[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 173 (Friday, September 6, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Pages 47009-47019]
[FR Doc No: 2019-19215]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-86839; File No. SR-EMERALD-2019-31]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; MIAX Emerald, LLC; Notice of
Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To Adopt
System Connectivity Fees

August 30, 2019.
    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 August 23, 2019, MIAX Emerald, LLC (``MIAX Emerald'' or
``Exchange''), filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') a proposed rule change as described in Items I, II,
and III below, which Items have been prepared by the Exchange. The
Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the
proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange is filing a proposal to amend the MIAX Emerald Fee
Schedule (the ``Fee Schedule'') to adopt the Exchange's system
connectivity fees.
    The Exchange previously filed the proposal on June 26, 2019 (SR-
EMERALD-2019-24). That filing has been withdrawn and replaced with the
current filing (SR-EMERALD-2019-31).
    The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's
website at http://www.miaxoptions.com/rule-filings/emerald, at MIAX's
principal office, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange is refiling its proposal to amend the Fee Schedule
regarding connectivity to the Exchange in order to provide greater
detail and clarity concerning the Exchange's cost allocation, as it
pertains to the Exchange's expenses for network connectivity services.
In order to determine the Exchange's costs associated with providing
network connectivity services, the Exchange conducted an extensive cost
allocation review process in which the Exchange did a line-by-line
analysis of the Exchange's general expense ledger to determine which of
those expenses relate to the provision of network connectivity
services, and, if related, what portion (or allocation) of such expense
should be attributed to the cost of providing network connectivity
services. The Exchange is now presenting the results of the cost
allocation review in a way that corresponds directly with income
statement expense line items to provide greater transparency into its
actual costs associated with providing network connectivity services.
Based on this analysis, the Exchange believes that its proposed fees
are fair and reasonable because they will permit recovery of less than
all of the Exchange's costs for providing connectivity and will not
result in excessive pricing or supracompetitive profit, when comparing
the Exchange's total annual expense associated with providing the
network connectivity services versus the total projected annual revenue
the Exchange projects to collect for providing the network connectivity
services.
    Specifically, the Exchange proposes to amend Sections 5a) and b) of
the Fee Schedule to adopt the network connectivity fees for the 1
Gigabit (``Gb'') fiber connection and the 10Gb ultra-low latency
(``ULL'') fiber connection, which are charged to both Members \3\ and
non-Members of the

Exchange for connectivity to the Exchange's primary/secondary facility.
The Exchange also proposes to adopt network connectivity fees for the
1Gb and 10Gb fiber connections for connectivity to the Exchange's
disaster recovery facility. Each of these connections (with the
exception of the 10Gb ULL) are shared connections (collectively, the
``Shared Connections''), and thus can be utilized to access the
Exchange and both of the Exchange's affiliates, Miami International
Securities Exchange, LLC (``MIAX'') and MIAX PEARL, LLC (``MIAX
PEARL''). The 10Gb ULL connection is a dedicated connection
(``Dedicated Connection''), which provides network connectivity solely
to the trading platforms, market data systems, and test system
facilities of MIAX Emerald. These proposed fees are collectively
referred to herein as the ``Proposed Fees.'' The amounts of the
Proposed Fees for the Shared Connections are the same amounts that are
currently in place at MIAX and MIAX PEARL.\4\ While the Exchange is new
and only launched trading on March 1, 2019, since: (i) All of the
Proposed Fees (except for the fee relating to the 10Gb ULL connection)
relate to Shared Connections, and thus are the same amounts as are
currently in place at MIAX and MIAX PEARL; (ii) all of the Members of
MIAX Emerald are also members of either MIAX and/or MIAX PEARL, and
most of those Members already have connectivity to the Exchange via
existing Shared Connections (without paying any new incremental
connectivity fees), the Exchange is providing similar information to
that which was provided in the MIAX and PEARL Fee Filings, including
providing detail about the market participants impacted by the Proposed
Fees, as well as the costs incurred by the Exchange associated with
providing the connectivity alternatives, in order to provide
transparency and support relating to the Exchange's belief that the
Proposed Fees are reasonable, equitable, and non-discriminatory, and to
provide sufficient information for the Commission to determine that the
Proposed Fees are consistent with the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The term ``Member'' means an individual or organization
approved to exercise the trading rights associated with a Trading
Permit. Members are deemed ``members'' under the Exchange Act. See
Exchange Rule 100.
    \4\ See SR-MIAX-2019-31 and SR-PEARL-2019-21 (the ``MIAX and
PEARL Fee Filings'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange initially filed the Proposed Fees on March 1, 2019,
designating the Proposed Fees immediately effective.\5\ The First
Proposed Rule Change was published for comment in the Federal Register
on March 20, 2019.\6\ The First Proposed Rule Change provided
information about the market participants impacted by the Proposed
Fees, as well as the additional costs incurred by the Exchange
associated with providing the connectivity alternatives, in order to
provide transparency and support relating to the Exchange's belief that
the Proposed Fees are reasonable, equitable, and non-discriminatory,
and to provide sufficient information for the Commission to determine
that the Proposed Fees are consistent with the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 85316 (March 14,
2019), 84 FR 10350 (March 20, 2019) (SR-EMERALD-2019-11) (the
``First Proposed Rule Change'').
