[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 115 (Thursday, June 17, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 32298-32301]
[FR Doc No: 2021-12745]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-92152; File No. SR-CboeEDGA-2021-015]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Cboe EDGA Exchange, Inc.; Notice
of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To
Amend Its Fee Schedule

June 11, 2021.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the ``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given
that on June 9, 2021, Cboe EDGA Exchange, Inc. (the

``Exchange'' or ``EDGA'') filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission (the ``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

    Cboe EDGA Exchange, Inc. (the ``Exchange'' or ``EDGA'') is filing
with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'') a proposed
rule change to amend the fee schedule. The text of the proposed rule
change is provided in Exhibit 5.
    The text of the proposed rule change is also available on the
Exchange's website (http://markets.cboe.com/us/equities/regulation/rule_filings/edga/), at the Exchange's Office of the Secretary, and at
the Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to amend its fee schedule as follows: (1)
Decrease the standard liquidity adding rebate, (2) define the term
``Step-Up ADV'', and (3) rename the existing Remove Volume Tier 1 to
Remove Volume Tier 2 and add new Remove Volume Tiers 1 and 3.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The Exchange initially filed the proposed fee changes June
1, 2021 (SR-CboeEDGA-2021-014). On June 9, 2021 the Exchange
withdrew that filing and submitted this proposal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange first notes that it operates in a highly competitive
market in which market participants can readily direct order flow to
competing venues if they deem fee levels at a particular venue to be
excessive or incentives to be insufficient. More specifically, the
Exchange is only one of 16 registered equities exchanges, as well as a
number of alternative trading systems and other off-exchange venues
that do not have similar self-regulatory responsibilities under the
Exchange Act, to which market participants may direct their order flow.
Based on publicly available information,\4\ no single registered
equities exchange has more than 15% of the market share. Thus, in such
a low-concentrated and highly competitive market, no single equities
exchange possesses significant pricing power in the execution of order
flow. The Exchange in particular operates a ``Taker-Maker'' model
whereby it pays credits to Members that remove liquidity and assesses
fees to those that add liquidity. The Exchange's fee schedule sets
forth the standard rebates and rates applied per share for orders that
remove and provide liquidity, respectively. Particularly, for
securities at or above $1.00, the Exchange provides a standard rebate
of $0.0018 per share for orders that remove liquidity and assesses a
fee of $0.0030 per share for orders that add liquidity. For order
priced below $1.00, the Exchange does not assess any fees or provide
any rebates for orders that add or remove liquidity. The Exchange
believes that the ever-shifting market share among the exchanges from
month to month demonstrates that market participants can shift order
flow or discontinue to reduce use of certain categories of products, in
response to fee changes. Accordingly, competitive forces constrain the
Exchange's transaction fees, and market participants can readily trade
on competing venues if they deem pricing levels at those other venues
to be more favorable.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See Cboe Global Markets, U.S. Equities Market Volume
Summary, Month-to-Date (May 24, 2021), available at https://markets.cboe.com/us/equities/market_statistics/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Additionally, in response to the competitive environment, the
Exchange offers tiered pricing which provides Members opportunities to
qualify for higher rebates or reduced fees where certain volume
criteria and thresholds are met. Tiered pricing provides an incremental
incentive for Members to strive for higher tier levels, which provides
increasingly higher benefits or discounts for satisfying increasingly
more stringent criteria.
Standard Liquidity Rebate
    As stated above, the Exchange currently provides a standard rebate
of $0.0018 per share for liquidity removing orders (i.e., those
yielding fee codes N,\5\ W,\6\ 6,\7\ and BB \8\) in securities priced
at or above $1.00. Orders in securities priced below $1.00 that remove
liquidity are provided no rebate and assessed no fee. The Exchange now
proposes to reduce the standard rebate for liquidity removing orders to
$0.0016 per share. Although this proposed standard rebate for liquidity
removing orders is lower than the current base rebate for such orders,
the proposed rebate is in line with or superior to similar rebates for
liquidity removing orders in place on other ``Taker-Maker''
exchanges.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Orders yielding Fee Code ``N'' are removing liquidity from
EDGA (Tape C).
    \6\ Orders yielding Fee Code ``W'' are removing liquidity from
EDGA (Tape A).
    \7\ Orders yielding Fee Code ``6'' are removing liquidity from
EDGA (All Tapes).
    \8\ Orders yielding Fee Code ``BB'' are removing liquidity from
EDGA (Tape B).
    \9\ E.g., Nasdaq BX, Inc. (``BX''), which operates a ``Taker-
Maker'' model, charges a standard fee of $0.0007 for liquidity
removing orders unless certain volume criteria is met, in which case
BX provides a rebate ranging from $0.0004 up to $0.0018.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Definition and Remove Volume Tiers
    The Exchange proposes to adopt a new definition for the term
``Step-Up ADV''. Specifically, as proposed ``Step-up ADV'' means ADV
\10\ in the relevant baseline month subtracted from current ADV. Such
definition would be referenced in the proposed Remove Volume Tier 3, as
discussed below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ ADV means daily volume calculated as the number of shares
added to, removed from, or routed by, the Exchange, or any
combination or subset thereof, per day. ADV is calculated on a
monthly basis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Pursuant to footnote 7 of the fee schedule, the Exchange currently
offers a Remove Volume Tier that provides a rebate to Members meeting a
certain volume threshold. Specifically, Tier 1 currently provides an
opportunity for Members to receive an enhanced rebate of $0.0022 per
share for qualifying liquidity removing orders (i.e., yielding fee
codes N, W, 6, and BB), where a Member adds or removes an ADV greater
than or equal to 0.05% of the TCV.\11\ Now, the Exchange proposes to
rename existing Tier 1 of the Remove Volume Tiers to Tier 2, and add
additional Tiers 1 and 3. Specifically, proposed Tier 1 would provide a
rebate of $0.0018 per share to Members that add or remove an ADV of
greater than or equal to 0.02% of the TCV. Proposed Tier 3 would
provide a rebate of $0.0024 to Members that (1) add or remove a Step-Up
ADV from May 2021 greater

