resting displayed orders
do not become active orders that take other resting orders but wait
for potential execution with either an incoming order or a non-
displayed order that has become active through the recheck process.
    \53\ See IEX Rule 11.230(a)(4)(C).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    IEX's proposal is consistent with the manner in which NYSE matches
orders

that become marketable against each other as a result of one or both
orders re-pricing.\54\ And this proposal is also analogous to how
several exchanges with post-only order types allow such orders to take
liquidity and match under limited circumstances when re-pricing.\55\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \54\ See NYSE Rules 7.37(b)(8) and (9) (Resting orders that are
repriced and become marketable against contra-side orders on order
book will trade consistent with their ranking, and resting orders on
both sides of market that reprice and become marketable against one
another will trade consistent with their ranking).
    \55\ See Cboe BZX Rule 11.9(g)(2)(D) (a displayed post only
order subject to display-price sliding that can remove displayed
liquidity from the exchange's order book will execute if the
execution value (including fees/rebates) equals or exceeds the
execution value of the post only order providing liquidity); see
also Cboe BZX Rule 11.9(c)(6) (describing the circumstances in which
a post only order becomes the remover of liquidity). MEMX, MIAX
Pearl, and Nasdaq all offer similar functionality in which a post
only order subject to price sliding can become the remover of
liquidity when the execution results in at least as much price
improvement as the if the post only order remained a liquidity
provider. See MEMX Rule 11.6(j)(1)(A)(iv); MIAX Pearl Rule
2614(g)(1)(D); Nasdaq Rule 4702(b)(4)(A).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Similarly, IEX's proposal to have the orders execute according to
the priority of each order is consistent with IEX's order priority
rule,\56\ other exchange's rules,\57\ and the manner in which the
System invites resting orders to recheck the IEX Order Book.\58\ And
the proposal to have the newest order be the remover of liquidity is
consistent with the existing practice that the newer arriving order
takes any liquidity it finds on an exchange's order book.\59\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \56\ See IEX Rule 11.220.
    \57\ See supra note 54.
    \58\ See IEX Rule 11.230(a)(4)(D).
    \59\ See, e.g., NYSE Rule 7.31(d)(3)(B) (when two midpoint
liquidity orders match, the order with the newer timestamp is the
liquidity-removing order).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Accordingly, IEX proposes to amend IEX rules as described below:

     Modify IEX Rule 11.190(b)(1) (``Displayed Order'') to
remove the language in subsection (H) providing that displayed
orders must be at least one round lot, and that a round lot that
decrements to an odd lot will be treated as non-displayed and will
receive a new timestamp, and add new text specifying that displayed
orders can be odd lots, mixed lots, or round lots.
     Modify IEX Rule 11.190(b)(2) (``Reserve Order'') to
remove the language in subsection (2)(H) providing that reserve
orders must be at least one round lot, and to remove the language
stating that if the displayed portion of the reserve order
decrements to less than a round lot it loses its displayed status
and receives a new timestamp. And add new text specifying that if a
displayed reserve order is decremented to less than one round lot,
the order will continue to be treated as a displayed order and will
retain its priority.
     Modify IEX Rule 11.190(b)(4) (``Odd Lot Order'') to
remove the language providing that all odd lot orders are non-
displayed, and that a displayed order that decrements to less than a
round lot is treated by the System as a non-displayed order, and add
language specifying that odd lot orders marked for display are only
eligible to be protected quotations if aggregated to form at least
one round lot.
     Modify IEX Rule 11.190(b)(5) (``Mixed Lot Order'') to
remove the language providing that any displayed mixed lot order
that decrements to less than a round lot is treated by the System as
a non-displayed order.
     Modify Rule IEX 11.190(b)(7) (``Discretionary Limit
Order'') to remove the text in subsection (E)(vii) describing how D-
Limit orders can only be displayed if they are at least one round
lot, and that if a D-Limit order is decremented to less than a round
lot it will be treated as non-displayed and given a new timestamp.
     Modify IEX Rule 11.220 (``Priority of Orders'') to
remove subsection (a)(1)(C)(vii), which states that a displayed
order that decrements to less than a round lot receives a new
timestamp and is considered a non-displayed order. And renumber
subsection (a)(1)(C)(viii) to (a)(1)(C)(vii), because of the removal
of the current subsection (a)(1)(C)(vii).
     Modify IEX Rule 11.220(a)(3) (``Decrementing Order
Quantity and Priority'') to remove the two references to how a
displayed round lot order becomes a non-displayed order if the order
is decremented to less than a round lot, as set forth in the to-be-
removed Rule 11.220(a)(1)(C)(vii).
     Modify IEX Rule 11.240(c) (``Dissemination of Quotation
Information'') by adding new subsection (2) providing that pursuant
to Rule 602 of Reg NMS, the Exchange will transmit for display to
the appropriate SIP for each security the aggregate best ranked
orders, as detailed in the following subsections:
    [cir] Add new subsection (A), which specifies that the best
priced buy order will be the highest price to buy wherein the
aggregate size of all displayed buy interest greater than or equal
to that price is one round lot or higher.
    [cir] Add new subsection (B), which specifies that the
aggregated best priced buy order in subsection (A) will be rounded
down to the nearest round lot.
    [cir] Add new subsection (C), which specifies that the best
priced sell order will be the lowest price to sell wherein the
aggregate size of all displayed sell interest less than or equal to
that price is one round lot or higher.
    [cir] Add new (D), which specifies that the aggregated best
priced sell order in subsection (C) will be rounded down to the
nearest round lot.
     Amend IEX Rule 11.190 to prevent a displayed odd lot
order priced equal to or more aggressively than the Midpoint Price
from locking or crossing a non-displayed incoming or resting order
when the orders are unable to execute against each other because of
the non-displayed order's specific conditions as follows:
    [cir] Modify IEX Rule 11.190(h)(2) (``Non-Displayed Price
Sliding'') to add language providing that a displayed odd lot order
booked at a price equal to or more aggressive than the Midpoint
Price will affect the resting or discretionary price of non-
displayed resting orders as set forth in new subsections (A) and
(B).
    [ssquf] Add subsection (A) specifying that a non-displayed order
(other than a D-Peg or C-Peg) that would otherwise be executable
against a contra-side displayed odd lot order priced equal to or
more aggressively than the Midpoint Price, but for the non-displayed
order's specific conditions, will be ranked and displayed by the
System at one (1) MPV less aggressive than the price of the contra-
side displayed odd lot order.
    [ssquf] Add subsection (B) specifying that a D-Peg or C-Peg
order that would otherwise be executable against a contra-side
displayed odd lot order priced equal to or more aggressively than
the Midpoint Price, but for the D-Peg or C-Peg order's specific
conditions, will be booked by the System in the manner set forth in
Rule 11.190(b)(10) or Rule 11.190(b)(16), respectively, but the
discretionary price of the order will be limited to the less
aggressive of the limit price, if any, or one (1) MPV less
aggressive than the price of the contra-side displayed odd lot
order.
    [cir] Modify IEX Rule 11.190(b)(10) (``D-Peg'') to make a
conforming change specifying that the order's discretionary price
may be changed as set forth in new IEX Rule 11.190(h)(2)(B).
    [cir] Modify IEX Rule 11.190(b)(16) (``C-Peg'') to make a
conforming change specifying that the order's discretionary price
may be changed as set forth in new IEX Rule 11.190(h)(2)(B).
     Amend IEX Rule 11.230 to provide that when a displayed
order that was previously subject to price sliding to avoid locking
or crossing a contra-side protected quotation of an another national
securities exchange becomes eligible to be re-priced to a more
aggressive price as a result of a change in the NBBO it will trade
with an unprotected displayed odd lot on the IEX Order Book that it
would lock or cross as it re-prices as follows:
    [cir] Add subsection (E) to IEX Rule 11.230(a)(4) which
specifies that in the case of a displayed order previously subject
to price sliding, upon a change to the Order Book or the NBBO that
would result in the displayed order re-pricing to a more aggressive
price that would lock or cross a resting unprotected displayed odd
lot order, the re-pricing order and the displayed odd lot order will
execute according to the priority of each order, and the remover of
liquidity will be the order with the newest timestamp.
     Make two conforming changes to IEX Rule 11.240(c)(1):
    [cir] Move the phrase ``pursuant to IEX Rule 11.220'' to be
clear it applies to both best-ranked orders to buy and best ranked
orders to sell
    [cir] Remove the extraneous sentence about the Exchange
maintaining connectivity to the SIPs, which is already addressed in
detail in IEX Rule 11.510.
Implementation
    This proposed rule change will be immediately effective upon
filing, but

