[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 126 (Tuesday, July 1, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 37380-37384]
[FR Doc No: 2014-15354]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-72469; File No. SR-NYSEMKT-2014-52]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE MKT LLC; Notice of Filing and
Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Amending the NYSE Amex
Options Fee Schedule by Adopting Fees and Rebates for a New Electronic
Crossing Mechanism Called the CUBE Auction

June 25, 2014.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) \1\ of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 (the ``Act''),\2\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\3\ notice is hereby
given that on June 12, 2014, NYSE MKT LLC (the ``Exchange'' or ``NYSE
MKT'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I, II
and III below, which Items have been prepared by the self-regulatory
organization. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit
comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 15 U.S.C. 78a.
    \3\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange proposes to amend the NYSE Amex Options Fee Schedule
(``Fee Schedule'') by adopting fees and rebates for a new electronic
crossing mechanism called the CUBE Auction. 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, and at the Commission's Public
Reference Room.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to amend the Fee Schedule to adopt fees and
rebates for ATP Holders who participate in an electronic crossing
mechanism known as a Customer Best Execution Auction (``CUBE Auction''
or ``Auction'') pursuant to Rule 971.1NY.\4\ The Exchange anticipates
that the CUBE Auction mechanism will be implemented in June 2014 \5\
and therefore proposes to add the CUBE Auction fees and rebates to the
Fee Schedule effective with this filing so that such fees and rebates
will be in place once the CUBE Auction mechanism is implemented.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 72025 (April 25,
2014) (SR-NYSEMKT-2014-17) (Order approving adoption of new Rule
971.1NY).
    \5\ The Exchange will not implement the CUBE Auction mechanism
until the proposed rule changes to Rule 971.1NY set forth in SR-
NYSEMKT-2014-51 are operative.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The CUBE Auction allows an ATP Holder to guarantee the execution of
a limit order it represents as agent on behalf of a public customer,
broker dealer, or any other entity via the CUBE Auction. This agency
order is referred to as the CUBE Order.\6\ The ATP Holder that submits
the CUBE Order (the ``Initiating Participant'') agrees to guarantee the
execution of the CUBE Order by submitting a contra-side order (``Contra
Order'') representing principal interest or interest it has solicited
to trade with the CUBE Order.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See Rule 971.1NY(a).
    \7\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Although the Contra Order would guarantee the CUBE Order an
execution, the purpose of the Auction is to provide the opportunity for
price improvement for the CUBE Order as well as the opportunity for
other market participants to interact with the CUBE Order. Accordingly,
the Exchange will notify market participants when an Auction is
occurring so that they may have an opportunity to participate.
    Once initiated, a CUBE Auction is announced via a broadcast
message, known as a Request For Response (``RFR'').\8\ Any ATP Holder
may respond to the RFR, either as principal or on an agency basis,
provided that such response is properly marked specifying price, size,
and side of the market (``RFR Response'') and is submitted during the
Response Time Interval. RFR Responses include GTX Orders, which are
non-displayed orders with a time-in-force condition for the Response
Time Interval of the CUBE Auction, as well as any other quote or order
on the opposite side of the market in the same series as the CUBE Order
that is not marked GTX, is received during the Response Time Interval,
and is eligible to participate within the range of permissible
executions specified for that Auction.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See Rule 971.1NY(c)(2)(A).
    \9\ See Rule 971.1NY(c)(2)(C).
    \10\ As Exchange noted in its recent filing related to the CUBE
Auction (see SR-NYSEMKT-2014-51), the Exchange intends to issue
guidance advising ATP Holders that Contra Orders for the account of
a Customer may not be entered into a CUBE Auction, which guidance is