than or equal to 0.05% of the TCV or add or remove a Step-Up ADV from
May 2021 greater than or equal to 3,000,000 shares; and (2) add an ADV
greater than or equal to 0.05% or add an ADV of greater than or equal
to 3,000,000 shares.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ TCV means total consolidated volume calculated as the
volume reported by all exchanges and trade reporting facilities to a
consolidated transaction reporting plan for the month for which the
fees apply.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange notes that the Remove Volume Tiers, as modified, will
continue to be available to all Members and provide Members an
opportunity to receive enhanced rebates. Moreover, the proposed changes
are designed to encourage Members to increase both adding and removing
liquidity on the Exchange, which further contributes to a deeper, more
liquid market and provides even more execution opportunities for active
market participants.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with the objectives of Section 6 of the Act,\12\ in general, and
furthers the objectives of Section 6(b)(4),\13\ in particular, as it is
designed to provide for the equitable allocation of reasonable dues,
fees and other charges among its Members and issuers and other persons
using its facilities. The Exchange also believes that the proposed rule
change is consistent with the objectives of Section 6(b)(5) \14\
requirements that the rules of an exchange be 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 regulating, clearing, settling, processing
information with respect to, and facilitating transactions in
securities, to remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a
free and open market and a national market system, and, in general, to
protect investors and the public interest, and, particularly, is not
designed to permit unfair discrimination between customers, issuers,
brokers, or dealers. The Exchange operates in a highly competitive
market in which market participants can readily direct order flow to
competing venues if they deem fee levels at a particular venue to be
excessive or incentives to be insufficient. The proposed rule change
reflects a competitive pricing structure designed to incentivize market
participants to direct their order flow to the Exchange, which the
Exchange believes would enhance market quality to the benefit of all
Members.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ 15 U.S.C. 78f.
    \13\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).
    \14\ 15 U.S.C. 78f.(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In particular, the Exchange believes that the proposed amendment to
reduce the standard liquidity removing rebate is reasonable because the
proposed change represents a modest rebate decrease and Members will
continue to receive a rebate on all liquidity removing orders, albeit
at a lower amount. The proposed change is also equitable and non-
discriminatory as such rebates are equally applicable to all Members of
the Exchange. Additionally, the proposed rebates for liquidity removing
orders are in-line with rebates offered at other exchanges for similar
transactions.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ Supra note 8.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange also believes the proposal to define the term ``Step-
Up ADV'' is reasonable as it will clarify terminology used in the fee
schedule, to the benefit of all Members. Further, the Exchange believes
the proposed changes to the Remove Volume Tiers are reasonable because
each tier, as modified, will be available to all Members and provide
Members an opportunity to receive an enhanced rebate. The Exchange next
notes that relative volume-based incentives and discounts have been
widely adopted by exchanges, including the Exchange, and are
reasonable, equitable, and non-discriminatory because they are open to
all Members on an equal basis and provide additional discounts that are
reasonably related to (i) the value to an exchange's market quality and
(ii) associated with higher levels of market activity, such as higher
levels of liquidity provision and/or growth patterns. The Exchange also
believes that the proposed and existing rebates under the Remove Volume
Tiers are commensurate with the respective proposed and existing
criteria. That is, the rebates reasonably reflect the difficulty in
achieving the corresponding criteria.
    The Exchange believes that the changes to the Remove Volume Tiers,
will benefit all market participants by incentivizing continuous
liquidity and, thus, deeper more liquid markets as well as increased
execution opportunities. Particularly, the proposed changes to the
Remove Volume Tiers are designed to incentivize both adding and
removing liquidity, which further contributes to a deeper, more liquid
market and provide even more execution opportunities for active market
participants at improved prices. This overall increase in activity
deepens the Exchange's liquidity pool, offers additional cost savings,
supports the quality of price discovery, promotes market transparency
and improves market quality, for all investors.
    The Exchange also believes that the proposed amendments to the
Remove Volume Tiers represent an equitable allocation of rebates and
are not unfairly discriminatory because all Members are eligible for
the Remove Volume Tiers and would have the opportunity to meet the
tiers' criteria and would receive the proposed rebate if such criteria
is met. The Exchange also notes that the proposed changes will not
adversely impact any Member's ability to qualify for other reduced fee
or enhanced rebate tiers. Should a Member not meet the proposed
criteria under any of the proposed tiers, the Member will merely not
receive that corresponding enhanced rebate. A number of Members have a
reasonable opportunity to satisfy proposed Remove Volume Tiers 1 and 3,
which the Exchange believes are less and more stringent than existing
Tier 1, respectively. While the Exchange has no way of knowing whether
this proposed rule change would definitively result in any particular
Member qualifying for the proposed tiers, the Exchange anticipates at
least seven Members to compete for and reasonably achieve proposed tier
1 and five Members to compete for and reasonably achieve proposed tier
3. However, the proposed tiers are open to any Member that satisfies
the applicable tier's criteria. The Exchange believes the proposed
tiers could provide an incentive for other Members to submit additional
liquidity on the Exchange to qualify for the proposed enhanced rebate.
    As noted above, the Exchange operates in a highly competitive
market. The Exchange is only one of 16 equity venues to which market
participants may direct their order flow, and it represents a small
percentage of the overall market. It is also only one of several taker-
maker exchanges. Competing equity exchanges offer similar rates and
tiered pricing structures to that of the Exchange, including schedules
of rebates and fees that apply based upon members achieving certain
volume thresholds.

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. Particularly, the proposed
standard rebate reduction applies to all liquidity removing orders
equally, and thus applies to all Members equally. Similarly, all
Members have the opportunity to meet the tiers' criteria and would
receive the proposed rebate

if such criteria is met. The Exchange believes the proposed rule change
does not impose any burden on intermarket competition that is not
necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purpose of the Act.
    As previously discussed, the Exchange operates in a highly
competitive market. Members have numerous alternative venues that they
may participate on and direct their order flow, including other
equities exchanges, off-exchange venues, and alternative trading
systems. Additionally, the Exchange represents a small percentage of
the overall market. Based on publicly available information, no single
equities exchange has more than 15% of the market share.\16\ Therefore,
no exchange possesses significant pricing power in the execution of
order flow. Indeed, participants can readily choose to send their
orders to other exchange and off-exchange venues if they deem fee
levels at those other venues to be more favorable. Moreover, the
Commission has repeatedly expressed its preference for competition over
regulatory intervention in determining prices, products, and services
in the securities markets. Specifically, in Regulation NMS, the
Commission highlighted the importance of market forces in determining
prices and SRO revenues and, also, recognized that current regulation
of the market system ``has been remarkably successful in promoting
market competition in its broader forms that are most important to
investors and listed companies.'' \17\ The fact that this market is
competitive has also long been recognized by the courts. In
NetCoalition v. Securities and Exchange Commission, the D.C. Circuit
stated as follows: ``[N]o one disputes that competition for order flow
is `fierce.' . . . As the SEC explained, `[i]n the U.S. national market
system, buyers and sellers of securities, and the broker-dealers that
act as their order-routing agents, have a wide range of choices of
where to route orders for execution'; [and] `no exchange can afford to
take its market share percentages for granted' because `no exchange
possesses a monopoly, regulatory or otherwise, in the execution of
order flow from broker dealers'. . . .''.\18\ Accordingly, the Exchange
does not believe its proposed fee changes imposes any burden on
competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the
purposes of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ Supra note 3.
    \17\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 51808 (June 9,
2005), 70 FR 37496, 37499 (June 29, 2005).
    \18\ NetCoalition v. SEC, 615 F.3d 525, 539 (D.C. Cir. 2010)
(quoting Securities Exchange Act Release No. 59039 (December 2,
2008), 73 FR 74770, 74782-83 (December 9, 2008) (SR-NYSEArca-2006-
21)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange neither solicited nor received comments on the
proposed rule change.

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

    The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \19\ and paragraph (f) of Rule 19b-4 \20\
thereunder. 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 will institute proceedings to
determine whether the proposed rule change should be approved or
disapproved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \20\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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-CboeEDGA-2021-015 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-CboeEDGA-2021-015. This
file number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's internet website (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml).
Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written
statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with
the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed
rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those
that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions
of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for website viewing and printing in
the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC
20549, on official business days between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and
3:00 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available for inspection
and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All comments
received will be posted without change. Persons submitting comments are
cautioned that we do not redact or edit personal identifying
information from comment submissions. You should submit only
information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions
should refer to File Number SR-CboeEDGA-2021-015 and should be
submitted on or before July 8, 2021.