subject to the thirty (30) day operative delay. The Exchange
anticipates implementing the rule change within ninety (90) days of the
effective date and will provide at least ten (10) days' notice to
Members and market participants of the implementation timeline.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with Section 6(b) of the Act,\60\ in general, and furthers the
objectives of Section 6(b)(5),\61\ in particular, in that it is
designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to
promote just and equitable principles of trade, to foster cooperation
and coordination with persons engaged in facilitating transactions in
securities, and to remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a
free and open market and a national market system, and, in general, to
protect investors and the public interest. Specifically, the Exchange
believes that providing for displayed odd lot orders is consistent with
the protection of investors and the public interest because it is
designed to incentivize the entry of additional displayed limit orders
on IEX by providing the opportunity for odd lot orders to receive
displayed order execution priority and visibility, thereby enhancing
price discovery and the overall liquidity profile on the Exchange to
the benefit of all market participants.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \60\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \61\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange further believes that treating displayed odd lot
orders in the same manner as it treats displayed round or mixed lot
orders (with the exception that non-aggregated displayed odd lots
cannot form a Protected Quotation) is consistent with the Act because
such treatment is designed to remove impediments to and perfect the
mechanism of a free and open market and national market system by
standardizing the treatment of all displayed liquidity on the Exchange,
and as discussed in the Purpose section, conforming IEX's treatment of
odd lots with those of the other equities exchanges.
    Additionally, the Exchange believes that making displayed odd lot
orders eligible to aggregate to form Protected Quotations is consistent
with the protection of investors and the public interest because such
functionality is designed to increase displayed liquidity on IEX.
Specifically, the proposed rule change will enable odd lots priced at
the Protected NBBO to increase the size of the Protected NBBO and
enable odd lots priced more aggressively then the Protected NBBO to
narrow the Protected NBBO (if they can be aggregated to at least one
round lot), thereby contributing to the public price discovery process
and offering potential price improvement opportunities to market
participants that might otherwise be unaware of such better priced
interest.
    Furthermore, the Exchange believes that allowing odd lots to
aggregate to form a quotation and be eligible to be the Exchange's
Protected Quotation is consistent with the Act because such
functionality is designed to remove impediments to and perfect the
mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system by
providing market participants greater visibility into liquidity
available on the Exchange via the SIPs and IEX's Data Feeds.
    In addition, since this proposed rule change would make IEX's
treatment of odd lot orders consistent with that of the other equities
exchanges,\62\ IEX believes that it will promote just and equitable
principles of trade and foster cooperation and coordination with
persons engaged in facilitating securities transactions because market
participants will no longer have to potentially adjust their order
routing strategies or trading algorithms to reflect that odd lots are
never displayed on IEX, and will be readily able to accommodate the
dissemination of displayed odd lots on IEX's Depth of Book Data Feeds.
Moreover, IEX does not believe that these proposed changes raise any
new or novel issues not already considered by the Commission since
other equities exchanges have substantially similar rules.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \62\ See supra notes 25 and 26.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Furthermore, as discussed in the Purpose section, IEX believes that
the proposed revisions to the non-displayed price sliding rules and the
execution rules for displayed orders subject to price sliding are
consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest
because they are designed to avoid an unprotected odd lot order
resulting in a locked or crossed market in a manner that would be
reasonably expected based on current IEX rules and design, consistent
with the rules of several other equities exchanges, and designed to
avoid unnecessary complexity.
    Specifically, the Exchange believes that the proposed changes to
IEX's non-displayed price sliding rules are consistent with the Act
because such changes would prevent the unlikely, but possible,
situation in which an unprotected odd lot order priced equal to or more
aggressively than the Midpoint Price would result in a cross of IEX's
Order Book because the displayed odd lot is unable to match with a non-
displayed order priced at or more aggressively than the Midpoint Price
because of the non-displayed order's specific conditions. These
proposed changes are also designed to protect against a D-Peg or C-Peg
order exercising discretion to the point that it executes at a price
that locks or crosses the price of a contra-side displayed odd lot. The
Exchange notes that these changes are designed to remove impediments to
and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national
market system by protecting market participants from having their non-
displayed orders be inadvertently crossed by an unprotected displayed
odd lot. This proposed change is also consistent with Regulation NMS's
goals of avoiding crossed markets.
    Similarly, the Exchange believes that the proposed change to IEX's
execution rules to allow displayed orders previously subject to price
sliding to match with liquidity provided by a contra-side unprotected
displayed odd lot order that the re-pricing order would otherwise lock
or cross are consistent with the Act because the proposed rule change
is designed to protect investors and the public interest by
facilitating the execution of marketable orders that would otherwise be
blocked from executing by the price sliding rules in order to prevent
the market from becoming locked or crossed, while increasing price
improvement opportunities (by allowing the orders to execute at prices
more aggressive than the Protected NBBO). Furthermore, as discussed in
the Purpose section, this proposed change is consistent with investor
expectations and will minimize the unnecessary complexity that would
result from requiring an unprotected displayed odd lot order priced
more aggressively than the Protected NBBO to force a marketable contra-
side displayed order to continually re-price to avoid locking or
crossing the contra-side displayed odd lot order.
    Moreover, as noted in the Purpose section, other exchanges have
adopted similar mechanisms to prevent displayed odd lot orders from
resulting in a locked or crossed market (both for non-displayed and
displayed orders). Therefore, the Exchange believes that these aspects
of the proposed rule change also do not raise any material new or novel
issues not previously considered by the Commission.