consistent with how other markets operate electronic auction
mechanisms. See id., n. 9. As such, the Contra Order Fee will only
apply to Non-Customers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As described above, there are three ways to participate in a CUBE
Auction: (i) As an agency order, which is known as the CUBE Order; (ii)
As the order guaranteeing the execution of the CUBE Order, which is
known as the Contra Order; and (iii) any other interest that is
eligible to participate in the Auction, which is known as an RFR
Response. The Exchange is proposing to charge for participation in the
CUBE Auction based on the following schedule of fees:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                    Rate per contract
                                                     standard options
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CUBE Order Fee Customer--both Penny Pilot and                      $0.00
 Non-Penny Pilot...............................
CUBE Order Fee Non-Customer--both Penny Pilot                       0.20
 and Non-Penny Pilot...........................
Contra Order Fee--both Penny Pilot and Non-                         0.05
 Penny Pilot \10\..............................
RFR Response Fee Customer--both Penny Pilot and                     0.00
 Non-Penny Pilot...............................
RFR Response Fee Non-Customer--Penny Pilot.....                     0.55
RFR Response Fee Non-Customer--Non-Penny Pilot.                     0.90
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange is also proposing to adopt rebates to be paid to
Initiating Participants for each CUBE Order contract that does not
trade with the Contra Order. The proposed rebates are shown below:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
  CUBE Auction rebates--paid to the initiating
  participant on each CUBE order contract that     Per contract rebate
      does not trade with the Contra order           standard options
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CUBE Auction Rebate--Penny Pilot...............                    $0.40
CUBE Auction Rebate--Non--Penny Pilot..........                     0.80
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As the CUBE Auction is an entirely new mechanism designed to
compete with existing functionality on other exchanges,\11\ the
Exchange is seeking to attract new business to the Exchange. As such,
the Exchange does not believe that execution volume attributable to the
CUBE Auction should be included within the existing NYSE Amex Options
Market Maker volume tiers or fee caps, within the MAC Subsidy, or
within the existing OFP Electronic ADV Tiers, which were established in
acknowledgement of volumes that the Exchange could not attract absent
the ability to offer an electronic crossing mechanism. As such, the
Exchange proposes to amend the appropriate sections of the Fee Schedule
and their associated endnotes, specifically endnotes 5 and 17, to
exclude any volumes attributable to the CUBE Auction.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See BOX Options Exchange LLC (``BOX Options Exchange'')
Rule 7150, Chicago Board Options Exchange, Incorporated (``CBOE'')
Rule 6.74A, International Securities Exchange, LLC (``ISE'') Rule
723, and NASDAQ OMX PHLX LLC (``Phlx'') Rule 1080(n).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Lastly, the Exchange is proposing to add text to existing endnote 9
on marketing charges to clarify that CUBE Order executions will not
result in the collection of marketing charges
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with the provisions of Section 6(b) \12\ of the Act, in general, and
Section 6(b)(4) and (5) \13\ of the Act, in particular, in that it is
designed to provide for the equitable allocation of reasonable dues,
fees, and other charges among its members and other persons using its
facilities and does not unfairly discriminate between customers,
issuers, brokers, or dealers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange believes the proposed fees for CUBE Orders executed in
the CUBE Auction where Customers are charged $0.00 per contract and
non-Customers are charged $0.20 per standard option contract are
reasonable, equitable and not unfairly discriminatory for the following
reasons. First, allowing Customers to trade for free while charging
non-Customers has long been viewed as reasonable, equitable and not
unfairly discriminatory. The Exchange notes that this pricing
differentiation between Customers and non-Customers is evidenced in