    \6\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On March 29, 2019, the Commission issued its Order Disapproving
Proposed Rule Changes to Amend the Fee Schedule on the BOX Market LLC
Options Facility to Establish BOX Connectivity Fees for Participants
and Non-Participants Who Connect to the BOX Network (the ``BOX
Order'').\7\ In the BOX Order, the Commission highlighted a number of
deficiencies it found in three separate rule filings by BOX Exchange
LLC (``BOX'') to increase BOX's connectivity fees that prevented the
Commission from finding that BOX's proposed connectivity fees were
consistent with the Act. These deficiencies relate to topics that the
Commission believes should be discussed in a connectivity fee filing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 85459 (March 29,
2019), 84 FR 13363 (April 4, 2019) (SR-BOX-2018-24, SR-BOX-2018-37,
and SR-BOX-2019-04).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    After the BOX Order was issued, the Commission received four
comment letters on the First Proposed Rule Change.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See Letter from Joseph W. Ferraro III, SVP & Deputy General
Counsel, MIAX, to Vanessa Countryman, Acting Secretary, Commission,
dated April 5, 2019 (``MIAX Letter''); Letter from Theodore R. Lazo,
Managing Director and Associate General Counsel, SIFMA, to Vanessa
Countryman, Acting Secretary, Commission, dated April 10, 2019
(``Second SIFMA Letter''); Letter from John Ramsay, Chief Market
Policy Officer, Investors Exchange LLC (``IEX''), to Vanessa
Countryman, Acting Secretary, Commission, dated April 10, 2019
(``IEX Letter''); and Letter from Tyler Gellasch, Executive
Director, Healthy Markets, to Brent J. Fields, Secretary,
Commission, dated April 18, 2019 (``Second Healthy Markets
Letter'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Second SIFMA Letter argued that the Exchange did not provide
sufficient information in its First Proposed Rule Change to support a
finding that the proposal should be approved by the Commission after
further review of the Proposed Fees. Specifically, the Second SIFMA
Letter argued that the Exchange's market data fees and connectivity
fees were not constrained by competitive forces, the Exchange's filing
lacked sufficient information regarding cost and competition, and that
the Commission should establish a framework for determining whether
fees for exchange products and services are reasonable when those
products and services are not constrained by significant competitive
forces.
    The IEX Letter argued that the Exchange did not provide sufficient
information in its First Proposed Rule Change to support a finding that
the proposal should be approved by the Commission and that the
Commission should extend the time for public comment on the First
Proposed Rule Change. Despite the objection to the Proposed Fees, the
IEX Letter did find that ``MIAX has provided more transparency and
analysis in these filings than other exchanges have sought to do for
their own fee increases.'' \9\ The IEX Letter specifically argued that
the Proposed Fees were not constrained by competition, the Exchange
should provide data on the Exchange's actual costs and how those costs
relate to the product or service in question, and whether and how MIAX
Emerald and its affiliates considered changes to transaction fees as an
alternative to offsetting exchange costs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See IEX Letter, pg. 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Second Healthy Markets Letter did not object to the First
Proposed Rule Change and the information provided by the Exchange in
support of the Proposed Fees. Specifically, the Second Healthy Markets
Letter stated that the First Proposed Rule Change was ``remarkably
different,'' and went on to further state as follows:

    The instant MIAX filings--along with their April 5th
supplement--provide much greater detail regarding users of
connectivity, the market for connectivity, and costs than the
Initial MIAX Filings. They also appear to address many of the issues
raised by the Commission staff's BOX disapproval order. This third
round of MIAX filings suggests that MIAX is operating in good faith
to provide what the Commission and staff seek.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See Second Healthy Markets Letter, pg. 2.

    On April 29, 2019, the Exchange withdrew the First Proposed Rule
Change.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See SR-EMERALD-2019-11.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange refiled the Proposed Fees on April 30, 2019,
designating the Proposed Fees immediately effective.\12\ The Second
Proposed Rule Change was published for comment in the Federal Register
on May 16, 2019.\13\ The Second

Proposed Rule Change provided further cost analysis information to
squarely and comprehensively address each and every topic raised for
discussion in the BOX Order, the IEX Letter and the Second SIFMA Letter
to ensure that the Proposed Fees are reasonable, equitable, and non-
discriminatory, and that the Commission should find that the Proposed
Fees are consistent with the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 85839 (May 10,
2019), 84 FR 22192 (May 16, 2019) (SR-EMERALD-2019-20) (the ``Second
Proposed Rule Change'') (Notice of Filing and Immediate
Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To Adopt System Connectivity
Fees).
    \13\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On May 21, 2019, the Commission issued the Staff Guidance on SRO
Rule Filings Relating to Fees (the ``Guidance'').\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ See Staff Guidance on SRO Rule Filings Relating to Fees
(May 21, 2019), at https://www.sec.gov/tm/staff-guidance-sro-rule-filings-fees.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission received two comment letters on the Second Proposed
Rule Change, after the Guidance was released.\15\ The Second IEX Letter
and the Third SIFMA Letter argued that the Exchange did not provide
sufficient information in its Second Proposed Rule Change to justify
the Proposed Fees based on the Guidance and the BOX Order. Of note,
however, is that unlike their previous comment letter, the Third SIFMA
Letter did not call for the Commission to suspend the Second Proposed
Rule Change. Also, Healthy Markets did not comment on the Second
Proposed Rule Change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ See Letter from John Ramsay, Chief Market Policy Officer,
IEX, to Vanessa Countryman, Acting Secretary, Commission, dated June
5, 2019 (the ``Second IEX Letter'') and Letter from Theodore R.
Lazo, Managing Director and Associate General Counsel, and Ellen
Greene, Managing Director, SIFMA, to Vanessa Countryman, Acting
Secretary, Commission, dated June 6, 2019 (the ``Third SIFMA
Letter'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On June 26, 2019, the Exchange withdrew the Second Proposed Rule
Change.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ See SR-EMERALD-2019-20.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange refiled the Proposed Fees on June 26, 2019,
designating the Proposed Fees immediately effective.\17\ The Third
Proposed Rule Change was published for comment in the Federal Register
on July 16, 2019.\18\ The Third Proposed Rule Change bolstered the
Exchange's previous cost-based discussion to support its claim that the
Proposed Fees are fair and reasonable because they will permit recovery
of the Exchange's costs and will not result in excessive pricing or
supracompetitive profit, in light of the Guidance issued by Commission
staff subsequent to the Second Proposed Rule Change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 86344 (July 10,
2019), 84 FR 34030 (July 16, 2019) (SR-EMERALD-2019-24) (the ``Third
Proposed Rule Change'').