    Additionally, IEX believes that the proposed conforming changes to
IEX Rules 11.190(b)(10) and (16) and 11.240(c)(1) further the purposes
of the Act because they provide greater clarity and consistency to the
IEX Rule Book thereby reducing the potential for confusion of any
market participants. Specifically, the proposed conforming changes to
IEX Rules 11.190(b)(10) and (16) will prevent any confusion to market
participants about how D-Peg and C-Peg orders' discretionary prices
would be impacted by the presence of a contra-side non-displayed order
with specific conditions that prevented the otherwise marketable orders
from matching. Similarly, the proposed conforming change to IEX Rule
11.240(c)(1) will make clear to market participants that the same
priority rules apply to determining both the best-ranked order to buy
and the best-ranked order to sell, and to reduce any possible confusion
that could arise from the mention of how IEX connects to the SIPs, when
all connectivity is addressed in great detail in IEX Rule 11.510.

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate
in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on intermarket competition that is not necessary or
appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. To the contrary,
the proposal is designed to enhance IEX's competitiveness with other
markets by adopting rules providing for displayed odd lots that are
comparable to those in place at other equities exchanges. As discussed
in the Purpose section, the proposal is designed to incentivize the
entry of additional displayed limit orders on IEX by providing the
opportunity for odd lot orders to receive displayed order execution
priority and visibility, thereby enhancing price discovery, and
increasing the overall displayed liquidity profile on the Exchange to
the benefit of all market participants.
    IEX's proposed approach to prevent the potential occurrence of an
unprotected displayed odd lot order locking or crossing IEX's Order
Book is based upon the approaches of other equities exchanges that are
designed to mitigate the same issue in a manner consistent with each
exchange's particular technical design and functionality. IEX's
proposed rule changes are designed to function in reasonably
predictable ways consistent with the expectations of market
participants and competing equities exchanges that may route odd lot
orders to the Exchange. To the extent there are minor differences in
IEX's proposed approach to address the potential that an unprotected
displayed odd lot order could result in a locked or crossed market, the
differences are not based on competitive considerations but rather
simply to provide for reasonably predictable outcomes in a manner
consistent with IEX's system design.
    The Exchange also does not believe that the proposed rule change
will impose any burden on intramarket competition because it will apply
to all Members in the same manner. All Members are eligible to enter
displayed odd lot orders and all Members may continue to use non-
displayed odd lot orders. Moreover, the proposal would provide
potential benefits to all Members to the extent that there is more
liquidity available on IEX as a result of the ability to enter
displayed odd lot orders. As discussed above, the proposal is intended
to incentivize the entry of additional odd lot orders, which would
provide additional available liquidity to all Members.

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 Exchange has designated this rule filing as non-controversial
under Section 19(b)(3)(A) \63\ of the Act and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) \64\
thereunder. 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 for 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or
such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become
effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act and Rule 19b-
4(f)(6) thereunder.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \63\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \64\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change meets the
criteria of subparagraph (f)(6) of Rule 19b-4 \65\ because it is
consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest
because it is designed to incentivize the entry of additional displayed
limit orders on IEX by providing the opportunity for odd lot orders to
receive displayed order execution priority and visibility, thereby
enhancing price discovery and the overall liquidity profile on the
Exchange to the benefit of all market participants, as discussed in the
Purpose, Statutory Basis, and Burden on Competition sections. Further,
the Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with
the protection of investors and the public interest because it would
standardize the treatment of all displayed liquidity on the Exchange,
and as discussed in the Purpose and Statutory Basis sections,
substantially conform IEX's treatment of odd lots with those of the
other equities exchanges in a manner consistent with the existing IEX
rules and investor expectations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \65\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    IEX also does not believe that the proposed changes raise any new
or novel material issues that have not already been considered by the
Commission because it would substantially conform IEX's treatment of
odd lot orders to the manner in which such orders are treated by other
equities exchanges, as discussed in the Purpose and Statutory Basis
sections. Specifically, the manner in which IEX proposes to allow odd
lot orders to be displayed and aggregated to form a protected quote is
substantially similar to the functionality of the other equities
exchanges.\66\ Similarly, IEX's proposed approach to prevent a
displayed odd lot order from locking or crossing a non-displayed
contra-side order that has a specific condition that prevent the orders
from matching is consistent with Nasdaq and NYSE rules,\67\ and also
similar to the rules of the Cboe BZX, MEMX, and MIAX Pearl
exchanges.\68\ Finally, the manner in which IEX will match one or more
displayed odd lot orders that become executable against a contra-side
displayed order as a result of a re-pricing triggered by market changes
is consistent with the approaches taken by several other exchanges that
match resting orders that re-price to a point of marketability.\69\
Accordingly, the Exchange does not believe that the proposed approaches
raise any new or novel issues not previously considered by the
Commission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \66\ See supra notes 25 and 26.
    \67\ See supra notes 46 and 47.
    \68\ See supra note 48.
    \69\ See supra notes 54 and 55.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Accordingly, the Exchange has designated this rule filing as non-
controversial under Section 19(b)(3)(A)

of the Act \70\ and paragraph (f)(6) of Rule 19b-4 thereunder.\71\ 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 under Section
19(b)(2)(B) \72\ of the Act to determine whether the proposed rule
change should be approved or disapproved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \70\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \71\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \72\ 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-IEX-2021-01 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-IEX-2021-01. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's internet website (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml).
Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written
statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with
the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed
rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those
that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions
of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for website viewing and printing in
the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC
20549 on official business days between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and
3:00 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available for inspection
and copying at the principal offices of the Exchange. All comments
received will be posted without change. Persons submitting comments are
cautioned that we do not redact or edit personal identifying
information from comment submissions. You should submit only
information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions
should refer to File Number SR-IEX-2021-01, and should be submitted on
or before February 12, 2021.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\73\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \73\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