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

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

Jill M. Peterson,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2021-12745 Filed 6-16-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: June 28, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 123)]
[Notices]
[Page 36723-36724]
[DOCID:fr28jn10-128]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-62348; File No. 600-23]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Fixed Income Clearing Corporation;
Notice of Filing and Order Approving an Extension of Temporary
Registration as a Clearing Agency

June 22, 2010.
    The Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'') is
publishing this notice and order to solicit comments from interested
persons and to extend the Fixed Income Clearing Corporation's
(``FICC'') temporary registration as a clearing agency through June 30,
2011.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ FICC is the successor to MBS Clearing Corporation and
Government Securities Clearing Corporation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On February 2, 1987, pursuant to Sections 17A(b) and 19(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (``Act'') \2\ and Rule 17Ab2-1
promulgated thereunder,\3\ the Commission granted the MBS Clearing
Corporation (``MBSCC'') registration as a clearing agency on a
temporary basis for a period of eighteen months.\4\ The Commission
subsequently extended MBSCC's registration through June 30, 2003.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1(b) and 78s(a).
    \3\ 17 CFR 240.17Ab2-1.
    \4\ Securities Exchange Act Release No. 24046 (February 2,
1987), 52 FR 4218.
    \5\ Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 25957 (August 2, 1988),
53 FR 29537; 27079 (July 31, 1989), 54 FR 34212; 28492 (September
28, 1990), 55 FR 41148; 29751 (September 27, 1991), 56 FR 50602;
31750 (January 21, 1993), 58 FR 6424; 33348 (December 15, 1993), 58
FR 68183; 35132 (December 21, 1994), 59 FR 67743; 37372 (June 26,
1996), 61 FR 35281; 38784 (June 27, 1997), 62 FR 36587; 39776 (March
20, 1998), 63 FR 14740; 41211 (March 24, 1999), 64 FR 15854; 42568
(March 23, 2000), 65 FR 16980; 44089 (March 21, 2001), 66 FR 16961;
44831 (September 21, 2001), 66 FR 49728; 45607 (March 20, 2002), 67
FR 14755; 46136 (June 27, 2002), 67 FR 44655.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On May 24, 1988, pursuant to Sections 17A(b) and 19(a) of the Act
\6\ and Rule 17Ab2-1 promulgated thereunder,\7\ the Commission granted
the Government Securities Clearing Corporation (``GSCC'') registration
as a clearing agency on a temporary basis for a period of three
years.\8\ The Commission subsequently extended GSCC's registration
through June 30, 2003.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Supra note 2.
    \7\ Supra note 3.
    \8\ Securities Exchange Act Release No. 25740 (May 24, 1988), 53
FR 19839.
    \9\ Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 25740 (May 24, 1988),
53 FR 19639; 29236 (May 24, 1991), 56 FR 24852; 32385 (June 3,
1993), 58 FR 32405; 35787 (May 31, 1995), 60 FR 30324; 36508
(November 27, 1995), 60 FR 61719; 37983 (November 25, 1996), 61 FR
64183; 38698 (May 30, 1997), 62 FR 30911; 39696 (February 24, 1998),
63 FR 10253; 41104 (February 24, 1999), 64 FR 10510; 41805 (August
27, 1999), 64 FR 48682; 42335 (January 12, 2000), 65 FR 3509; 43089
(July 28, 2000), 65 FR 48032; 43900 (January 29, 2001), 66 FR 8988;
44553 (July 13, 2001), 66 FR 37714; 45164 (December 18, 2001), 66 FR
66957; 46135 (June 27, 2002), 67 FR 44655.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On January 1, 2003, MBSCC was merged into GSCC, and GSCC was
renamed FICC.\10\ The Commission subsequently extended FICC's temporary
registration through June 30, 2010.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ Securities Exchange Act Release No. 47015 (December 17,
2002), 67 FR 78531 (December 24, 2002) [File Nos. SR-GSCC-2002-07
and SR-MBSCC-2002-01].
    \11\ Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 48116 (July 1, 2003),
68 FR 41031; 49940 (June 29, 2004), 69 FR 40695; 51911 (June 23,
2005), 70 FR 37878; 54056 (June 28, 2006), 71 FR 38193; 55920 (June
18, 2007), 72 FR 35270; 57949 (June 11, 2008), 73 FR 34808; and
60189 (June 29, 2009), 74 FR 32198.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On April 27, 2010, FICC requested that the Commission grant FICC
permanent registration as a clearing agency or in the alternative
extend FICC's temporary registration until such time as the Commission
is prepared to grant FICC permanent registration.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ Letter from Nikki Poulos, Managing Director and General
Counsel, FICC (April 27, 2010).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On March 12, 2008, FICC filed a proposed rule change pursuant to
Section 19(b)(1) of the Act and Rule 19b-4 thereunder to introduce
central counterparty (``CCP'') and guarantee settlement services to its
MBS Division.\13\ Currently, FICC acts as the CCP and provides
guarantee settlement services for its Government Securities Division
members' eligible U.S. Government securities transactions but does not
act as the CCP or provide guarantee settlement services for its MBS
Division members' eligible mortgage-backed securities transactions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ The filed proposed rule change can be viewed at http://
www.dtcc.com/downloads/legal/rule_filings/2008/ficc/2008-01.pdf.
See also FICC White Paper: ``A Central Counterparty For Mortgage-
Backed Securities: Paving The Way'' at http://www.dtcc.com/
downloads/leadership/whitepapers/ccp.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Pursuant to this Notice and Order, the Commission is extending
FICC's temporary registration as a clearing agency in order that FICC
may continue to operate as a registered clearing agency and may
continue to provide uninterrupted clearing and settlement services to
its users. The Commission will consider permanent registration of FICC
at a future date after the Commission has acted upon FICC's proposed
rule change to introduce CCP and guarantee settlement services to its
MBS Division.

Solicitation of Comments

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and
arguments concerning the foregoing. Comments may be submitted by any of
the following methods:

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://
www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number 600-23 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number 600-23. This file number
should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used. To help the
Commission process and review your comments more efficiently, please
use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on the
Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml).
Copies of the submission, all subsequent

amendments, all written statements with respect to the proposed rule
change that are filed with the Commission, and all written
communications relating to the proposed rule change between the
Commission and any person, other than those that may be withheld from
the public in accordance with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be
available for Web site viewing and printing in the Commission's Public
Reference Section, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549 on official
business days between the hours of 10 a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of such
filing also will be available for inspection and copying at the
principal office of FICC and on FICC's Web site at http://www.ficc.com.
All comments received will be posted without change; the Commission
does not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You
should submit only information that you wish to make available
publicly. All submissions should refer to File Number 600-23 and should
be submitted on or before July 19, 2010.
    It is therefore ordered that FICC's temporary registration as a
clearing agency (File No. 600-23) be and hereby is extended through
June 30, 2011.