    \18\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission received three comment letters on the Third Proposed
Rule Change.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ See Letter from John Ramsay, Chief Market Policy Officer,
IEX, to Vanessa Countryman, Acting Secretary, Commission, dated
August 8, 2019 (``Third IEX Letter''); Letter from Tyler Gellasch,
Executive Director, Healthy Markets, to Vanessa Countryman, Acting
Secretary, Commission, dated August 5, 2019 (``Third Healthy Markets
Letter''); and Letter from Theodore R. Lazo, Managing Director and
Associate General Counsel and Ellen Greene, Managing Director
Financial Services Operations, SIFMA, to Vanessa Countryman, Acting
Secretary, Commission, dated August 5, 2019 (``Fourth SIFMA
Letter'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Neither the Third Healthy Markets Letter nor the Fourth SIFMA
Letter called for the Commission to suspend or disapprove the Proposed
Fee Increases. In fact, the Third Healthy Markets Letter acknowledged
that ``it appears as though MIAX is operating in good faith to provide
what the Commission, its staff, and market participants the information
needed to appropriately assess the filings.'' The Third IEX Letter only
reiterated points from the Second IEX Letter and failed to address any
of the new information in the Fifth Proposed Rule Change concerning the
Exchange's revenue figures, cost allocation or that the Proposed Fee
Increases did not result in excessive pricing or a supracompetitive
profit for the Exchange.
    On August 23, 2019, the Exchange withdrew the Third Proposed Rule
Change.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ See SR-EMERALD-2019-24.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange is now refiling the Proposed Fees to provide greater
detail concerning the Exchange's revenue and cost allocation as it
pertains to the Exchange's connectivity costs. Further, the Exchange
believes that the Proposed Fees are consistent with the Act because
they (i) are reasonable, equitably allocated, not unfairly
discriminatory, and not an undue burden on competition; (ii) comply
with the BOX Order and the Guidance; (iii) are supported by evidence
(including data and analysis), constrained by significant competitive
forces; and (iv) are supported by specific information (including
quantitative information), fair and reasonable because they will permit
recovery of the Exchange's costs (less than all) and will not result in
excessive pricing or supracompetitive profit. Accordingly, the Exchange
believes that the Commission should find that the Proposed Fees are
consistent with the Act. The proposed rule change is immediately
effective upon filing with the Commission pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A) of the Act.
    The Exchange offers to both Members and non-Members various
bandwidth alternatives for connectivity to the Exchange, to its primary
and secondary facilities, consisting of a 1Gb fiber connection and a
10Gb ULL fiber connection. The 10Gb ULL offering uses an ultra-low
latency switch, which provides faster processing of messages sent to it
in comparison to the switch used for the other types of connectivity.
The Exchange also offers to both Members and non-Members various
bandwidth alternatives for connectivity to the Exchange, to its
disaster recovery facility, consisting of a 1Gb fiber connection and a
10Gb connection.
    For the Shared Connections, the Exchange's MIAX Express Network
Interconnect (``MENI'') can be configured to provide Members and non-
Members of the Exchange network connectivity to the trading platforms,
market data systems, test systems, and disaster recovery facilities of
the Exchange and its affiliates, MIAX and MIAX PEARL, via a single,
shared connection. Any Member or non-Member can purchase a Shared
Connection.
    For the Dedicated Connection, the Exchange's MENI is configured to
provide Members and non-Members of the Exchange network connectivity to
the trading platforms, market data systems, test systems, and disaster
recovery facilities of the Exchange. Any Member or non-Member can
purchase a Dedicated Connection. The Exchange determined to design its
network architecture in a manner that offered 10Gb ULL connections as
dedicated connections (as opposed to shared connections) in order to
provide cost saving opportunities for itself and for its Members, by
reducing the amount of equipment that the Exchange would have to
purchase and to which the Members would have to connect. Accordingly,
the Exchange is able to offer to its Members 10Gb ULL connectivity at a
lower price point than is offered on MIAX and MIAX PEARL, the price
difference being reflective of the lower cost to the Exchange.
    For the Shared Connections, Members and non-Members utilizing the
MENI to connect to the trading platforms, market data systems, test
systems and disaster recovery facilities of the Exchange, MIAX, and
MIAX PEARL via a single, shared connection are assessed only one
monthly network connectivity fee per connection, regardless of the
trading platforms, market data systems, test systems, and disaster
recovery facilities accessed via such connection. Thus, since all of
the Members of MIAX Emerald are also members of either

MIAX and/or MIAX PEARL, and most of those Members already have
connectivity to the Exchange via existing Shared Connections, most
Members of MIAX Emerald have instant connectivity to the Exchange
without paying any new incremental connectivity fees, as more fully-
detailed below.
    The Exchange proposes to establish the monthly network connectivity
fees for such connections for both Members and non-Members. As
discussed above, the amounts of the Proposed Fees for the Shared
Connections are the same amounts that are currently in place at MIAX
and MIAX PEARL. The amount of the Proposed Fee for the Dedicated
Connection is offered at a substantial discount to the amount currently
in place at MIAX and MIAX PEARL. The reasons for the substantial
discount are that the Dedicated Connection offers access to only a
single market (the Exchange), whereas the 10Gb ULL connection offered
by MIAX and MIAX PEARL offers access to two markets (MIAX and MIAX
PEARL), as well as cost savings the Exchange was able to achieve (and
thus pass through to its Members) as a result of a dedicated
architecture. The network connectivity fees for connectivity to the
Exchange's primary/secondary facility will be as follows: (a) 1,400 for
the 1Gb connection; and (b) $6,000 for the 10Gb ULL connection. The
network connectivity fees for connectivity to the Exchange's disaster
recovery facility will be as follows: (a) $550 for the 1Gb connection;
and (b) $2,750 for the 10Gb connection.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that its proposal to amend its Fee Schedule
is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act \21\ in general, and
furthers the objectives of Section 6(b)(4) of the Act \22\ in
particular, in that it provides for the equitable allocation of
reasonable dues, fees and other charges among Exchange Members and
issuers and other persons using any facility or system which the
Exchange operates or controls. The Exchange also believes the proposal
furthers the objectives of Section 6(b)(5) of the Act \23\ in that it
is designed to promote just and equitable principles of trade, to
remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open
market and a national market system, and, in general to protect
investors and the public interest and is not designed to permit unfair
discrimination between customer, issuers, brokers and dealers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \22\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).