multiple places within the existing fee schedule of the Exchange, such
as for fees applicable to Qualified Contingent Cross (``QCC)
Orders.\14\ Further, the Exchange notes that charging the agency side
of a crossing order a different rate based on capacity (i.e., Customer
vs. non-Customer) is also common among other exchanges that offer
similar electronic crossing mechanisms. For example, the ISE, in Select
and Non-Select Symbols, charges Priority Customer Crossing Orders $0.00
per contract while charging non-Priority Customer Crossing Orders $0.20
per contract.\15\ Additionally, BOX Options Exchange charges Customer
PIP Orders $0.00 per contract while charging Professional Customer and
Broker Dealer PIP Orders $0.37 per contract and Market Maker PIP Orders
a variable rate based on volume from $0.13 to $0.35 per contract.\16\
Accordingly, the proposed CUBE Order fees for both Customers and non-
Customers are within the range of fees charged to Customers and non-
Customers on other exchanges for executions within similar electronic
crossing mechanisms.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ See the fee schedule for NYSE Amex Options located here:
https://globalderivatives.nyx.com/sites/globalderivatives.nyx.com/files/nyse_amex_options_fee_schedule_for_6-2-14.pdf, which
charges Customers who participate in a QCC trade $0.00 and non-
Customers $0.20 per contract.
    \15\ See the ISE fee schedule dated May 1, 2014 located here:
http://www.ise.com/assets/documents/OptionsExchange/legal/fee/ISE_fee_schedule.pdf. Note that in Non-Select Symbols, Market Makers
are charged a slightly higher rate for Crossing Orders of $0.22 per
contract.
    \16\ See BOX Options Exchange fee schedule dated March 2014
located here: http://boxexchange.com/assets/BOX_Fee_Schedule.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Similarly, the Exchange believes the proposed fees for Contra
Orders executed in the CUBE Auction where non-Customers are charged
$0.05 per standard option contract are reasonable, equitable and not
unfairly discriminatory for the following reasons. The Exchange notes
that charging the contra side of a crossing order that guarantees the
execution of the agency order is common among other exchanges that
offer similar electronic crossing mechanisms and the rate proposed by
the Exchange is comparable to the charged by other exchanges. For
example, ISE charges non-Priority Customer Crossing Orders $0.20; \17\
the CBOE charges Non-Customer AIM Contra Orders $0.05 per contract and
CBOE Market Makers a variable rate between $0.03 and $0.23 based on
volume, plus marketing charges of $0.25 in Penny issues and $0.65 in
non-Penny issues if they are contra to a Customer order.\18\
Accordingly, the Exchange's proposed Contra Order fees for non-
Customers are within the range of fees charged to non-Customers on
other exchanges for executions within similar electronic crossing
mechanisms.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ Supra n. 15.
    \18\ See CBOE fee schedule dated June 3, 2014 located here:
http://www.cboe.com/publish/feeschedule/CBOEFeeSchedule.pdf.
    \19\ See supra n. 11.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Likewise, the Exchange believes the proposed fees for RFR Responses
executed in a CUBE Auction where Customers are charged $0.00 per
contract and non-Customers are charged $0.55 per standard option
contract in Penny Pilot issues and $0.90 per standard option contract
in non-Penny Pilot issues are reasonable, equitable and not unfairly
discriminatory for the following reasons. First, allowing Customers to
trade for free while charging non-Customers has long been viewed as
reasonable, equitable and not unfairly discriminatory. The Exchange
notes that this pricing differentiation between Customers and non-
Customers is evidenced in multiple places within the existing fee
schedule of the Exchange, such as for fees applicable to QCC
Orders.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ Supra n. 14.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Further, the Exchange notes that charging a participant who
responds to an auction a different rate based on capacity (i.e.,
Customer vs. non-Customer) is also common among other exchanges that
offer similar electronic crossing mechanisms. For example, BOX Options
Exchange charges Customers who respond to an auction with Improvement
Orders $0.50 per contract for Penny issues and Customer Improvement
Orders in non-Penny issues are charged $0.90 per contract. At