J. Matthew DeLesDernier,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2021-01402 Filed 1-21-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: August 18, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 158)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 41648-41649]
[DOCID:fr18au09-16]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R05-OAR-2009-0294; FRL-8944-8]

Approval of Implementation Plans of Michigan: Clean Air
Interstate Rule

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve revisions to the Michigan
abbreviated State Implementation Plan (SIP) submitted on July 16, 2007
and on June 10, 2009. Together, the revisions address the requirements
for an abbreviated Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR) SIP. EPA is also
providing notice that the December 20, 2007 conditional approval of the
July 16, 2007 submittal automatically converted to a disapproval.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before September 17, 2009.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R05-
OAR-2009-0294, by one of the following methods:
    1. http://www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions for
submitting comments.
    2. E-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    3. Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    4. Mail: John M. Mooney, Chief, Criteria Pollutant Section, Air
Programs Branch (AR-18J), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 77 West
Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604.
    5. Hand Delivery: John M. Mooney, Chief, Criteria Pollutant
Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J), U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604. Deliveries
are only

accepted during the regional office normal hours of operation, and
special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed
information. The regional office official hours of business are Monday
through Friday, 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., excluding Federal holidays.
    Please see the direct final rule which is located in the Final
Rules section of this Federal Register for detailed instructions on how
to submit comments.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Douglas Aburano, Environmental
Engineer, Criteria Pollutant Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J),
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard,
Chicago, Illinois 60604,<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the Final Rules section of this Federal
Register, EPA is approving the State's SIP submittal as a direct final
rule without prior proposal because EPA views this as a
noncontroversial submittal and anticipates no adverse comments. A
detailed rationale for the approval is set forth in the direct final
rule. If no adverse comments are received in response to this rule, no
further activity is contemplated. If EPA receives adverse comments, the
direct final rule will be withdrawn and all public comments received
will be addressed in a subsequent final rule based on this proposed
rule. EPA will not institute a second comment period; therefore, any
parties interested in commenting on this action should do so at this
time. Please note that if EPA receives adverse comment on an amendment,
paragraph, or section of this rule and if that provision may be severed
from the remainder of the rule, EPA may adopt as final those provisions
of the rule that are not the subject of an adverse comment. For
additional information, see the direct final rule which is located in
the Final Rules section of this Federal Register.

    Dated: August 4, 2009.
Bharat Mathur,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 5.
[FR Doc. E9-19467 Filed 8-17-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register: December 23, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 247)]
[Notices]
[Page 78781-78782]
[DOCID:fr23de08-74]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 12569-001]

Public Utility District No. 1 of Okanogan County; Notice of
Scoping Meetings and Site Visit and Soliciting Scoping Comments

December 16, 2008.
    a. Type of Filings: New Major License.
    b. Project No.: 12569-001.
    c. Date Filed: August 22, 2008.
    d. Submitted By: Public Utility District No. 1 of Okanogan County
(Okanogan PUD).
    e. Name of Project: Enloe Hydroelectric Project.
    f. Location: On the Similkameen River, near the Town of Oroville,
Okanogan County, Washington. The project occupies about 35.47 acres of
federal lands under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Bureau of Land
Management.
    g. Filed Pursuant to: 18 CFR Part 5 of the Commission's
Regulations.
    h. Applicant Contact: John R. Grubich, General Manager, Public
Utility District No. 1 of Okanogan County, P.O. Box 912, Okanogan,
Washington 98840,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    i. FERC Contact: Dianne Rodman, 888 First Street, NE., Room 63-11,
Washington, DC 20426,<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>    Kim A. Nguyen, 888 First Street, NE., Room 6B-02, Washington, DC
20426,<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>
    j. Deadline for filing scoping comments: February 16, 2009.
    All documents (original and eight copies) should be filed with:
Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888
First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    The Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure require all
interveners filing documents with the Commission to serve a copy of
that document on each person on the official service list for the
project. Further, if an intervener files comments or documents with the
Commission relating to the merits of an issue that may affect the
responsibilities of a particular resource agency, they must also serve
a copy of the document on that resource agency.
    Scoping comments may be filed electronically via the Internet in
lieu of paper. The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings.
See 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's
Web site (http://www.ferc.gov) under the ``e-Filing'' link.
    k. This application is not ready for environmental analysis at this
time.
    l. The Enloe Project would consist of: (1) An existing 315-foot-
long and 54-foot-high concrete gravity arch dam with an integrated 276-
foot-long central overflow spillway with 5-foot-high flashboards; (2)
an existing 76.6-acre reservoir (narrow channel of the Similkameen
River) with a storage capacity of 775 acre-feet at 1049.3 feet mean sea
level; (3) a 190-foot-long intake canal on the east abutment of the dam
diverting flows into the penstock intake structure; (4) a 35-foot-long
by 30-foot-wide penstock intake structure; (5) two above-ground 8.5-
foot-diameter steel penstocks carrying flows from the intake to the
powerhouse; (6) a powerhouse containing two vertical Kaplan turbine/
generator units with a total installed capacity of 9.0 megawatts; (7) a
180-foot-long tailrace channel that would convey flows from the
powerhouse to the Similkameen River, downstream of the Similkameen
Falls; (8) a new substation adjacent to the powerhouse; (9) a new 100-
foot-long, 13.2-kilovolt primary transmission line from the substation
connecting to an existing distribution line; (10) new and upgraded
access roads, and (11) appurtenant facilities.
    m. Copies of the License Application (LA) and Scoping Document 1
(SD1) are available for review at the Commission in the Public
Reference Room or may be viewed on the Commission's Web site (http://
www.ferc.gov), using the ``eLibrary'' link. Enter the docket number,
excluding the last three digits, in the docket number field to access
the document. For assistance, contact FERC Online Support at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or toll free at 1-866-208-3676, or for TTY,
(202) 502-8659.
    Register online at http://ferc.gov/esubscribenow.htm to be notified
via e-mail of new filings and issuances related to these or other
pending projects. For assistance, contact FERC Online Support.
    n. With this notice, we are soliciting comments on SD1. All
comments on SD1 should be sent to the address above in paragraph j. In
addition, all comments on the LA and SD1, study requests, requests for
cooperating agency status, and all communications to Commission staff
related to the merits of the potential applications (original and eight
copies) must be filed with the