    \23\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission has repeatedly expressed its preference for
competition over regulatory intervention in determining prices,
products, and services in the securities markets. 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.'' \24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 51808 (June 9,
2005), 70 FR 37496 (June 29, 2005).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    First, the Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with
Section 6(b)(4) of the Act, in that the Proposed Fees are fair,
equitable and not unreasonably discriminatory, because the fees for the
connectivity alternatives available on the Exchange, as proposed, are
constrained by significant competitive forces. The U.S. options markets
are highly competitive (there are currently 16 options markets) and a
reliance on competitive markets is an appropriate means to ensure
equitable and reasonable prices.
    The Exchange acknowledges that there is no regulatory requirement
that any market participant connect to the Exchange, or that any
participant connect at any specific connection speed. The rule
structure for options exchanges are, in fact, fundamentally different
from those of equities exchanges. In particular, options market
participants are not forced to connect to (and purchase market data
from) all options exchanges, as shown by the number of Members of MIAX
Emerald as compared to the much greater number of members at other
options exchanges (as further detailed below). MIAX Emerald is a brand
new exchange, having only commenced operations in March 2019. Not only
does MIAX Emerald have less than half the number of members as certain
other options exchanges, but there are also a number of the Exchange's
Members that do not connect directly to MIAX Emerald. Further, of the
number of Members that connect directly to MIAX Emerald, many such
Members do not purchase market data from MIAX Emerald. There are a
number of large market makers and broker-dealers that are members of
other options exchanges but not Members of MIAX Emerald. For example,
the following are not Members of MIAX Emerald: The D. E. Shaw Group,
CTC, XR Trading LLC, Hardcastle Trading AG, Ronin Capital LLC,
Belvedere Trading, LLC, Bluefin Trading, and HAP Capital LLC. In
addition, of the market makers that are connected to MIAX Emerald, it
is the individual needs of the market maker that require whether they
need one connection or multiple connections to the Exchange. The
Exchange has market maker Members that only purchase one connection and
the Exchange has market maker Members that purchase multiple
connections. It is all driven by the business needs of the market
maker. Market makers that are consolidators that target resting order
flow tend to purchase more connectivity than market makers that simply
quote all symbols on the Exchange. Even though non-Members purchase and
resell 10Gb ULL connections to both Members and non-Members, no market
makers currently connect to the Exchange indirectly through such
resellers.
    SIFMA's argument that all broker-dealers are required to connect to
all exchanges is not true in the options markets. The options markets
have evolved differently than the equities markets both in terms of
market structure and functionality. For example, there are many order
types that are available in the equities markets that are not utilized
in the options markets, which relate to mid-point pricing and pegged
pricing which require connection to the SIPs and each of the equities
exchanges in order to properly execute those orders in compliance with
best execution obligations. In addition, in the options markets there
is a single SIP (OPRA) versus two SIPs in the equities markets,
resulting in fewer hops and thus alleviating the need to connect
directly to all the options exchanges. Additionally, in the options
markets, the linkage routing and trade through protection are handled
by the exchanges, not by the individual members. Thus not connecting to
an options exchange or disconnecting from an options exchange does not
potentially subject a broker-dealer to violate order protection
requirements as suggested by SIFMA. Gone are the days when the retail
brokerage firms (the Fidelity's, the Schwab's, the eTrade's) were
members of the options exchanges--they are not members of MIAX Emerald
or its affiliates, MIAX and MIAX PEARL, they do not purchase
connectivity to MIAX Emerald, and they do not purchase market data from
MIAX Emerald. The Exchange further recognizes that the decision of
whether to connect to the Exchange is separate and distinct from the
decision of whether and how to trade on the

Exchange. The Exchange acknowledges that many firms may choose to
connect to the Exchange, but ultimately not trade on it, based on their
particular business needs.
    To assist prospective Members or firms considering connecting to
MIAX Emerald, the Exchange provides information about the Exchange's
available connectivity alternatives in a Connectivity Guide, which
contains detailed specifications regarding, among other things,
throughput and latency for each available connection.\25\ The decision
of which type of connectivity to purchase, or whether to purchase
connectivity at all for a particular exchange, is based on the business
needs of the firm. For example, if the firm wants to receive the top-
of-market data feed product or depth data feed product, due to the
amount/size of data contained in those feeds, such firm would need to
purchase a 10Gb ULL connection. The 1Gb connection is too small to
support those data feed products. MIAX Emerald notes that there are
twelve (12) Members that only purchase the 1Gb connectivity
alternative. Thus, while there is a meaningful percentage of purchasers
of only 1Gb connections (12 of 33), by definition, those twelve (12)
members purchase connectivity that cannot support the top-of-market
data feed product or depth data feed product and thus they do not
purchase such data feed products. Accordingly, purchasing market data
is a business decision/choice, and thus the pricing for it is
constrained by competition.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ See the MIAX Connectivity Guide at https://www.miaxoptions.com/sites/default/files/page-files/MIAX_Connectivity_Guide_v3.6_01142019.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Contrary to SIFMA's argument, there is competition for connectivity
to MIAX Emerald and its affiliates. MIAX Emerald competes with eight
(8) non-Members, who resell MIAX Emerald connectivity. These are
resellers of MIAX Emerald connectivity--they are not arrangements
between broker-dealers to share connectivity costs, as SIFMA suggests.
Those non-Members resell that connectivity to multiple market
participants over that same connection, including both Members and non-
Members of MIAX Emerald (typically extranets and service bureaus). When
connectivity is re-sold by a third-party, MIAX Emerald does not receive
any connectivity revenue from that sale. It is entirely between the
third-party and the purchaser, thus constraining the ability of MIAX
Emerald to set its connectivity pricing as indirect connectivity is a
substitute for direct connectivity. In fact, there are currently seven
(7) non-Members that purchase 1Gb direct connectivity that are able to
access MIAX Emerald, MIAX and MIAX PEARL. Those non-Members resell that
connectivity to eight (8) customers, some of whom are agency broker-
dealers that have tens of customers of their own. Some of those eight
(8) customers also purchase connectivity directly from MIAX Emerald
and/or its affiliates, MIAX and MIAX PEARL. Accordingly, indirect
connectivity is a viable alternative used by non-Members of MIAX
Emerald, constraining the price that MIAX Emerald is able to charge for
connectivity to its Exchange.