the same time, the BOX Options Exchange charges Professional Customers
and Broker Dealers who respond to an auction $0.72 per contract in
Penny issues and $1.12 per contract in non-Penny issues, while charging
BOX Market Makers who respond either $0.65 in Penny issues or $1.05 in
non-Penny issues.\21\ Additionally, CBOE charges participants who
interact with their electronic crossing mechanism for price improvement
regular electronic rates. For example, Customers are charged $0.00,
CBOE Clearing Trading Permit Holder Proprietary trades are charged
$0.35 per contract, CBOE Market Makers pay a variable rate based on
volume from $0.03 to $0.23 plus marketing charges of $0.25 in Penny
issues and $0.65 in non-Penny issues if they interact with a Customer
order in the mechanism, Broker Dealers are charged $0.45 and $0.60 for
trading in Penny and non-Penny issues respectively, and finally
Professional Customers are charged $0.30.\22\ Accordingly, the proposed
RFR Response fees for both Customers and non-Customers are within the
range of fees charged to Customers and non-Customers on other exchanges
for executions within similar electronic crossing mechanisms.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ Supra n. 16. The BOX fee schedule has several parts that
must be taken collectively to arrive at the all in cost of
responding to an auction. For example, a Customer who responds to an
auction with an Improvement Order will pay $0.50 per contract in
Penny issues. The $0.50 fee represents the Improvement Order fee of
$0.15 from Section I of the fee schedule, plus the $0.35 fee to add
liquidity in Penny issues quoted with an MPV of $0.01 from Section
II of the schedule.
    \22\ Supra n. 18.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes the proposed rebates paid to Initiating
Participants--$0.40 for Penny Pilot issues and $0.80 for non-Penny
Pilot issues for each CUBE Order contract that does not trade with the
Contra Order in a CUBE Auction are reasonable, equitable and not
unfairly discriminatory for the following reasons. First, the Exchange
notes that paying the participant who submits orders into an electronic
crossing mechanism a rebate is not new or novel. For example, the ISE
pays a PIM Break Up Rebate of $0.35 per contract in Select Symbols for
contracts submitted to a PIM that do not trade with their contra order.
Additionally, ISE pays a volume-based rebate for volumes executed in an
electronic crossing mechanism--including PIM--that ranges from $0.00 to
$0.11 per contract. This translates to a maximum rebate per contract of
$0.46.\23\ Similarly, BOX Options Exchange pays a per contract credit
to PIP Orders of $0.35 for Penny Issues with a $0.01 MPV and $0.65 for
issues that trade with a MPV greater than $0.01. Additionally, BOX
Options Exchange has a rebate for all PIP and orders of less than 250
contracts that is payable to the PIP Order which ranges from $0.00 to
$0.17 per contract based on PIP volume submitted to the exchange. This
translates to a maximum rebate of $0.82.\24\ Accordingly, the proposed
CUBE Auction rebates for Penny issues and non-Penny issues to be paid
to Initiating Participants for each CUBE Order contract that don't
trade with the Contra Order are within the range of rebates paid on
other exchanges for executions within similar electronic crossing
mechanisms.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ Supra n. 15.
    \24\ Supra n. 16.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that excluding CUBE Auction volumes from
specified fee caps, volume tiers, volume thresholds and rebate
programs, including: (i) The $350,000 per month NYSE Amex Options
Market Maker cap and the associated 50,000 contract ADV threshold and
the 3,500,000 contract monthly volume threshold; (ii) the MAC Subsidy;
and (iii) the OFP Electronic ADV Tiers, is reasonable, equitable and
not unfairly discriminatory for the following reasons. First, the
Exchange notes that the specified fee caps, volume thresholds, tiers or
rebates were established prior to the introduction of the CUBE Auction
electronic crossing mechanism. With the CUBE Auction, the Exchange
proposes to target new volume to the Exchange to compete with
electronic crossing mechanisms available on other exchanges. Any volume
that would be executed as part of the CUBE Auction was not factored
into the creation of the Exchange's previously existing fee caps,
volume thresholds, tiers, or rebates. As such, the Exchange believes it
is reasonable to exclude volumes that will result from the CUBE Auction
from the previously established fee caps, volume thresholds, tiers or
rebates because market participants would not be using the new CUBE
Auction mechanism in order to meet the respective fee caps, volume
thresholds, tiers or rebates. Further, such exclusion of volumes
resulting from the CUBE Auction from the fee caps, volume thresholds,
tiers or rebates established before the implementation of the CUBE
Auction is also equitable and not unfairly discriminatory as it applies
to all participants uniformly.
    The Exchange believes that specifying that CUBE Order executions
are not subject to marketing charges is reasonable, equitable and not
unfairly discriminatory for the following reasons. First, the Exchange
notes that the CUBE Auction is an electronic crossing mechanism,
similar to the QCC Order type, with the exception that CUBE Auctions
are designed to offer the opportunity for price improvement. The
Exchange does not currently collect marketing charges from NYSE Amex
Options Market Makers that trade contra to a Customer order as part of
a QCC trade. Because the Exchange is seeking to encourage all
participants, including NYSE Amex Options Market Makers, to respond to
CUBE Auction RFR messages, the Exchange believes that collecting
marketing charges from NYSE Amex Options Market Makers may discourage
such participation. By encouraging as many participants as possible to
respond, the Exchange believes that it will lead to greater
opportunities for price improvement for all CUBE Orders, not just those
entered on behalf of Customers. For these reasons, the Exchange
believes that excluding CUBE Orders from the marketing charges program
is reasonable, equitable and not unfairly discriminatory.
    The Exchange believes that the proposed fees and rebates for
participation in the CUBE Auction are not going to have an impact on
intra-market competition based on the total cost for participants to
transact as respondents to the Auction as compared to the cost for
participants to engage in non-Auction electronic transactions on the
Exchange. As noted above (and discussed further below), the Exchange
believes that the proposed pricing for the CUBE Auction is comparable
to that of other exchanges offering similar electronic crossing
mechanisms, and the Exchange believes that, based on experience with
electronic price improvement crossing mechanisms on other markets,
market participants understand that the price-improving benefits
offered by the Auction justify and offset the transaction costs
associated with Auction.
    For example, NYSE Amex Options Market Makers who trade fewer than
50,000 contracts ADV are currently charged $0.20 per contract. Further,
when NYSE Amex Options Market Makers trade electronically against a
Customer order they are also potentially subject to incurring Marketing
Charges of either $0.25 or $0.65 per contract for Penny and non-Penny
Pilot issues for a total charge of either $0.45 or $0.85 per contract.
Within the Auction, the same NYSE Amex Options Market Maker would be
charged either $0.55 or $0.90 per contract for Penny and non-Penny
Pilot issues. The Exchange does not believe this differential--between
non-Auction transactions and Auction