Commission at the following address: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary,
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20426. All filings with the Commission relevant to the
Enloe Hydroelectric Project must include on the first page, the project
name and number (P-12569-001), and bear the heading, as appropriate,
``Comments on Scoping Document 1.''
    Comments on SD1 and other permissible forms of communications with
the Commission may be filed electronically via the Internet in lieu of
paper. The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings. See 18
CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's Web
site (http://www.ferc.gov) under the ``e-filing'' link.
    o. At this time, Commission staff intends to prepare a single
Environmental Assessment for the project, in accordance with the
National Environmental Policy Act.
    p. Scoping Meetings
    We will hold two scoping meetings for each project at the times and
places noted below. The daytime meetings will focus on resource agency,
Indian tribes, and non-governmental organization concerns, while the
evening meetings are primarily for receiving input from the public. We
invite all interested individuals, organizations, Indian tribes, and
agencies to attend one or all of the meetings, and to assist staff in
identifying particular study needs, as well as the scope of
environmental issues to be addressed in the environmental document. The
times and locations of these meetings are as follows:

Evening Scoping Meeting

When: Wednesday, January 14, 2009, 7-9 p.m.
Where: The Depot, 1210 Ironwood Street, Oroville, WA 98844.

Daytime Scoping Meeting

When: Thursday, January 15, 2009, 2-4 p.m.
Where: The Depot, 1210 Ironwood Street, Oroville, WA 98844.

    SD1, which outlines the subject areas to be addressed in the
environmental document, has been mailed to the individuals and entities
on the Commission's mailing list. Copies of SD1 will be available at
the scoping meetings, or may be viewed on the Web at http://
www.ferc.gov, using the ``eLibrary'' link. Follow the directions for
accessing information in paragraph m. Depending on the extent of
comments received, a Scoping Document 2 (SD2) may or may not be issued.

Site Visits

    Okanogan PUD and Commission staff will visit the site of the
proposed project on Thursday, January 15, 2009, from 9 a.m. to 12 noon.
To attend the site visit, participants should meet at 9 a.m. at The
Depot, 1210 Ironwood Street, Oroville, Washington. Access to the site
will require 4-wheel drive vehicles only. Anyone needing a ride to the
site or with questions about the site visit should contact Nick
Christoph,<PHONE_NUMBER>, E-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or Dan Boettger,
(509) 422-8425<EMAIL_ADDRESS>at the Okanogan PUD.

Scoping Meeting Objectives

    At the scoping meetings, staff will: (1) Present the proposed list
of issues to be addressed in the EA; (2) review and discuss existing
conditions and resource agency management objectives; (3) review and
discuss existing information and identify preliminary information and
study needs; (4) review and discuss the process plan and schedule for
pre-filing activity that incorporates the time frames provided for in
Part 5 of the Commission's regulations and, to the extent possible,
maximizes coordination of federal, state, and tribal permitting and
certification processes; and (5) discuss requests by any federal or
state agency or Indian tribe acting as a cooperating agency for
development of an environmental document.
    Meeting participants should come prepared to discuss their issues
and/or concerns. Please review the LA the scoping meetings. Directions
on how to obtain a copy of the LA and SD1 are included in item m of
this notice.

Scoping Meeting Procedures

    The scoping meetings will be recorded by a stenographer and will
become part of the formal Commission records for the projects.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E8-30399 Filed 12-22-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 244 (Thursday, December 19, 2019)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 69626]
[FR Doc No: 2019-26690]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 282

[EPA-R01-UST-2019-0421; FRL-10003-06-Region 1]

New Hampshire: Final Approval of State Underground Storage Tank
Program Revisions, Codification, and Incorporation by Reference

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Direct final rule; correction.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is correcting a
direct final rule that appeared in the Federal Register on November 1,
2019. The document is taking direct final action to approve revisions
to the State of New Hampshire's Underground Storage Tank (UST) program
submitted by the New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services
(NHDES). This action also codifies EPA's approval of New Hampshire's
state program and incorporates by reference those provisions of the
State regulations that meet the requirements for approval.

DATES: This rule is effective December 31, 2019, unless EPA received
adverse comment by December 2, 2019. If EPA received adverse comments,
it will publish a timely withdrawal in the Federal Register informing
the public that the rule will not take effect. The incorporation by
reference of certain publications listed in the regulations is approved
by the Director of the Federal Register, as of December 31, 2019, in
accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Susan Hanamoto, RCRA Waste Management,
UST, and Pesticides Section; Land, Chemicals, and Redevelopment
Division; EPA Region 1, 5 Post Office Square, Suite 100, (Mail Code 07-
1), Boston, MA 02109-3912.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In FR Doc. 2019-23709 appearing on pages
58627 and 58631 in the Federal Register of Friday, November 1, 2019,
the following corrections are made:
    1. On page 58627, in the heading of the document, the agency
heading is corrected to read ``ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY'' and in
the AGENCY caption, the agency is corrected to read ``Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA)''.
    2. On page 58627, in the first sentence of the SUMMARY,
``Environmental Services Agency'' is corrected to read ``Environmental
Protection Agency''.
    3. On page 58631, middle column, in the List of Subjects in 40 CFR
part 282, ``Environmental Services'' is corrected to read
``Environmental Protection''.

    Dated: November 5, 2019.
Nancy Barmakian,
Acting Director of Land, Chemicals, and Redevelopment Division.
[FR Doc. 2019-26690 Filed 12-18-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


facilities that would be affected by the TRI Burden Reduction Rule is
the same as the methodology used in the Economic Analysis (EA) of the
TRI Burden Reduction Rule.  Due to the difference in reporting years
used in each analysis, however, (RY2004 in the EA and RY2005 in the ICR)
the estimated number of forms and facilities affected by the TRI Burden
Reduction Rule differs between analyses.

 Note that, in a limited number of cases, the TRI Burden Reduction rule
may require some facilities currently filing Form As to switch back to
Form Rs (see next section and next footnote).