    The Exchange,\26\ MIAX,\27\ and MIAX PEARL \28\ are comprised of 41
distinct members amongst all three exchanges, excluding any additional
affiliates of such members that are also members of the Exchange, MIAX,
MIAX PEARL, or any combination thereof. Of those 41 distinct members,
28 of those distinct members are Members of MIAX Emerald. (Currently,
there are no Members of MIAX Emerald that are not also members of MIAX
or MIAX PEARL, or both.) Of those 28 distinct Members of MIAX Emerald,
there are 6 Members that have no connectivity to the Exchange. Members
are not forced to purchase connectivity to the Exchange, and these
Members have elected not to purchase such connectivity. Of note, these
same 6 Members also do not have connectivity to either MIAX or MIAX
PEARL. These Members either trade indirectly through other Members or
non-Members that have connectivity to the Exchange, or do not trade and
conduct another type of business on the Exchange. Of the remaining 22
distinct Members of MIAX Emerald, all 22 of those distinct Members
already had connectivity to the Exchange via existing Shared
Connections, thus providing all such 22 MIAX Emerald Members with
instant connectivity to the Exchange without paying any new incremental
connectivity fees.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ The Exchange has 28 distinct Members, excluding affiliated
entities. See MIAX Emerald Exchange Member Directory, available at
https://www.miaxoptions.com.
    \27\ MIAX has 38 distinct Members, excluding affiliated
entities. See MIAX Exchange Member Directory, available at https://www.miaxoptions.com.
    \28\ MIAX PEARL has 36 distinct Members, excluding affiliated
entities. See MIAX PEARL Exchange Member Directory, available at
https://www.miaxoptions.com.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Further, of those 22 Members, 14 of such Members elected to
purchase additional connectivity to the Exchange, including additional
Shared Connections and additional Dedicated Connections. The Exchange
made available in advance to all of its prospective Members its
proposed connectivity pricing (subject to regulatory clearance), in
order for those prospective Members to make an informed decision about
whether to become a Member of the Exchange and whether to purchase
connectivity to the Exchange. Accordingly, each such Member made the
decision to become a Member of the Exchange and to purchase
connectivity to the Exchange, knowing in advance the connectivity
pricing. And the vast majority of the additional connectivity purchased
by those Members were for Dedicated Connections, the most expensive
connectivity option.
    As a result, of those 22 Members, through existing Shared
Connections, newly purchased Shared Connections, and newly purchased
Dedicated Connections: 14 Members have 1Gb (primary/secondary)
connections; 13 Members have 10Gb ULL (primary/secondary) connections;
3 Members have 10Gb (disaster recovery) connections; and 10 Members
have 1Gb (disaster recovery) connections, or some combination of
multiple various connections. All such Members with those Shared
Connections and Dedicated Connections trade on MIAX Emerald.
    The 6 Members who have not purchased any connectivity to the
Exchange are still able to trade on the Exchange indirectly through
other Members or non-Member service bureaus that are connected. These 6
Members who have not purchased connectivity are not forced or compelled
to purchase connectivity, and they retain all of the other benefits of
membership with the Exchange. Accordingly, Members have the choice to
purchase connectivity and are not compelled to do so in any way.
    In addition, there are 5 non-Member service bureaus that already
have connectivity to the Exchange via existing Shared Connections, thus
providing all 5 of those non-Member service bureaus with instant
connectivity to the Exchange without paying any new incremental
connectivity fees. These non-Members freely purchased their
connectivity from one of the Exchange's affiliates, either MIAX or MIAX
PEARL, in order to offer trading services to other firms and customers,
as well as access to the market data services that their connections to
the Exchange provide them, but they are not required or compelled to
purchase any of the Exchange's connectivity options.

    The Exchange believes that the Proposed Fees are fair, equitable
and not unreasonably discriminatory because the connectivity pricing is
associated with relative usage of the various market participants and
does not impose a barrier to entry to smaller participants.
Accordingly, the Exchange offers two direct connectivity alternatives
and various indirect connectivity (via third-party) alternatives, as
described above. MIAX Emerald recognizes that there are various
business models and varying sizes of market participants conducting
business on the Exchange. The 1Gb direct connectivity alternative is 1/
10th the size of the 10Gb ULL direct connectivity alternative. Because
it is 1/10th of the size, it does not offer access to many of the
products and services offered by the Exchange, such as the ability to
quote or receive certain market data products. Thus, the value of the
1Gb alternative is much lower than value of a 10Gb ULL alternative,
when measured based on the type of Exchange access it offers, which is
the basis for difference in price between a 1Gb connection and a 10Gb
ULL connection. Approximately just less than half of MIAX Emerald, MIAX
and MIAX PEARL Members that connect (15 out of 33) purchase 1Gb
connections. The 1Gb direct connection can support the sending of
orders and the consumption of all market data feed products, other than
the top-of-market data feed product or depth data feed product (which
require a 10Gb connection). The 1Gb direct connection is generally
purchased by market participants that utilize less bandwidth and,
therefore, consume less resources from the network. The market
participants that purchase 10Gb ULL direct connections utilize the most
bandwidth, and those are the participants that consume the most
resources from the network. Accordingly, the Exchange believes the
allocation of the Proposed Fees ($6,000 for a 10Gb ULL connection
versus $1,400 for a 1Gb connection) are reasonable based on the network
resources consumed by the market participants--lowest bandwidth
consuming members pay the least, and highest bandwidth consuming
members pays the most, particularly since higher bandwidth consumption
translates to higher costs to the Exchange. The 10Gb ULL connection
offers optimized connectivity for latency sensitive participants. This
lower latency is achieved through more advanced network equipment, such
as advanced hardware and switching components, which translates to
increased costs to the Exchange.