transactions--will cause participants to refrain from responding to
Auctions. The Exchange notes that there is a difference in the risk to
a participant between quoting as a Market Maker and in responding to an
Auction. In the former, a Market Maker may be at risk in hundreds of
thousands of series in which they may be obligated to provide firm
quotes, any of which may result in a trade at any time.\25\ By way of
comparison, when responding to an Auction, the Market Maker--or any ATP
Holder for that matter--has a greater certainty of execution that has a
maximum execution size, based on the number of contracts in the
Auction, and a defined time for execution, which will occur within a
maximum of 750 milliseconds. By contrast, a Market Maker has no way of
knowing when any one of the quotes they have in the market place might
trade. Given this reality, the Exchange expects to see robust
competition within the Auction, despite the apparent difference in non-
Auction versus Auction pricing. The Exchange has primarily focused on
Market Makers in this discussion as Market Makers are the largest
source of liquidity on the Exchange and the Exchange believes that
Market Makers would be most likely to submit RFR Responses to a CUBE
Auction.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ See Rules 925NY and 925.1NY.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As stated above, the Exchange also notes that differentials between
non-auction and auction pricing exist on other exchanges that offer
comparable electronic crossing mechanisms. For example, on the ISE,
Market Maker Plus participants can earn a rebate of between $0.20 and
$0.25 per contract as a ``maker'' of liquidity where they post quotes
that subsequently get traded against. That same participant who
responds to a ``Crossing Order'' will pay $0.45 per contract. Thus, the
difference between non-auction and auction transaction pricing can be
as high as $0.70 per contract (calculated as the difference between
earning a $0.25 credit and paying a Response Fee For Crossing Orders of
$0.45), compared to the $0.10 price differential per contract proposed
for NYSE Amex Options Market Makers, as discussed above.\26\ Given
these facts, the Exchange believes that the differential between non-
Auction and Auction pricing will not prove to be a burden on
competition within the Exchange and the cost of participating in the
Auction is such that there will be robust competition for all size
orders within the Auction.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ Supra n. 15.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that the proposed fees and rebates for
participation in the CUBE Auction are reasonable because they are
designed to attract new volume to the Exchange, which will benefit all
participants by offering greater price discovery, increased
transparency, and an increased opportunity to trade on the Exchange.
Further, as the relative level of the fees and/or rebates are
consistent with the range of similar fees and rebates throughout the
industry, the Exchange believes such fees and rebates are also
equitable and not unfairly discriminatory.
    The Exchange also believes that fees and rebates for participation
in the CUBE Auction are reasonable because they are designed to enhance
the competitiveness of the Exchange, particularly with respect to those
exchanges that offer their own electronic crossing mechanism.\27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ Supra n. 11.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 believes that
the proposed change will enhance the competiveness of the Exchange
relative to other exchanges that offer their own electronic crossing
mechanism.\28\ The Exchange notes that it operates in a highly
competitive market in which market participants can readily favor
competing venues if they deem fee levels at a particular venue to be
excessive. 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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) \29\ of the Act and subparagraph (f)(2) of Rule
19b-4 \30\ thereunder, because it establishes a due, fee, or other
charge imposed by the Exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \30\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of such proposed rule
change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule
change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or
appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or
otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission
takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings under
Section 19(b)(2)(B) \31\ of the Act to determine whether the proposed
rule change should be approved or disapproved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \31\ 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 No. SR-NYSEMKT-2014-52 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-NYSEMKT-2014-52. This
file number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method.
    The Commission will post all comments on the Commission's Internet
Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the
submission, all subsequent amendments, all written statements with
respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with the Commission,
and all written communications relating to the proposed rule change
between the Commission and any person, other than those that may be
withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions of 5 U.S.C.
552, will be available for Web site viewing and printing in the
Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC
20549, on official business days between the hours of