 Prior to the TRI Burden Reduction Rule, the Annual Reportable Amount
was defined as the sum of quantities reported in Form R sections
8.1-8.7; with implementation of TRI Burden Reduction Rule, the Annual
Reportable Amount was redefined to include the sum of quantities in
sections 8.1-8.8.   Based on RY2005 TRI data, it is estimated that 35
facilities currently filing Form As on 47 chemicals would lose Form A
eligibility.

 The previous ICR period was 2006-2007. By the end of 2006, the TRI
Burden Reduction Rule was promulgated and the inventory was recalculated
at  538,688 hours  (no cost reported) due to shifts from Form R
reporting to Form A (increase of Form A burden of 279,495 hours--see
Economic Analysis of the TRI Burden Reduction Rule, December 2006).
Please note that the recalculation of burden was estimated by adding
projected changes from the previous ICR inventory. This calculation
differs from the approach taken in ICR Supporting Statement economic
analyses because the base number of the previous inventory was derived
under different conditions (RY2002, 93,380 total forms)  than the
increments (RY2005, 89,312 total forms) that were added.

										August 2005

  PAGE

		Draft 7/05/07

July 2007

 PAGE

		Draft 6/27/07

June 2007

October 2005

  PAGE  26

  PAGE  35

October 2005

11J   PAGE  1

June2007


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 88 (Thursday, May 7, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 26276-26277]
[FR Doc No: 2015-10994]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2014-E-0100]

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

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

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

ADDRESSES: Submit electronic comments to http://www.regulations.gov.
Submit written petitions (two copies are required) and written comments
to the Division of Dockets Management (HFA-305), Food and Drug
Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.
Submit petitions electronically to http://www.regulations.gov at Docket
No. FDA-2013-S-0610.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Beverly Friedman, Office of
Management, Food and Drug Administration, 10001 New Hampshire Ave.,
Hillandale Campus, Rm. 3180, Silver Spring, MD 20993,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Drug Price Competition and Patent Term
Restoration Act of 1984 (Pub. L. 98-417) and the Generic Animal Drug
and Patent Term Restoration Act (Pub. L. 100-670) generally provide
that a patent may be extended for a period of up to 5 years so long as
the patented item (human drug product, animal drug product, medical
device, food additive, or color additive) was subject to regulatory
review by FDA before the item was marketed. Under these acts, a
product's regulatory review period forms the basis for determining the
amount of extension an applicant may receive.
    A regulatory review period consists of two periods of time: A
testing phase and an approval phase. For human drug products, the
testing phase begins when the exemption to permit the clinical
investigations of the drug becomes effective and runs until the
approval phase begins. The approval phase starts

with the initial submission of an application to market the human drug
product and continues until FDA grants permission to market the drug
product. Although only a portion of a regulatory review period may
count toward the actual amount of extension that the Director of USPTO
may award (for example, half the testing phase must be subtracted as
well as any time that may have occurred before the patent was issued),
FDA's determination of the length of a regulatory review period for a
human drug product will include all of the testing phase and approval
phase as specified in 35 U.S.C. 156(g)(1)(B).
    FDA has approved for marketing the human drug product SIGNIFOR
(pasireotide diaspartate). SIGNIFOR is indicated for treatment of adult
patients with Cushing's disease for whom pituitary surgery is not an
option or has not been curative. Subsequent to this approval, the USPTO
received a patent term restoration application for SIGNIFOR (U.S.
Patent No. 7,473,761) from Novartis AG, and the USPTO requested FDA's
assistance in determining this patent's eligibility for patent term
restoration. In a letter dated March 26, 2014, FDA advised the USPTO
that this human drug product had undergone a regulatory review period
and that the approval of SIGNIFOR represented the first permitted
commercial marketing or use of the product. Thereafter, the USPTO
requested that FDA determine the product's regulatory review period.
    FDA has determined that the applicable regulatory review period for
SIGNIFOR is 3,440 days. Of this time, 3,138 days occurred during the
testing phase of the regulatory review period, while 302 days occurred
during the approval phase. These periods of time were derived from the
following dates:
    1. The date an exemption under section 505(i) of the Federal Food,
Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the FD&C Act) (21 U.S.C. 355(i)) became
effective: July 17, 2003. The applicant claims July 16, 2003, as the
date the investigational new drug application (IND) became effective.
However, FDA records indicate that the IND effective date was July 17,
2003, which was 30 days after FDA receipt of the IND.
    2. The date the application was initially submitted with respect to
the human drug product under section 505(b) of the FD&C Act: February
17, 2012. FDA has verified the applicant's claim that the new drug
application (NDA) for SIGNIFOR (NDA 200677) was submitted on February
17, 2012.
    3. The date the application was approved: December 14, 2012. FDA
has verified the applicant's claim that NDA 200677 was approved on
December 14, 2012.
    This determination of the regulatory review period establishes the
maximum potential length of a patent extension. However, the USPTO
applies several statutory limitations in its calculations of the actual
period for patent extension. In its application for patent extension,
this applicant seeks 503 days of patent term extension.
    Anyone with knowledge that any of the dates as published are
incorrect may submit to the Division of Dockets Management (see
ADDRESSES) either electronic or written comments and ask for a
redetermination by July 6, 2015. Furthermore, any interested person may
petition FDA for a determination regarding whether the applicant for
extension acted with due diligence during the regulatory review period
by November 3, 2015. To meet its burden, the petition must contain
sufficient facts to merit an FDA investigation. (See H. Rept. 857, part
1, 98th Cong., 2d sess., pp. 41-42, 1984.) Petitions should be in the
format specified in 21 CFR 10.30.
    Interested persons may submit to the Division of Dockets Management
(see ADDRESSES) electronic or written comments and written or
electronic petitions. It is only necessary to send one set of comments.
Identify comments with the docket number found in brackets in the
heading of this document. If you submit a written petition, two copies
are required. A petition submitted electronically must be submitted to
http://www.regulations.gov, Docket No. FDA-2013-S-0610.
    Comments and petitions that have not been made publicly available
on http://www.regulations.gov may be viewed in the Division of Dockets
Management between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday.

    Dated: May 1, 2015.
Leslie Kux,
Associate Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2015-10994 Filed 5-6-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4164-01-P


[Federal Register: October 27, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 207)]
[Notices]
[Page 62003-62005]
[DOCID:fr27oc05-65]

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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Occupational Safety and Health Administration

[Docket No. ICR-1218-0195 (2006)]

The Asbestos in Shipyards Standard; Extension of the Office of
Management and Budget's Approval of Information Collection (Paperwork)
Requirements

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

ACTION: Request for public comments.