    For the Commission by the Division of Trading and Markets
pursuant to delegated authority.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(50)(i).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-15537 Filed 6-25-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8010-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 128 (Thursday, July 6, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Page 43158]
[FR Doc No: 2023-14242]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[SEC File No. 270-456, OMB Control No. 3235-0515]

Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request; Extension: Schedule
TO

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

    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 the request for extension of the previously approved
collection of information discussed below.
    Schedule TO (17 CFR 240.14d-100) must be filed by a reporting
company that makes a tender offer for its own securities. Also, persons
other than the reporting company making a tender offer for equity
securities registered under Section 12 of the Exchange Act (15 U.S.C.
78l) (which offer, if consummated, would cause that person to own over
5% of that class of the securities) must file Schedule TO. The purpose
of Schedule TO is to improve communications between public companies
and investors before companies file registration statements involving
tender offer statements. Schedule TO takes approximately 44.752 hours
per response and is filed by approximately 1,378 issuers annually. We
estimate that 50% of the 44.752 hours per response (22.376 hours) is
prepared by the issuer for an annual reporting burden of 30,834 hours
(22.376 hours per response x 1,378 responses).
    An agency may conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to
respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently
valid control number.
    The public may view background documentation for this information
collection at the following website: www.reginfo.gov. Find this
particular information collection by selecting ``Currently under 30-day
Review--Open for Public Comments'' or by using the search function.
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information
collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice
by August 7, 2023 to (i) www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain and (ii)
David Bottom, Director/Chief Information Officer, Securities and
Exchange Commission, c/o John Pezzullo, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC
20549, or by sending an email to: [email protected].

    Dated: June 30, 2023.
J. Lynn Taylor,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2023-14242 Filed 7-5-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 40 (Monday, March 2, 2015)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 11315-11316]
[FR Doc No: 2015-04293]

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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

Bureau of Industry and Security

 15 CFR Part 774

[Docket No. 150210135-5182-01]
RIN 0694-XC023

Notice of Inquiry: Request for Comments Regarding Controls on
Military Aircraft and Military Gas Turbine Engines on the Commerce
Control List

AGENCY: Bureau of Industry and Security, Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of inquiry.

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

SUMMARY: The Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS), Department of
Commerce maintains the Export Administration Regulations, including the
Commerce Control List (CCL). The Export Control Reform Initiative, a
fundamental reform of the U.S. export control system, has resulted in
transfer to the CCL of items that the President has determined do not
warrant control on the United States Munitions List (USML), including
certain military aircraft, military gas turbine engines, and related
items. The USML is part of the International Traffic in Arms
Regulations maintained by the Department of State. Through this notice,
BIS is seeking public comments to perform a complementary review of
military aircraft, military gas turbine engines, and related items on
the CCL concurrent with the Department of State's review of the
controls implemented in its recent revisions to Categories VIII and XIX
of the USML, which control military aircraft and military gas turbine
engines, to ensure that they are clear, do not inadvertently control
items in normal commercial use, account for technological developments,
and properly implement the national security and foreign policy
objectives of the reform effort. This notice also furthers the
retrospective regulatory review directed by the President in Executive
Order 13563.

DATES: Comments must be received by BIS no later than May 1, 2015.

ADDRESSES: Comments may be submitted to the Federal rulemaking portal
(http://www.regulations.gov). You can find this notice by searching on
its regulations.gov docket number, which is BIS-2015-0006. Comments may
also be submitted via email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or on paper
to Regulatory Policy Division, Bureau of Industry and Security, Room
2099B, U.S. Department of Commerce, Washington, DC 20230. Please refer
to RIN 0694-XC023 in all comments and in the subject line of email
comments. All comments (including any personally identifying
information) will be made available for public inspection and copying.
Commerce's full plan for retrospective regulatory review can be
accessed at: http://open.commerce.gov/news/2011/08/23/commerce-plan-retrospective-analysis-existing-rules.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Todd Willis, Thomas DeFee or Jeffery
Leitz in the Office of Strategic Industries and Economic Security,
Munitions Control Division at<PHONE_NUMBER> or by email at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>or
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    The Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS), Department of Commerce
maintains the Export Administration Regulations, including the Commerce
Control List (CCL). The Export Control Reform Initiative, a fundamental
reform of the U.S. export control system, has resulted in transfer to
the CCL of items that the President has determined do not warrant
control on the United States Munitions List (USML), including certain
military aircraft, military gas turbine engines, and related items. The
USML is part of the International Traffic in Arms Regulations
maintained by the Department of State. Through this notice, BIS is
seeking comments to perform a complementary review of military
aircraft, military gas turbine engines, and related items on the CCL
concurrent with the Department of State's review of the controls
implemented in its recent revisions to Categories VIII and XIX of the
USML, which control military aircraft and military gas turbine engines,
to ensure that they are clear, do not inadvertently control items in
normal commercial use, account for technological developments, and
properly implement the national security and foreign policy objectives
of the reform effort.
    Specifically, BIS is soliciting comments on the clarity, usability
and any other matters related to implementation of the 600 series
Export Control Classification Numbers (ECCNs) that control military
aircraft and related items (ECCNs 9A610, 9B610, 9C610, 9D610 and 9E610)
and military gas turbine engines and related items (9A619, 9B619,
9C619, 9D619 and 9E619).

The Export Control Reform Initiative: USML Review and the CCL

    A core element of the Export Control Reform (ECR) Initiative has
been the streamlining of categories on the USML and the control on the
CCL of items that the President determines do not warrant USML control.
On December 10, 2010, the Department of State provided notice to the
public of its intent, pursuant to the ECR initiative, to revise the
USML to create a more ``positive list'' that describes controlled items
using, to the extent possible, objective criteria rather than broad,
open-ended, subjective, or design intent-based criteria (see 75 FR
76935). As a practical matter, this meant revising USML categories so
that, with some exceptions, the descriptions of defense articles that
continued to warrant control under the USML did not use catch-all
phrases, such as ``specially designed'' or ``specifically designed or
modified,'' to control unspecified items. With limited exceptions, the
defense articles that warranted control under the USML were those that
provided the United States with a critical military or intelligence
advantage. All other items were to become subject to the jurisdiction
of the Export Administration Regulations. Since that time, the
Departments of State and Commerce have jointly published final rules
setting forth revisions for fifteen USML categories, each of which has
been reorganized into a uniform and more ``positive list'' structure,
and corresponding revisions to the CCL.
    The advantage of revising the USML into a more positive list is
that its controls can be tailored to satisfy the national security and
foreign policy objectives of the ITAR by maintaining control over those
defense articles that provide a critical military or intelligence
advantage, or otherwise warrant control under the ITAR, without
inadvertently controlling items in normal commercial use. This
approach, however, requires that both the USML and the CCL be regularly
revised and updated to account for technological developments,
practical application issues identified by exporters and reexporters,
and changes in the military and commercial applications of items
affected by the USML and the 600 series ECCNs.
    The first rules implementing the ECR initiative became effective on
October 15, 2013. They implemented revisions to Category VIII (aircraft
and related items), and created Category XIX (gas turbine engines and
related items) on the USML (see 78 FR 22740) as well as the 600 series
ECCNs 9A610, 9B610, 9C610, 9D610 and 9E610 (aircraft and related items)
and 9A619, 9B619, 9C619, 9D619 and 9E619 (gas turbine engines and
related items) on the CCL (see 78 FR 22660). The Department of State is
seeking comment from the public on the condition and efficacy of

the revised Categories VIII and XIX and whether they are meeting the
ECR objectives for the list revisions. BIS will make any changes to the
CCL that it determines are necessary to complement USML revisions.
However, with this notice, BIS is also independently seeking comment on
how to improve the implementation of 600 series ECCNs 9A610, 9B610,
9C610, 9D610, 9E610, 9A619, 9B619, 9C619, 9D619 and 9E619.