10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of such filing also will be available
for inspection and copying at the principal offices of the Exchange.
All comments received will be posted without change; the Commission
does not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You
should submit only information that you wish to make available
publicly. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NYSEMKT-2014-
52, and should be submitted on or before July 22, 2014.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\32\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \32\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2014-15354 Filed 6-30-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 24 (Monday, February 5, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 5105-5106]
[FR Doc No: 2018-02187]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket Nos. FDA-2016-E-1276; FDA-2016-E-1277; and FDA-2016-E-1278]

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

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or the Agency) has
determined the regulatory review period for VIBERZI 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.

DATES: Anyone with knowledge that any of the dates as published (in the
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section) are incorrect may submit either
electronic or written comments and ask for a redetermination by April
6, 2018. 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 August 6, 2018.
See ``Petitions'' in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for more
information.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments as follows. Please note that late,
untimely filed comments will not be considered. Electronic comments
must be submitted on or before April 6, 2018. The https://www.regulations.gov electronic filing system will accept comments until
midnight Eastern Time at the end of April 6, 2018. Comments received by
mail/hand delivery/courier (for written/paper submissions) will be
considered timely if they are postmarked or the delivery service
acceptance receipt is on or before that date.

Electronic Submissions

    Submit electronic comments in the following way:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the instructions for submitting comments. Comments submitted
electronically, including attachments, to https://www.regulations.gov
will be posted to the docket unchanged. Because your comment will be
made public, you are solely responsible for ensuring that your comment
does not include any confidential information that you or a third party
may not wish to be posted, such as medical information, your or anyone
else's Social Security number, or confidential business information,
such as a manufacturing process. Please note that if you include your
name, contact information, or other information that identifies you in
the body of your comments, that information will be posted on https://www.regulations.gov.
     If you want to submit a comment with confidential
information that you do not wish to be made available to the public,
submit the comment as a written/paper submission and in the manner
detailed (see ``Written/Paper Submissions'' and ``Instructions'').

Written/Paper Submissions

    Submit written/paper submissions as follows:
     Mail/Hand delivery/Courier (for written/paper
submissions): Dockets Management Staff (HFA-305), Food and Drug
Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.
     For written/paper comments submitted to the Dockets
Management Staff, FDA will post your comment, as well as any
attachments, except for information submitted, marked and identified,
as confidential, if submitted as detailed in ``Instructions.''
    Instructions: All submissions received must include the Docket Nos.
FDA-2016-E-1276; FDA-2016-E-1277 and FDA-2016-E-1278 for
``Determination of Regulatory Review Period for Purposes of Patent
Extension; VIBERZI.'' Received comments, those filed in a timely manner
(see ADDRESSES), will be placed in the docket and, except for those
submitted as ``Confidential Submissions,'' publicly viewable at https://www.regulations.gov or at the Dockets Management Staff between 9 a.m.
and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday.
     Confidential Submissions--To submit a comment with
confidential information that you do not wish to be made publicly
available, submit your comments only as a written/paper submission. You
should submit two copies total. One copy will include the information
you claim to be confidential with a heading or cover note that states
``THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION.'' The Agency will
review this copy, including the claimed confidential information, in
its consideration of comments. The second copy, which will have the
claimed confidential information redacted/blacked out, will be
available for public viewing and posted on