    The Exchange launched trading on March 1, 2019. Thus, at the time
that the 14 Members who elected to purchase connectivity to the
Exchange, the Exchange was untested and unproven, and had 0% market
share of the U.S. options industry. For July of 2019, the Exchange had
only a 0.68% market share of the U.S. options industry in Equity/ETF
classes according to the OCC.\29\ For July of 2019, the Exchange's
affiliate, MIAX, had only 3.61% market share of the U.S. options
industry in Equity/ETF classes according to the OCC.\30\ For July of
2019, the Exchange's affiliate, MIAX PEARL, had only 5.08% market share
of the U.S. options industry in Equity/ETF classes according to the
OCC.\31\ The Exchange is not aware of any evidence that a combined
market share less than 10% provides the Exchange with anti-competitive
pricing power. This, in addition to the fact that not all broker-
dealers are required to connect to all options exchanges, supports the
Exchange's conclusion that its pricing is constrained by competition.
Certainly, an untested and unproven exchange, with less than 1% market
share in any month, and no rule or requirement that a market
participant must join or connect to it, does not have anti-competitive
pricing power, with respect to setting the pricing for the Dedicated
Connections or the Shared Connections. If the Exchange were to attempt
to establish unreasonable connectivity pricing, then no market
participant would join or connect. Therefore, since 28 distinct Members
joined MIAX Emerald and 14 of those distinct Members purchased
additional connectivity to the Exchange, all knowing, in advance, the
connectivity fees, the Exchange believes the Proposed Fees are
reasonable, equitable, and not unfairly discriminatory.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ See Exchange Market Share of Equity Products--2019, The
Options Clearing Corporation, available at https://www.theocc.com/webapps/exchange-volume.
    \30\ Id.
    \31\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Separately, the Exchange is not aware of any reason why market
participants could not simply drop their connections and cease being
Members of the Exchange if the Exchange were to establish unreasonable
and uncompetitive price increases for its connectivity alternatives.
Market participants choose to connect to a particular exchange and
because it is a choice, MIAX Emerald must set reasonable connectivity
pricing, otherwise prospective members would not connect and existing
members would disconnect or connect through a third-party reseller of
connectivity. No options market participant is required by rule,
regulation, or competitive forces to be a Member of the Exchange. As
evidence of the fact that market participants can and do disconnect
from exchanges based on connectivity pricing, see the R2G Services LLC
(``R2G'') letter based on BOX's proposed rule changes to increase its
connectivity fees (SR-BOX-2018-24, SR-BOX-2018-37, and SR-BOX-2019-
04).\32\ The R2G Letter stated, ``[w]hen BOX instituted a $10,000/month
price increase for connectivity; we had no choice but to terminate
connectivity into them as well as terminate our market data
relationship. The cost benefit analysis just didn't make any sense for
us at those new levels.'' Accordingly, this example shows that if an
exchange sets too high of a fee for connectivity and/or market data
services for its relevant marketplace, market participants can choose
to disconnect from the exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \32\ See Letter from Stefano Durdic, R2G, to Vanessa Countryman,
Acting Secretary, Commission, dated March 27, 2019 (the ``R2G
Letter'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Several market participants choose not to be Members of the
Exchange and choose not to access the Exchange, and several market
participants are proposing to access the Exchange indirectly through
another market participant. To illustrate, the Exchange has only 34
total Members (including all such Members' affiliate Members). However,
Cboe Exchange, Inc. (``Cboe'') has over 200 members,\33\ Nasdaq ISE,
LLC has approximately 100 members,\34\ and NYSE American LLC has over
80 members.\35\ If all market participants were required to be Members
of the Exchange and connect directly to the Exchange, the Exchange
would have over 200 Members, in line with Cboe's total membership. But
it does not. The Exchange only has 34 Members.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \33\ See Form 1/A, filed August 30, 2018 (https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/vprr/1800/18002831.pdf); Form 1/A, filed August 30,
2018 (https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/vprr/1800/18002833.pdf);
Form 1/A, filed July 24, 2018 (https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/vprr/1800/18002781.pdf); Form 1/A, filed August 30, 2018 (https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1473845/999999999718007832/9999999997-18-007832-index.htm).
    \34\ See Form 1/A, filed July 1, 2016 (https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/vprr/1601/16019243.pdf).
    \35\ See https://www.nyse.com/markets/american-options/membership#directory.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Further, since there are 41 distinct members amongst all three
exchanges, and only 28 of those distinct members decided to become
Members of MIAX Emerald, there were 13 distinct

members that decided not to become Members of MIAX Emerald. This
further reinforces the fact that all market participants are not
required to be Members of the Exchange and are not required to connect
to the Exchange. It is a choice whether to join and it is a choice to
connect. Therefore, the Exchange believes that the Proposed Fees are
fair, equitable, and non-discriminatory, as the fees are competitive.
    With respect to the now MIAX Emerald Members that had Shared
Connections in place as of August 1, 2018 (via a previously purchased
Shared Connection from MIAX or MIAX PEARL), the Exchange finds it
compelling that all of those Members continued to purchase those Shared
Connections after August 1, 2018, when MIAX and MIAX PEARL increased
the connectivity fees for the Shared Connections to the current amounts
proposed by the Exchange herein. In particular, the Exchange believes
that the Proposed Fees for the Shared Connections are reasonable
because MIAX and MIAX PEARL, which charge the same amount for the
Shared Connections, did not lose any Members (or the number of Shared
Connections each Member purchased) or non-Member Shared Connections
when MIAX and MIAX PEARL proposed to increase the connectivity fees for
the Shared Connections on August 1, 2018. For example, with respect to
the Shared Connections maintained by now Members of MIAX Emerald who
had Shared Connections in place as of July 2018, 12 Members purchased
1Gb connections. The vast majority of those Members purchased multiple
such connections, the number of connections depending on their
throughput requirements based on the volume of their quote/order
traffic and market data needs associated with their business model.
After the fee increase, beginning August 1, 2018, the same 12 Members
purchased 1Gb connections. Furthermore, the total number of connections
did not decrease from July to August.