Executive Order 13563

    On January 18, 2011, President Barack Obama issued Executive Order
13563, affirming general principles of regulation and directing
government agencies to improve regulation and regulatory review. Among
other things, the President stressed the need for the regulatory system
to allow for public participation and an open exchange of ideas, as
well as promote predictability and reduce uncertainty. The President
also emphasized that regulations must be accessible, consistent,
written in plain language, and easy to understand. As part of its
ongoing effort to ensure that its regulations are clear, effective, and
up-to-date, BIS is issuing this notice soliciting public comments.

    Dated: February 24, 2015.
Kevin J. Wolf,
Assistant Secretary for Export Administration.
[FR Doc. 2015-04293 Filed 2-27-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-33-P


[Federal Register: November 13, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 220)]
[Notices]
[Page 67248-67249]
[DOCID:fr13no08-99]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

[U.S. DOT Docket Number NHTSA-2008-0170]

Reports, Forms, and Recordkeeping Requirements

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA),
Department of Transportation.

ACTION: Request for public comment on proposed collection of
information.

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

SUMMARY: Before a Federal agency can collect certain information from
the public, it must receive approval from the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB). Under procedures established by the Paperwork Reduction
Act of 1995, before seeking OMB approval, Federal agencies must solicit
public comment on proposed collections of information, including
extensions and reinstatement of previously approved collections.
    This document describes one collection of information for which
NHTSA intends to seek OMB approval.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before January 12, 2009.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments (identified by DOT Docket No. NHTSA-
2008-0170) to: Docket Management Facility, U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., West Building Ground
Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590-0001. Alternatively, you may
submit your comments electronically by logging onto the Docket
management System (DMS) Web site at http://dms.dot.gov. Click on
``Help'' to view instructions for filing your comments electronically.
Regardless of how you submit your comments, you should identify the
Docket number of this document. You may call the docket at (202) 647-
5527. Docket hours are 9 a.m. to 5 p.m., Monday though Friday, except
Federal holidays.
    Instructions: All Submissions must include the agency name and
docket number for this proposed collection of information. Note that
all comments received will be posted without change to http: //
www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided.
Please see the Privacy Act heading below.
    Privacy Act: Anyone is able to search the electronic form of all
comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual
submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf
of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may

review DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement in the Federal Register
published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477-78) or you may visit http://
DocketInfo.dot.gov.
    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or
comments received, go to http://www.regulations.gov. or the street
address listed above. Follow the online instructions for accessing the
dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Complete copies of each request for
collection of information may be obtained at no charge from Ann Burton,
NHTSA, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., W46-492, NTI 200, Washington, DC
20590. Ms. Burton's telephone number is<PHONE_NUMBER>. Please identify
the relevant collection of information by referring to its OMB Control
Number.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995,
before an agency submits a proposed collection of information to OMB
for approval, it must first publish a document in the Federal Register
providing a 60-day comment period and otherwise consult with members of
the public and affected agencies concerning each proposed collection of
information. The OMB has promulgated regulations describing what must
be included in such a document. Under OMB's regulation at 5 CFR
1320.8(d), an agency must ask for public comment on the following:
    (i) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for
the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including
whether the information will have practical utility;
    (ii) The accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the
proposed collection of information, including the validity of the
methodology and assumptions used;
    (iii) How to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the
information to be collected;
    (iv) How to minimize the burden of the collection of information on
those who are to respond, including the use of appropriate automated,
electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or
other forms of information technology, e.g. permitting electronic
submission of responses.
    In compliance with these requirements, NHTSA asks for public
comments on the following proposed collections of information:
    Title: 23 CFR, Part 1313, Alcohol-Impaired Driving Countermeasures
Section 410.
    OMB Control Number: 2127-0501.
    Affected Public: 50 States, District of Columbia and Puerto Rico.
    Form Number: NA.
    Abstract: An impaired driving incentive grant is available to
States that have an alcohol fatality rate of 0.5 or less per 100
million vehicle miles traveled as determined by using the most recent
Fatality Analysis Reporting System (FARS) data or that are one of the
ten States that have the highest alcohol related fatality rates as
determined by using the most recent FARS data. States designated as a
high fatality rate State must submit a comprehensive plan for
conducting high visibility enforcement and a report on the previous
year's activities.
    States may also qualify through meeting specified program criteria.
To demonstrate compliance using program criteria a State must submit an
application that shows how they met three of eight criteria in FY 2006,
four of eight criteria in FY 2007 and five of eight criteria in FY 2008
and FY 2009.
    Estimated Annual Burden: 1350.
    Number of Respondents: 50 States, District of Columbia and Puerto
Rico.
    Comments are invited on: Whether the proposed collection of
information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of
the Department, including whether the information will have practical
utility; the accuracy of the Department's estimate of the burden of the
proposed information collection; ways to enhance the quality, utility
and clarity of the information to be collected; and ways to minimize
the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including
the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of
information technology.

Marlene Markison,
Associate Administrator, Regional Operations and Program Delivery.
 [FR Doc. E8-27012 Filed 11-12-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-59-P


[Federal Register: October 7, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 193)]
[Notices]
[Page 51603-51604]
[DOCID:fr07oc09-65]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[FRL-8967-4]

Proposed Consent Decree, Clean Air Act Citizen Suit

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of proposed consent decree; request for public comment.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with section 113(g) of the Clean Air Act, as
amended (``Act''), 42 U.S.C. 7413(g), notice is hereby given of a
proposed consent decree, to address a lawsuit filed by Environmental
Integrity Project and Sierra Club (collectively ``Plaintiffs'') in the
United States District Court for the District of Columbia:
Environmental Integrity Project, et al. v. Jackson, No. 1:09-cv-01025-
EGS (D.D.C). On June 2, 2009, Plaintiffs filed a deadline suit to
compel the Administrator to respond to an administrative petition
seeking EPA's objection to a CAA Title V operating permit issued by the
Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality to Southwestern Electric
Power Company (a unit of American Electric Power) for the operation of
the John W. Turk, Jr. Power Plant. Under the terms of the proposed
consent decree, EPA has agreed to respond to the petition by December
15, 2009.