https://www.regulations.gov. Submit both copies to the Dockets
Management Staff. If you do not wish your name and contact information
to be made publicly available, you can provide this information on the
cover sheet and not in the body of your comments and you must identify
this information as ``confidential.'' Any information marked as
``confidential'' will not be disclosed except in accordance withSec.
10.20 (21 CFR 10.20) and other applicable disclosure law. For more
information about FDA's posting of comments to public dockets, see 80
FR 56469, September 18, 2015, or access the information at: https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2015-09-18/pdf/2015-23389.pdf.
    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or
the electronic and written/paper comments received, go to http://www.regulations.gov and insert the docket number, found in brackets in
the heading of this document, into the ``Search'' box and follow the
prompts and/or go to the Dockets Management Staff, 5630 Fishers Lane,
Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Beverly Friedman, Office of Regulatory
Policy, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg.
51, Rm. 6250, Silver Spring, MD 20993,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    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 VIBERZI
(eluxadoline). VIBERZI is indicated in adults for the treatment of
irritable bowel syndrome with diarrhea. Subsequent to this approval,
the USPTO received patent term restoration applications for VIBERZI
(U.S. Patent Nos. 7,741,356; 8,344,011; and 8,609,709) from Janssen
Pharmaceutica, N.V., and the USPTO requested FDA's assistance in
determining the patents' eligibility for patent term restoration. In a
letter dated August 12, 2016, FDA advised the USPTO that this human
drug product had undergone a regulatory review period and that the
approval of VIBERZI represented the first permitted commercial
marketing or use of the product. Thereafter, the USPTO requested that
FDA determine the product's regulatory review period.

II. Determination of Regulatory Review Period

    FDA has determined that the applicable regulatory review period for
VIBERZI is 2,716 days. Of this time, 2,381 days occurred during the
testing phase of the regulatory review period, while 335 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: December 21, 2007. FDA has verified the applicant's claim
that December 21, 2007, is the date the investigational new drug
application (IND) became effective.
    2. The date the application was initially submitted with respect to
the human drug product under section 505(b) of the FD&C Act: June 27,
2014. The applicant claims June 26, 2014, as the date the new drug
application (NDA) for VIBERZI was initially submitted. However, FDA
records indicate that NDA 206940 was submitted on July 27, 2014, which
is considered to be the NDA initially submitted date.
    3. The date the application was approved: May 27, 2015. FDA has
verified the applicant's claims that NDA 206940 was approved on May 27,
2015.
    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 applications for patent extension,
this applicant seeks 428 days, 606 days, or 431 days of patent term
extension.

III. Petitions

    Anyone with knowledge that any of the dates as published are
incorrect may submit either electronic or written comments and, under
21 CFR 60.24, ask for a redetermination (see DATES). Furthermore, as
specified in Sec.  60.30 (21 CFR 60.30), any interested person may
petition FDA for a determination regarding whether the applicant for
extension acted with due diligence during the regulatory review period.
To meet its burden, the petition must comply with all the requirements
of Sec.  60.30, including but not limited to: must be timely (see
DATES), must be filed in accordance with Sec.  10.20, must contain
sufficient facts to merit an FDA investigation, and must certify that a
true and complete copy of the petition has been served upon the patent
applicant. (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.
    Submit petitions electronically to https://www.regulations.gov at
Docket Nos. FDA-2013-S-0610. Submit written petitions (two copies are
required) to the Dockets Management Staff (HFA-305), Food and Drug
Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.

    Dated: January 30, 2018.
Leslie Kux,
Associate Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2018-02187 Filed 2-2-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4164-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 196 (Thursday, October 14, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Page 57163]
[FR Doc No: 2021-22379]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-4498-DR; Docket ID FEMA-2021-0001]

Colorado; Amendment No. 5 to Notice of a Major Disaster
Declaration

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice amends the notice of a major disaster declaration
for the State of Colorado (FEMA-4498-DR), dated March 28, 2020, and
related determinations.

DATES: This change occurred on July 6, 2021.

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

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Federal Emergency Management Agency
(FEMA) hereby gives notice that pursuant to the authority vested in the
Administrator, under Executive Order 12148, as amended, Tammy L.
Littrell, of FEMA is appointed to act as the Federal Coordinating
Officer for this disaster.
    This action terminates the appointment of Nancy J. Dragani as
Federal Coordinating Officer for this disaster.