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

SUMMARY: OSHA solicits public comment concerning its request for an
extension of the information collection requirements contained in the
Asbestos in Shipyards Standard (29 CFR 1915.1001). This Standard
regulates occupational exposure to Asbestos, thereby preventing serious
illness (e.g., asbestosis, an emphysema-like condition, mesothelioma,
and gastrointestinal cancer) among shipyard employees.

DATES: Comments must be submitted by the following dates:
    Hard copy: Your comment must be submitted (postmarked or received)
by December 27, 2005.
    Facsimile and electronic transmission: Your comments must be
received by December 27, 2005.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by OSHA Docket No. ICR-
1218-0195 (2006), by any of the following methods:
    Regular mail, express delivery, hand delivery, and messenger
service: Submit your comments and attachments to the OSHA Docket
Office, Room N-2625, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue,
NW., Washington, DC 20210; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER> (OSHA's TTY number
is<PHONE_NUMBER>). OSHA Docket Office and Department of Labor hours
are 8:15 a.m. to 4:45 p.m., ET.
    Facsimile: If your comments are 10 pages or fewer in length,
including attachments, you may fax them to the OSHA Docket Office at
(202) 693-1648.
    Electronic: You may submit comments through the Internet at http://ecomments.osha.gov.
 Follow instructions on the OSHA Web page for

submitting comments.
    Docket: For access to the docket to read or download comments or
background materials, such as the complete Information Collection
Request (ICR) (containing the Supporting Statement, OMB-83-I Form, and
attachments), go to OSHA's Web page at http://www.OSHA.gov. In

addition, the ICR, comments and

submissions are available for inspection and copying at the OSHA Docket
Office at the address above. You may also contact Todd Owen at the
address below to obtain a copy of the ICR. For additional information
on submitting comments, please see the ``Public Participation'' heading
in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Todd Owen, Directorate of Standards
and Guidance, OSHA, Room N-3609, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW.,
Washington, DC 20210, telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    The Department of Labor, as part of its continuing effort to reduce
paperwork and respondent (i.e., employer) burden, conducts a
preclearance consultation program to provide the public with an
opportunity to comment on proposed and continuing information
collection requirements in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act
of 1995 (PRA-95) (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)).
    This program ensures that information is in the desired format,
reporting burden (time and costs) is minimal, collection instruments
are clearly understood, and OSHA's estimate of the information
collection burden is accurate. The Occupational Safety and Health Act
of 1970 (the Act) (29 U.S.C. 651 et seq.) authorizes information
collection by employers as necessary or appropriate for enforcement of
the Act or for developing information regarding the causes and
prevention of occupational injuries, illnesses, and accidents (29
U.S.C. 657).
    On January 5, 2005, OSHA published the Standards Improvement
Project--Phase II, Final rule (70 FR 1112). The final rule removed and
revised provisions of standards that were outdated, duplicative,
unnecessary, or inconsistent and clarified or simplified regulatory
language. The final rule contained two revisions to collections of
information contained in the Asbestos in Shipyards Standard. The
revisions included modifying the time the employer has to provide their
employees with exposure monitoring results in 29 CFR
1915.1001(f)(5)(ii) from ``as soon as possible following receipt of the
results'' to ``as soon as possible but no later than five working days
after the receipt of the results,'' and removing the requirement to
send the certification and evaluation documentation required under
Sec.  1915.1001(g)(6)(iii) to OSHA's Directorate of Technical Support.
That reduction in burden hours was taken on the prior information
collection request.
    The information collection requirements specified in the Asbestos
in Shipyards Standard protect employees from the adverse health effects
that may result from occupational exposure to Asbestos. The major
information collection requirements in the Standard include
implementing an exposure-monitoring program that informs employees of
their exposure-monitoring results; at multi-employer worksites,
notification of other onsite employers by employers establishing
regulated areas for the type of work performed with asbestos-containing
materials (ACMs) and/or presumed asbestos-containing materials (PACMs),
the requirements that pertain to regulated areas, and the measures the
employers can use to protect their employees from asbestos
overexposure; developing specific information and training programs for
employees; providing medical surveillance for employees potentially
exposed to ACMs and/or PACMs, including administering an employee
medical questionnaire, providing information to the examining
physician, and providing the physician's written opinion to the
employee; and maintaining records of objective data used for exposure
determinations, employee exposure-monitoring and medical surveillance
records, training records, the record (i.e., information, data, and
analyses) used to demonstrate that PACM does not contain asbestos, and
notifications made and received by building/facility owners regarding
the content of ACMs and PACMs.

II. Special Issues for Comment

    OSHA has a particular interest in comments on the following issues:
     Whether the proposed information collection requirements
are necessary for the proper performance of the Agency's functions,
including whether the information is useful;
     The accuracy of OSHA's estimate of the burden (time and
costs) of the information collection requirements, including the
validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
     The quality, utility, and clarity of the information
collected; and
     Ways to minimize the burden on employers who must comply;
for example, by using automated or other technological information
collection and transmission techniques.

III. Proposed Actions

    OSHA is requesting that the Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
extend the approval of these collections of information (paperwork)
requirements necessitated by the Asbestos in Shipyards Standard (29 CFR
1915.1001). OSHA will summarize the comments submitted in response to
this notice, and will include this summary in its request to OMB to
extend its approval of these information collection requirements.
    Type of Review: Extension of currently approved information
collection requirements.
    Title: Asbestos in Shipyards Standard.
    OMB Number: 1218-0195.
    Affected Public: Business or other for-profits; Federal government;
State, local, or tribal government.
    Number of Respondents: 19.
    Frequency: On occasion.
    Average Time Per Response: Varies from five minutes (.08 hour) to
maintain records to 17.3 hours for training a competent person.
    Estimated Total Burden Hours: 1,426.
    Estimated Cost (Operation and Maintenance): $33,635.

IV. Public Participation--Submission of Comments on This Notice and
Internet Access to Comments and Submissions

    You may submit comments and supporting materials in response to
this notice by (1) hard copy, (2) fax transmission (facsimile), or (3)
electronically through the OSHA Web page. Because of security-related
problems, there may be a significant delay in the receipt of comments
by regular mail. Please contact the OSHA Docket Office at (202) 693-
2350 (TTY<PHONE_NUMBER>) for information about security procedures
concerning the delivery of submissions by express delivery, hand
delivery, and courier service.
    All comments, submissions and background documents are available
for inspection and copying at the OSHA Docket Office at the above
address. Comments and submissions posted on OSHA's Web page are
available at http://www.OSHA.gov. Contact the OSHA Docket Office for

information about materials not available through the OSHA Web page and
for assistance using the Web page to locate docket submissions.
    Electronic copies of this Federal Register notice, as well as other
relevant documents, are available on OSHA's Web page. Since all
submissions become public, private information such as social security
numbers should not be submitted.