DATES: Written comments on the proposed consent decree must be received
by November 6, 2009.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID number EPA-HQ-
OGC-2009-0756, online at http://www.regulations.gov (EPA's preferred
method); by e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>mailed to EPA Docket Center,
Environmental Protection Agency, Mailcode: 2822T, 1200 Pennsylvania
Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; or by hand delivery or courier to
EPA Docket Center, EPA West, Room 3334, 1301

Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC, between 8:30 a.m. and 4:30 p.m.
Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. Comments on a disk or
CD-ROM should be formatted in Word or ASCII file, avoiding the use of
special characters and any form of encryption, and may be mailed to the
mailing address above.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: David Orlin, Air and Radiation Law
Office (2344A), Office of General Counsel, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460;
telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail address:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Additional Information About the Proposed Consent Decree

    This proposed consent decree would resolve a lawsuit alleging that
the Administrator failed to perform a nondiscretionary duty to grant or
deny, within 60 days of submission, an administrative petition to
object to a CAA Title V permit issued by the Arkansas Department of
Environmental Quality to Southwestern Electric Power Company (a unit of
American Electric Power) for the operation of the John W. Turk, Jr.
Power Plant. Under the terms of the proposed consent decree, EPA has
agreed to respond to the petition by December 15, 2009. In addition,
the proposed consent decree states that within fifteen (15) business
days following the signature of its response EPA shall deliver notice
of such action to the Office of the Federal Register for prompt
publication. The proposed consent decree states that, after EPA
fulfills its obligations under the decree, and the Plaintiffs' claims
for costs of litigation have been resolved, the case shall be dismissed
with prejudice.
    For a period of thirty (30) days following the date of publication
of this notice, the Agency will accept written comments relating to the
proposed consent decree from persons who were not named as parties or
intervenors to the litigation in question. EPA or the Department of
Justice may withdraw or withhold consent to the proposed consent decree
if the comments disclose facts or considerations that indicate that
such consent is inappropriate, improper, inadequate, or inconsistent
with the requirements of the Act. Unless EPA or the Department of
Justice determines, based on any comment submitted, that consent to
this consent decree should be withdrawn, the terms of the decree will
be affirmed.

II. Additional Information About Commenting on the Proposed Consent
Decree

A. How Can I Get a Copy of the Consent Decree?

    The official public docket for this action (identified by Docket ID
No. EPA-HQ-OGC-2009-0756) contains a copy of the proposed consent
decree. The official public docket is available for public viewing at
the Office of Environmental Information (OEI) Docket in the EPA Docket
Center, EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington,
DC. The EPA Docket Center Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to
4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The
telephone number for the Public Reading Room is<PHONE_NUMBER>, and the
telephone number for the OEI Docket is<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    An electronic version of the public docket is available through
http://www.regulations.gov. You may use the http://www.regulations.gov
to submit or view public comments, access the index listing of the
contents of the official public docket, and to access those documents
in the public docket that are available electronically. Once in the
system, key in the appropriate docket identification number then select
``search''.
    It is important to note that EPA's policy is that public comments,
whether submitted electronically or in paper, will be made available
for public viewing online at http://www.regulations.gov without change,
unless the comment contains copyrighted material, CBI, or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Information
claimed as CBI and other information whose disclosure is restricted by
statute is not included in the official public docket or in the
electronic public docket. EPA's policy is that copyrighted material,
including copyrighted material contained in a public comment, will not
be placed in EPA's electronic public docket but will be available only
in printed, paper form in the official public docket. Although not all
docket materials may be available electronically, you may still access
any of the publicly available docket materials through the EPA Docket
Center.

B. How and To Whom Do I Submit Comments?

    You may submit comments as provided in the ADDRESSES section.
Please ensure that your comments are submitted within the specified
comment period. Comments received after the close of the comment period
will be marked ``late.'' EPA is not required to consider these late
comments.
    If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you
include your name, mailing address, and an e-mail address or other
contact information in the body of your comment and with any disk or
CD-ROM you submit. This ensures that you can be identified as the
submitter of the comment and allows EPA to contact you in case EPA
cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties or needs further
information on the substance of your comment. Any identifying or
contact information provided in the body of a comment will be included
as part of the comment that is placed in the official public docket,
and made available in EPA's electronic public docket. If EPA cannot
read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you
for clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment.
    Use of the http://www.regulations.gov Web site to submit comments
to EPA electronically is EPA's preferred method for receiving comments.
The electronic public docket system is an ``anonymous access'' system,
which means EPA will not know your identity, e-mail address, or other
contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment.
In contrast to EPA's electronic public docket, EPA's electronic mail
(e-mail) system is not an ``anonymous access'' system. If you send an
e-mail comment directly to the Docket without going through http://
www.regulations.gov, your e-mail address is automatically captured and
included as part of the comment that is placed in the official public
docket, and made available in EPA's electronic public docket.

    Dated: October 1, 2009.
Richard B. Ossias,
Associate General Counsel.
[FR Doc. E9-24185 Filed 10-6-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 229 (Wednesday, November 28, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 71020-71022]
[FR Doc No: 2012-28796]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-68280; File No. SR-NYSEArca-2012-127]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE Arca, Inc.; Notice of Filing
and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Amending its
Schedule of Fees and Charges for Exchange Services to Revise Certain
Aspects of the Listing Fees Applicable to Structured Products

November 21, 2012.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given
that, on November 13, 2012, NYSE Arca, Inc. (``Exchange'' or ``NYSE
Arca'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I, II,
and III below, which Items have been prepared by the Exchange. The
Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the
proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange proposes to amend its Schedule of Fees and Charges for
Exchange Services (``Fee Schedule'') to revise certain aspects of the
Listing Fees applicable to Structured Products listed on NYSE Arca, LLC
(``NYSE Arca Marketplace''), the equities facility of NYSE Arca
Equities. The text of the proposed rule change is available on the
Exchange's Web site at www.nyse.com, at the principal office of the
Exchange, on the Commission's Web site, and at the Commission's Public
Reference Room.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to amend its Fee Schedule to revise certain
aspects of the Listing Fees applicable to Structured Products listed on
the NYSE Arca Marketplace pursuant to NYSE Arca Equities Rule 5.2(j)(1)
(Other Securities); NYSE Arca Equities Rule 5.2(j)(2) (Equity Linked
Notes); NYSE Arca Equities Rule 5.2(j)(4) (Index-Linked Exchangeable
Notes); NYSE Arca Equities Rule 5.2(j)(6) (Equity Index-Linked
Securities, Commodity-Linked Securities, Currency-Linked Securities,
Fixed Income Index-Linked Securities, Futures-Linked Securities, and