    Further, with respect to the Shared Connections maintained by now
Members of MIAX Emerald who had Shared Connections in place as of July
2018, of those Members and non-Members that bought multiple
connections, no firm dropped any connections beginning August 1, 2018,
when MIAX and MIAX PEARL increased its fees. Furthermore, the Exchange
understands that MIAX and MIAX PEARL did not receive any official
comment letters or complaints from any now Members of MIAX Emerald who
had Shared Connections in place as of July 2018 regarding the increased
fees regarding how the change was unreasonable, unduly burdensome, or
would negatively impact their competitiveness amongst other market
participants. These facts, coupled with the discussion above, showing
that it is not necessary to join and/or connect to all options
exchanges and market participants can disconnect if pricing is set too
high (the R2G example),\36\ demonstrate that the Exchange's fees are
constrained by competition and are reasonable and not contrary to the
Law of Demand as SIFMA suggests. Therefore, the Exchange believes that
the Proposed Fees are fair, equitable, and non-discriminatory, as the
fees are competitive.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \36\ See supra note 32.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that the Proposed Fees are equitably
allocated among Members and non-Members, as evidenced by the fact that
the fees are allocated across all connectivity alternatives, and there
is not a disproportionate number of Members purchasing any
alternative--14 Members have 1Gb (primary/secondary) connections; 14
Members have 10Gb ULL (primary/secondary) connections; 3 Members have
10Gb (disaster recovery) connections; and 11 Members have 1Gb (disaster
recovery) connections, or some combination of multiple various
connections. Further, the Exchange believes that the fees are
reasonably allocated as the users of the higher bandwidth connections
consume the most resources of the Exchange's network. It is these firms
that also account for the vast majority of the Exchange's trading
volume. The purchasers of the 10Gb ULL connectivity account for
approximately 79% of the volume on the Exchange. For example, for all
of July 2019, 1.9 million contracts of the 2.4 million contracts
executed were done by the top market making firms on the Exchange in
simple (non-complex) volume.
    Second, the Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with
Section 6(b)(4) of the Act because the Proposed Fees will permit
recovery of the Exchange's costs and will not result in excessive or
supracompetitive profit. The Proposed Fees will allow the Exchange to
recover a portion (less than all) of the costs incurred by the Exchange
associated with providing and maintaining the necessary hardware and
other infrastructure to support this technology. The Exchange believes
that it is reasonable and appropriate to establish its fees charged for
use of its connectivity at a level that will partially offset the costs
to the Exchange associated with maintaining and enhancing a state-of-
the-art exchange network infrastructure in the U.S. options industry.
    The costs associated with making the network accessible to Exchange
Members and non-Members, through the expansion associated with new
Shared Connections and Dedicated Connections, as well as the general
expansion of a state-of-the-art infrastructure, are extensive, have
increased year-over-year in the past two years, and are projected to
increase year-over-year in the future. This is due to several factors,
including costs associated with maintaining and expanding a team of
highly-skilled network engineers, fees charged by the Exchange's third-
party data center operator, and costs associated with projects and
initiatives designed to improve overall network performance and
stability, through the Exchange's research and development (``R&D'')
efforts.
    In order to provide more detail and to quantify the Exchange's
costs, the Exchange notes that costs are associated with the
infrastructure and headcount to fully-support the advances in
infrastructure and expansion of network level services, including
customer monitoring, alerting and reporting. The Exchange incurs
technology expenses related to establishing and maintaining Information
Security services, enhanced network monitoring and customer reporting,
as well as Regulation SCI mandated processes, associated with its
network technology. Additionally, the Exchange incurred costs in the
expansion/buildout of the network leading up to the launch of
operations, and the network maintenance costs continue to increase
year-over-year. While some of the expense is fixed, much of the expense
is not fixed, and thus increases as the number of connections increase.
For example, new 1Gb and 10Gb ULL connections require the purchase of
additional hardware to support those connections as well as enhanced
monitoring and reporting of customer performance that MIAX Emerald and
its affiliates provide. And 10Gb ULL connections require the purchase
of specialized, more costly hardware. Further, as the total number of
all connections increase, MIAX Emerald and its affiliates need to
increase their data center footprint and consume more power, resulting
in increased costs charged by their third-party data center provider.
Accordingly, the cost to MIAX Emerald and its affiliates is not
entirely fixed. Just the initial fixed cost buildout of the network

infrastructure of MIAX Emerald and its affiliates, including both
primary/secondary sites and disaster recovery, was over $30 million.
    A more detailed breakdown of the expense increases since the
initial phases of the buildout of the Exchange over two years ago
include the following: With respect to the network, there has been an
approximate 70% increase in technology-related personnel costs in
infrastructure, due to expansion of services/support (increase of
approximately $800,000); an approximate 10% increase in datacenter
costs due to price increases and footprint expansion (increase of
approximately $500,000); an approximate 5% increase in vendor-supplied
dark fiber due to price increases and expanded capabilities (increase
of approximately $25,000); and a 30% increase in market data
connectivity fees (increase of approximately $200,000). Of note,
regarding market data connectivity fee cost, this is the cost
associated with MIAX Emerald consuming connectivity/content from the
equities markets in order to operate the Exchange, causing MIAX Emerald
to effectively pay its competitors for this connectivity.
    There was also significant capital expenditures over this same
period to upgrade and enhance the underlying technology components. The
Exchange believes that it is reasonable and appropriate to establish
its fees charged for use of its connectivity at a level that will
partially offset the costs to the Exchange associated with the
buildout, maintenance, and enhancement of its network infrastructure.
    Further, because the costs of operating a data center are
significant and not economically feasible for the Exchange, the
Exchange does not operate its own data centers, and instead contracts
with a third-party data center provider. The Exchange notes that
larger, dominant exchange operators own/operate their data centers,
which offers them greater control over their data center costs. Because
those exchanges own and operate their data centers as profit centers,
the Exchange is subject to additional costs. Connectivity fees, which
are charged for accessing the Exchange's data center network
infrastructure, are directly related to the network and offset costs
such costs.
    Further, the Exchange invests significant resources in network R&D
to improve the overall performance and stability of its network. For
example, the Exchange has a number of network monitoring tools (some of
which were developed in-house, and some of which are licensed from
third-parties), that continually monitor, detect, and report network
performance, many of which serve as significant value-adds to the
Exchange's Members and enable the Exchange to provide a high level of
customer service. These tools detect and report performance issues, and
thus enable the Exchange to proactively notify a Member (and the SIPs)
when the Exchange detects a problem with a Member's connectivity. The
Exchange also incurs costs associated with the maintenance and
improvement of existing tools and the development of new tools.