V. Authority and Signature

    Jonathan L. Snare, Acting Assistant Security of Labor for
Occupational Safety and Health, directed the

preparation of this notice. The authority for this notice is the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3506 et seq.), and Secretary
of Labor's Order no. 5-2002 (67 FR 65008).

    Dated: Signed at Washington, DC, on October 21, 2005.
Jonathan L. Snare,
Acting Assistant Secretary of Labor.
[FR Doc. 05-21480 Filed 10-26-05; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4510-26-M


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 135 (Monday, July 17, 2023)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 45373]
[FR Doc No: 2023-15002]

========================================================================
Proposed Rules
                                                Federal Register
________________________________________________________________________

This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains notices to the public of
the proposed issuance of rules and regulations. The purpose of these
notices is to give interested persons an opportunity to participate in
the rule making prior to the adoption of the final rules.

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

Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 135 / Monday, July 17, 2023 /
Proposed Rules

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2019-0248; Airspace Docket No. 18-AEA-8]
RIN 2120-AA66

Amendment of Area Navigation (RNAV) Routes T-287, T-291, and T-
295; Eastern United States

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) DOT.

ACTION: Proposed rule; withdrawal.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA is withdrawing the NPRM published in the Federal
Register on April 18, 2019, proposing to amend United States Area
Navigation (RNAV) routes T-287, T-291, and T-295 in support of
transitioning the National Airspace System (NAS) from ground-based to
satellite-based navigation.

DATES: Effective as of 0901 UTC, July 17, 2023, the proposed rule
published April 18, 2019 (84 FR 16217), is withdrawn.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Paul Gallant, Rules and Regulations
Group, Office of Policy, Federal Aviation Administration, 800
Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20591; telephone: (202) 267-
8783.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Reason for Withdrawal

    The FAA published a notice of proposed rulemaking in the Federal
Register for Docket No. FAA-2019-0248 (84 FR 16217; April 18, 2019).
The NPRM proposed to amend RNAV routes T-287, T-291, and T-295 to
support the transition of the NAS to satellite-based navigation.
Interested parties were invited to participate in this rulemaking
effort by submitting written comments on the proposal. No comments were
received. Subsequent to the NPRM, other airway docket actions rendered
this proposal unnecessary.

Conclusion

    The FAA determined that the NPRM published on April 18, 2019, is
unnecessary. Therefore, the FAA withdraws that NPRM.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on July 11, 2023.
Karen L. Chiodini,
Acting Manager, Airspace Rules and Regulations.
[FR Doc. 2023-15002 Filed 7-14-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 197 (Tuesday, October 13, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 61536-61537]
[FR Doc No: 2015-25869]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[SEC File No. 270-264, OMB Control No. 3235-0341]

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 17Ad-4(b) & (c).

    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 (``OMB'') a request for approval of extension of the
previously approved collection of information provided for in Rule
17Ad-4(b) & (c) under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C.
78a et seq.) (``Exchange Act'').
    Rule 17Ad-4(b) & (c) (17 CFR 240.17Ad-4) is used to document when
transfer agents are exempt, or no longer exempt, from the minimum
performance standards and certain recordkeeping provisions of the
Commission's transfer agent rules. Pursuant to Rule 17Ad-4(b), if the
Commission or the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (``OCC'')
is the appropriate regulatory agency (``ARA'') for an exempt transfer
agent, that transfer agent is required to prepare and maintain in its
possession a notice certifying that it is exempt from certain
performance standards and recordkeeping and record retention provisions
of the Commission's transfer agent rules. This notice need not be filed
with the Commission or OCC. If the Board of Governors of the Federal
Reserve System (``Fed'') or the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation
(``FDIC'') is the transfer agent's ARA, that transfer agent must
prepare a notice and file it with the Fed or FDIC.
    Rule 17Ad-4(c) sets forth the conditions under which a registered
transfer agent loses its exempt status. Once the conditions for
exemption no longer exist, the transfer agent, to keep the appropriate
regulatory authority (``ARA'') apprised of its current status, must
prepare, and file if the ARA for the transfer agent is the Board of
Governors of the Federal Reserve System (``BGFRS'') or the Federal
Deposit Insurance Corporation (``FDIC''), a notice of loss of exempt
status under paragraph (c). The transfer agent then cannot claim exempt
status under Rule 17Ad-4(b) again until it remains subject to the
minimum performance standards for non-exempt transfer agents for six
consecutive months.
    ARAs use the information contained in the notices required by Rules
17Ad-4(b) and 17Ad-4(c) to determine whether a registered transfer
agent qualifies for the exemption, to determine when a registered
transfer agent no longer qualifies for the exemption, and to determine
the extent to which that transfer agent is subject to regulation.
    The Commission estimates that approximately 10 registered transfer
agents each year prepare or file notices in compliance with Rules 17Ad-
4(b) and 17Ad-4(c). The Commission estimates that each such registered
transfer agent spends approximately 1.5 hours to prepare or file such
notices for an aggregate total annual burden of 15 hours (1.5 hours
times 10 transfer agents). The Commission staff estimates that
compliance staff work at registered transfer agents results in an
internal cost of compliance, at an estimated hourly wage of $283, of
$424.5 per year per transfer agent (1.5 hours x $283 per hour = $424.5
per year). Therefore, the aggregate annual internal cost of compliance
for the approximate 10 transfer agents annually preparing or filing
notices pursuant to Rules 17Ad-4(b) and 17Ad-4(c) is approximately
$4,245 ($424.5 x 10 = $4,245).
    This rule does not involve the collection of confidential
information.
    An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required
to respond to, a collection of information under the PRA unless it
displays a currently valid OMB control number.
    The public may view background documentation for this information
collection at the following Web site: 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_ADDRESS>and (ii) Pamela Dyson, Director/Chief
Information Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission, c/o Remi
Pavlik-Simon, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549, or by sending an
email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Comments must be submitted to OMB within
30 days of this notice.

    Dated: October 6, 2015.
Robert W. Errett,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2015-25869 Filed 10-9-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P