Multifactor Indexed-Linked Securities); NYSE Arca Equities Rule
5.2(j)(7) (Trust Certificates); NYSE Arca Equities Rule 8.3 (Currency
and Index Warrants); and NYSE Arca Equities Rule 8.400 (Paired Trust
Shares). Specifically, the Exchange proposes to remove a provision in
the Fee Schedule that provides for the assessment of a fee for
subsequent listing of additional shares of Structured Products that are
already listed on the Exchange.
    Under the current Fee Schedule, a Listing Fee is assessed when an
issuer initially lists a Structured Product. Additionally, fees are
assessed if an issuer subsequently lists additional shares of the same
Structured Product. The Listing Fees for Structured Products are as
follows:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                     Shares outstanding                          Fee
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Up to 1 million............................................       $5,000
1+ to 2 million............................................       10,000
2+ to 3 million............................................       15,000
3+ to 4 million............................................       20,000
4+ to 5 million............................................       25,000
5+ to 6 million............................................       30,000
6+ to 7 million............................................       30,000
7+ to 8 million............................................       30,000
8+ to 9 million............................................       30,000
9+ to 10 million...........................................       32,500
10+ to 15 million..........................................       37,500
in excess of 15 million....................................       45,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Effective January 1, 2013, the Exchange proposes to eliminate the
current fee for subsequent listings of additional shares of Structured
Products that are already listed on the Exchange and, accordingly, were
assessed a fee upon initial listing. As a result, the Structured
Product Listing Fees would apply when an issuer initially lists a
series of a Structured Product and, therefore, would not apply to
subsequent listings of additional shares of such listed products. In
this regard, and as is currently the case, the Exchange treats each
series of a Structured Product as a separate issue for which fees are
charged, as provided above.
    The Exchange notes that the proposed changes are not otherwise
intended to address any other issues surrounding Structured Products or
Listing Fees associated therewith and that the Exchange is not aware of
any problems that issuers would have in complying with the proposed
change.
    The Exchange proposes to implement the fee changes on January 1,
2013. In this regard, the changes proposed in the Exhibit 5 attached
hereto \3\ describe the manner in which the fees shall continue to
apply through December 31, 2012 as well as the manner in which fees
shall apply effective January 1, 2013.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The Commission notes that Exhibit 5 is attached to the
filing, not to this Notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    Specifically, the Exchange believes that the proposed change is
reasonable because it would eliminate the current fee for subsequent
listings of additional shares of Structured Products that are already
listed on the Exchange and, accordingly, are assessed a fee upon
initial listing. Accordingly, eliminating the fee is reasonable because
it would result in subsequent listings of additional shares of a
product that is already listed on the Exchange being more affordable
for all issuers of Structured Products. In this regard, the Exchange
also believes that the proposed change is reasonable because
eliminating such fees is consistent with the Exchange's Listing Fees
for derivative securities products, such as exchange-traded funds
(``ETFs''), which are not charged an additional fee for subsequent
listings of additional shares of the same product.
    The Exchange believes that the proposed change is equitable and not
unfairly discriminatory because it would apply equally to all issuers
of Structured Products listed on the Exchange. The Exchange also
believes that the proposed change is equitable and not unfairly
discriminatory because it would align the fee structure applicable to
Structured Products with that of derivative securities products, like
ETFs, that are listed on the Exchange. In this regard, the Exchange
believes that derivative securities products and Structured Products
share certain characteristics, such that, in the Exchange's opinion,
they should also be treated the same with respect to the method of
billing for listing subsequent shares of the same product that is
already listed on the Exchange.
    Finally, the Exchange notes that it operates in a highly
competitive market in which market participants can readily favor
competing venues. In such an environment, the Exchange must continually
review, and consider adjusting, its fees and credits to remain
competitive with other exchanges. For the reasons described above, the
Exchange believes that the proposed rule change reflects this
competitive environment.

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.

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

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

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

    The foregoing rule change is effective upon filing pursuant to
Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \6\ and subparagraph (f)(2) of Rule 19b-
4 \7\ thereunder, because it establishes a due, fee, or other charge
imposed by NYSE Arca.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \7\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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-NYSEArca-2012-127 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NYSEArca-2012-127. This
file number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Section, 100 F Street
NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090 on official business days between 10:00
a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of the filing will also be available for
inspection and copying at the New York Stock Exchange's principal
office and on its Internet Web site at www.nyse.com. All comments
received will be posted without change; the Commission does not edit
personal identifying information from submissions. You should submit
only information that you wish to make available publicly. All
submissions should refer to File Number SR-NYSEArca-2012-127 and should
be submitted on or before December 19, 2012.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\8\
Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-28796 Filed 11-27-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 227 (Monday, November 25, 2013)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 70218-70219]
[FR Doc No: 2013-28042]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 117

[Docket No. USCG-2013-0639]
RIN 1625-AA09

Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Hackensack River, Kearney and
Jersey City, NJ

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Temporary final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is temporarily modifying the operating
schedule that governs the operation of the Route 1 & 9 (Lincoln
Highway) Bridge across the Hackensack River, mile 2.0, between Kearny
and Jersey City, New Jersey. The bridge owner, New Jersey Department of
Transportation, submitted a request to restrict bridge openings during
the morning and afternoon rush hour periods to alleviate traffic
congestion resulting from area roadway closures. It is expected that
this change to the regulations would provide relief to vehicular
traffic while continuing to meet the reasonable needs of navigation.

DATES: This temporary final rule is effective from March 1, 2014
through March 1, 2016.

ADDRESSES: Documents mentioned in this preamble are part of docket
USCG-2013-0639. To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being
available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov, type in the
``SEARCH'' box and click ``SEARCH.'' Click on Open Docket Folder on the
line associated with this rulemaking. You may also visit the Docket
Management Facility in room W12-140 on Ground Floor of the Department
of Transportation West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE.,
Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this
temporary final rule, call or email Mr. Joe Arca, Project Officer,
First Coast Guard District Bridge Branch,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>If you have questions on viewing the docket, call
Barbara Hairston, Program Manager, Docket Operations, telephone 202-
366-9826.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Acronyms

CFR Code of Federal Regulations
DHS Department of Homeland Security
FR Federal Register
NPRM Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
Sec.  Section Symbol
U.S.C. United States Code

A. Regulatory History and Information

    On August 28, 2013, we published a notice of proposed rulemaking
(NPRM) entitled Drawbridge Operation Regulations Hackensack River in
the Federal Register (78 FR 53104). We received no comments on the
proposed rule. No public meeting was requested, and none was held.

B. Basis and Purpose

    The Route 1 & 9 (Lincoln Highway) Bridge at mile 2.0, across the
Hackensack River between Kearny and Jersey City, New Jersey, has a
vertical clearance of 40 feet at mean high water and 45 feet at mean
low water. The drawbridge operation regulations are listed at 33 CFR
117.723.
    The waterway users are predominantly recreational vessels and
commercial vessels.
    The owner of the bridge, New Jersey Department of Transportation,
submitted a request to the Coast Guard to temporarily change the
drawbridge operating regulations.
    The purpose of this temporary final rule is to help provide relief
to help reduce vehicular traffic congestion during the morning and
afternoon vehicular rush hour periods. Additional vehicular traffic
will be detoured across the Route 1 & 9 (Lincoln Highway) Bridges for
two years from the adjacent Pulaski Skyway Bridge which will be under
construction to replace its deck commencing on March 1, 2014 and
continuing through March 1, 2016.
    The existing regulations presently require the bridge to open on
signal at all times.
    Under this temporary final rule the draw shall open on signal;
except that, the draw need not open for the passage of vessel traffic
between 6 a.m. and 10 a.m. and 2 p.m. and 6 p.m., Monday through
Friday, except holidays.
    Tide dependent deep draft vessels may request bridge openings
during the two rush hour closure periods provided at least a twelve
hour advance notice is given.

C. Discussion of Comments, Changes and the Final Rule

    The Coast Guard received no comments in response to the notice of
proposed rulemaking. As a result, no changes have been made to this
final rule.

D. Regulatory Analyses

    We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and
executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses
based on these statutes or executive orders.

1. Regulatory Planning and Review

    This rule is not a significant regulatory action under section 3(f)
of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, and does not
require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section
6(a)(3) of that Order. The Office of Management and Budget has not
reviewed it under that Order. We believe that this rule is not a
significant regulatory action because the bridge provides adequate
clearance for recreational vessels in the closed position and the
commercial vessels will be able to get openings at any time provided
the advance notice is given by calling the number posted at the bridge.