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

Deanne Criswell,
Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2021-22379 Filed 10-13-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111-23-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 226 (Friday, November 25, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 72482-72483]
[FR Doc No: 2022-25626]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0080; FR-10446-01-OMS]

Information Collection Request Submitted to OMB for Review and
Approval; Comment Request; NESHAP for Magnetic Tape Manufacturing
Operations (Renewal)

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has submitted an
information collection request (ICR), NESHAP for Magnetic Tape
Manufacturing Operations (EPA ICR Number 1678.11, OMB Control Nunber
2060-0326) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), for review and
approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act. This is a
proposed extension of the ICR, which is currently approved through
January 31, 2023. Public comments were previously requested, via the
Federal Register, on April 8, 2022 during a 60-day comment period. This
notice allows for an additional 30 days for public comments. A fuller
description of the ICR is given below, including its estimated burden
and cost to the public. An agency may neither conduct nor sponsor, and
a person is not required to respond to a collection of information,
unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.

DATES: Additional comments may be submitted on or before December 27,
2022.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, referencing Docket ID Number EPA-HQ-
OAR-2022-0080, to EPA online using https://www.regulations.gov/ (our
preferred method), or by email to [email protected], or by mail to: EPA
Docket Center, Environmental Protection Agency, Mail Code 28221T, 1200
Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460. EPA's policy is that all
comments received will be included in the public docket without change
including any personal information provided, unless the comment
includes profanity, threats, information claimed to be Confidential
Business Information (CBI), or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute.
    Submit written comments and recommendations to OMB for the proposed
information collection within 30 days of publication of this notice to
www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain. Find this particular information
collection by selecting ``Currently under 30-day Review--Open for
Public Comments'' or by using the search function.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Muntasir Ali, Sector Policies and
Program Division (D243-05), Office of Air Quality Planning and
Standards, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle
Park, North Carolina, 27711; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email
address: [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Supporting documents, which explain in
detail the information that the EPA will be collecting, are available
in the public docket for this ICR. The docket can be viewed online at
https://www.regulations.gov, or in person, at the EPA Docket Center,
WJC West Building, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW, Washington,
DC. The telephone number for the Docket Center is<PHONE_NUMBER>. For
additional information about EPA's public docket, visit http://www.epa.gov/dockets.
    Abstract: The National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants (NESHAP) for Magnetic Tape Manufacturing Operations (40 CFR
part

63, subpart EE) were proposed on March 11, 1994; promulgated on
December 15, 1994; and amended on April 9, 1999. These regulations
apply to existing and new magnetic tape manufacturing operations
facilities, including solvent storage tanks, mix preparation equipment,
coating operations, waste handling devices, and condenser vents
associated with solvent recovery. New facilities include those that
commenced either construction, modification, or reconstruction after
the date of proposal. This information is being collected to assure
compliance with 40 CFR part 63, subpart EE.
    Form Numbers: None.
    Respondents/affected entities: Existing and new magnetic tape
manufacturing operations facilities, including solvent storage tanks,
mix preparation equipment, coating operations, waste handling devices,
and condenser vents associated with solvent recovery.
    Respondent's obligation to respond: Mandatory (40 CFR part 63,
subpart EE).
    Estimated number of respondents: 3 (total).
    Frequency of response: Initially, quarterly, and semiannually.
    Total estimated burden: 2,240 hours (per year). Burden is defined
at 5 CFR 1320.3(b).
    Total estimated cost: $302,000 (per year), which includes $33,000
in annualized capital/startup and/or operation & maintenance costs.
    Changes in the Estimates: There is decrease in the total estimated
respondent burden compared with the ICR currently approved by OMB. The
adjustment decrease in burden from the most recently approved ICR is
due to a decrease in the number of sources. Based on a review of ECHO
sources and consultations with the Agency's internal industry experts,
three sources are identified to be subject to this rule. The previous
ICR indicated four sources. The overall result is a decrease in burden
and operation and maintenance costs. This ICR continues to assume that
at least one existing source will construct a new line with enclosure
each year, therefore, there is no change the capital costs estimated in
the currently approved ICR.

Courtney Kerwin,
Director, Regulatory Support Division.
[FR Doc. 2022-25626 Filed 11-23-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P