2. Impact on Small Entities

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as
amended, requires federal agencies to consider the potential impact of
regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The Coast Guard
received no comments from the Small Business Administration on this
rule. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule
will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of
small entities.
    This rule should not have a significant effect on small entities
since the bridge provides 40 feet of vertical clearance at mean high
water which should accommodate the recreational vessels that transit
this waterway. Deep draft commercial vessels can transit at during the
two rush hour closure periods provided they give the twelve hour
advance notice for openings.
    There is no permanent restriction or regulation being imposed by
this rule; therefore, the Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b)
that this temporary final rule will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities.

3. Assistance for Small Entities

    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small
entities in

understanding this temporary final rule, if the rule would affect your
small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have
questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please
contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT,
above.
    Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal
employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal
regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory
Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory
Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and
rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to
comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR
(1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small
entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or
action of the Coast Guard.

4. Collection of Information

    This rule calls for no new collection of information under the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).

5. Federalism

    A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132,
Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on State or local
governments and would either preempt State law or impose a substantial
direct cost of compliance on them. We have analyzed this rule under
that Order and have determined that it does not have implications for
federalism.

6. Protest Activities

    The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters.
Protesters are asked to contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section to coordinate protest activities so that
your message can be received without jeopardizing the safety or
security of people, places or vessels.

7. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538)
requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary
regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may
result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in
the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for
inflation) or more in any one year. Though this rule will not result in
such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere
in this preamble.

8. Taking of Private Property

    This rule will not cause a taking of private property or otherwise
have taking implications under Executive Order 12630, Governmental
Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property
Rights.

9. Civil Justice Reform

    This rule meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2)
of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize litigation,
eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden.

10. Protection of Children

    We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13045, Protection
of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks. This rule
is not an economically significant rule and would not create an
environmental risk to health or risk to safety that might
disproportionately affect children.

11. Indian Tribal Governments

    This rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order
13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments,
because it does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more
Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and
Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities
between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.

12. Energy Effects

    This action is not a ``significant energy action'' under Executive
order 13211, Actions Concerns Regulations That Significantly Affect
Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use.

13. Technical Standards

    The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) (15
U.S.C. 272 note) directs agencies to use voluntary consensus standards
in their regulatory activities unless the agency provides Congress,
through the Office of Management and Budget, with an explanation of why
using these standards would be inconsistent with applicable law or
otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical
standards (e.g., specifications of materials, performance, design, or
operation; test methods; sampling procedures; and related management
systems practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus
standards bodies.
    This rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we did not
consider the use of voluntary consensus standards.

14. Environment

    We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security
Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which
guides the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental
Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have concluded
that this action is one of a category of actions which do not
individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human
environment. This rule involves operating the bridge from a remote
location. This rule is categorically excluded, under figure 2-1,
paragraph (32)(e), of the Instruction.
    Under figure 2-1, paragraph (32)(e), of the Instruction, an
environmental analysis checklist and a categorical exclusion
determination are not required for this rule.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 117 Bridges

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends
33 CFR part 117 as follows:

PART 117--DRAWBRIDGE OPERATION REGULATIONS

0
1. The authority citation for part 117 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 33 U.S.C. 499; 33 CFR 1.05-1; Department of Homeland
Security Delegation No. 0170.1.

0
2. Amend Sec.  117.723 by adding paragraph (i) to read as follows:

Sec.  117.723  Hackensack River.

* * * * *
    (i) The draw of the Route 1 & 9 (Lincoln Highway) Bridge, mile 2.0,
between Kearny and Jersey City, shall open on signal; except that, the
draw need not open for the passage of vessel traffic between 6 a.m. and
10 a.m. and between 2 p.m. and 6 p.m., Monday through Friday, except
holidays. Tide dependent deep draft vessels may request bridge openings
between 6 a.m. and 10 a.m. and between 2 p.m. and 6 p.m. provided at
least a twelve hour advance notice is given by calling the number
posted at the bridge.

    Dated: November 5, 2013.
D.B. Abel,
Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander, First Coast Guard District.
[FR Doc. 2013-28042 Filed 11-22-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 213 (Friday, November 4, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 66763-66764]
[FR Doc No: 2022-24109]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[SEC File No. 270-030, OMB Control No. 3235-0290]

Proposed Collection; Comment Request; Extension: Rule 17f-1(g)

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

    Notice is hereby given that pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act
of 1995 (``PRA'') (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), the Securities and Exchange
Commission (``Commission'') is soliciting comments on the existing
collection of information provided for in Rule 17f-1(g) (17 CFR
240.17f-1(g)), under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78a
et seq.). The Commission plans to submit this existing collection of
information to the Office of Management and Budget (``OMB'') for
extension and approval.
    Paragraph (g) of Rule 17f-1 requires that all reporting
institutions (i.e., every national securities exchange, member thereof,
registered securities association, broker, dealer, municipal securities
dealer, registered transfer agent, registered clearing agency,
participant therein, member of the Federal Reserve System and bank
insured by the FDIC) maintain and preserve a number of documents
related to their participation in the Lost and Stolen Securities
Program (``Program'') under Rule 17f-1. The following documents must be
kept in an easily accessible place for three years, according to
paragraph (g): (1) copies of all reports of theft or loss (Form X-17F-
1A) filed with the Commission's designee: (2) all agreements between
reporting institutions regarding registration in the Program or other
aspects of Rule 17f-1; and (3) all confirmations or other information
received from the Commission or its designee as a result of inquiry.
    Reporting institutions utilize these records and reports (a) to
report missing, lost, stolen or counterfeit securities to the database;
(b) to confirm inquiry of the database; and (c) to demonstrate
compliance with Rule 17f-1. The Commission and the reporting
institutions' examining authorities utilize these records to monitor
the incidence of thefts and losses incurred by reporting institutions
and to determine compliance with Rule 17f-1. If such records were not
retained by reporting institutions, compliance with Rule 17f-1 could
not be monitored effectively.
    The Commission estimates that there are approximately 10,018
reporting institutions (respondents) and, on average, each respondent
would need to retain 33 records annually, with each retention requiring
approximately 1 minute (a total of 33 minutes or 0.5511 hours per
respondent per year). Thus, the total estimated annual time burden for
all respondents is 5,521 hours (10,018 x 0.5511 hours = 5,521).
Assuming an average hourly cost for clerical work of $50.00, the
average total yearly record retention internal cost of compliance for
each respondent would be $27.56 ($50 x 0.5511 hours). Based on these
estimates, the total annual internal compliance cost for the estimated
10,018 reporting institutions would be approximately $276,096 (10,018 x
$27.56).
    Written comments are invited on: (a) whether the proposed
collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of
the functions of the Commission, including whether the information
shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the Commission's
estimates of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (c)
ways to

enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be
collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of
information on respondents, including through the use of automated
collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Consideration will be given to comments and suggestions submitted by
January 3, 2023.
    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.
    Please direct your written comments to: David Bottom, Director/
Chief Information Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission, c/o John
Pezzullo, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549, or send an email to:
[email protected].

    Dated: November 1, 2022.
Sherry R. Haywood,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2022-24109 Filed 11-3-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P