    Certain recently developed network aggregation and monitoring tools
provide the Exchange with the ability to measure network traffic with a
much more granular level of variability. This is important as Exchange
Members demand a higher level of network determinism and the ability to
measure variability in terms of single digit nanoseconds. Also, routine
R&D projects to improve the performance of the network's hardware
infrastructure result in additional cost. As an example, in the last
year, R&D efforts resulted in a performance improvement, requiring the
purchase of new equipment to support that improvement, and thus
resulting in increased costs in the hundreds of thousands of dollars
range. In sum, the costs associated with maintaining and enhancing a
state-of-the-art exchange network infrastructure in the U.S. options
industry is a significant expense for the Exchange that also increases
year-over-year, and thus the Exchange believes that it is reasonable to
offset a portion of those costs through establishing network
connectivity fees, as proposed herein. Overall, the Proposed Fees are
projected to offset only a portion of the Exchange's network
connectivity costs. The Exchange invests in and offers a superior
network infrastructure as part of its overall options exchange services
offering, resulting in significant costs associated with maintaining
this network infrastructure, which are directly tied to the amount of
the connectivity fees that must be charged to access it, in order to
recover those costs. As detailed in the Exchange's 2018 audited
financial statements which will be publicly available as part of the
Exchange's Form 1 Amendment, the Exchange only has four primary sources
of revenue: Transaction fees, access fees (of which network
connectivity constitute the majority), regulatory fees, and market data
fees. Accordingly, the Exchange must cover all of its expenses from
these four primary sources of revenue.
    The Proposed Fees are fair and reasonable because they will not
result in excessive pricing or supracompetitive profit, when comparing
the total annual expense of MIAX Emerald associated with providing
network connectivity services versus the total projected annual revenue
of the Exchange associated with providing network connectivity
services. For 2018, the total annual expense associated with providing
network connectivity services for MIAX Emerald was approximately $4.7
million. The $4.7 million in total annual expense is comprised of the
following, all of which are directly related to the provision of
network connectivity services by MIAX Emerald to its respective Members
and non-Members: (1) Third-party expense, relating to fees paid by MIAX
Emerald to third-parties for certain products and services; and (2)
internal expense, relating to the internal costs of MIAX Emerald to
provide the network connectivity services. All such expenses are more
fully-described below, and are mapped to MIAX Emerald's 2018 Statements
of Operations and Member's Deficit (the ``2018 Financial Statements'')
which are filed with the Commission as part of the Form 1 Amendment of
MIAX Emerald and are available to the public.
    For 2018, total third-party expense, relating to fees paid by MIAX
Emerald to third-parties for certain products and services for the
Exchange to be able to provide network connectivity services, was
$728,246. This includes, but is not limited to, a portion of the fees
paid to: (1) Equinix, for data center services, for the primary,
secondary, and disaster recovery locations of the MIAX Emerald trading
system infrastructure; (2) Zayo Group Holdings, Inc. (``Zayo'') for
connectivity services (fiber and bandwidth connectivity) linking MIAX
Emerald's office locations in Princeton, NJ and Miami, FL to all data
center locations; (3) Secure Financial Transaction Infrastructure
(``SFTI''), which supports connectivity and feeds for the entire U.S.
options industry; (4) various other services providers (including
Thompson Reuters, NYSE, Nasdaq, and Internap), which provide content,
connectivity services, and infrastructure services for critical
components of options connectivity; and (5) various other hardware and
software providers (including Dell and Cisco, which support the
production environment in which Members and non-Members connect to the
network to trade, receive market data, etc.).
    All of the third-party expense described above is contained in the
information technology and

communication costs line item under the section titled ``Operating
Expenses Incurred Directly or Allocated From Parent'' of the 2018
Financial Statements. For clarity, only a portion of all fees paid to
such third-parties is included in the third-party expense herein (only
the portion of the expense relating to the provision of network
connectivity services). Accordingly, MIAX Emerald does not allocate its
entire information technology and communication costs to the provision
of network connectivity services.
    For 2018, total internal expense, relating to the internal costs of
MIAX Emerald to provide the network connectivity services, was
$4,031,491. This includes, but is not limited to, costs associated
with: (1) Employee compensation and benefits for full-time employees
that support network connectivity services, including staff in network
operations, trading operations, development, system operations,
business, etc., as well as staff in general corporate departments (such
as legal, regulatory, and finance) that support those employees and
functions; (2) depreciation and amortization of hardware and software
used to provide network connectivity services, including equipment,
servers, cabling, purchased software and internally developed software
used in the production environment to support connectivity for trading;
and (3) occupancy costs for leased office space for staff that support
network connectivity services. The breakdown of these costs is more
fully-described below.
    All of the internal expenses described above are contained in the
following line items under the section titled ``Operating Expenses
Incurred Directly or Allocated From Parent'' in the 2018 Financial
Statements: (1) Employee compensation and benefits; (2) Depreciation
and amortization; and (3) Occupancy costs. For clarity, only a portion
of all such internal expenses are included in the internal expense
herein (only the portion of the expense relating to the provision of
network connectivity services). Accordingly, MIAX Emerald does not
allocate its entire costs contained in those line items to the
provision of network connectivity services.
    MIAX Emerald's employee compensation and benefits expense relating
to providing network connectivity services was $3,262,226, which is
only a portion of the $10,193,837 total expense for employee
compensation and benefits that is stated in the 2018 Financial
Statements. MIAX Emerald's depreciation and amortization expense
relating to providing network connectivity services was $416,807, which
is only a portion of the $616,785 total expense for depreciation and
amortization that is stated in the 2018 Financial Statements. MIAX
Emerald's occupancy expense relating to providing network connectivity
services was $352,458, which is only a portion of the $732,720 total
expense for occupancy that is stated in the 2018 Financial Statements.
    The total projected MIAX Emerald revenue for providing network
connectivity services, on a full year run rate, is $3.0 million.
However, since MIAX Emerald was launched on March 1, 2019, it did not
start collecting revenue for network connectivity services until March
1, 2019. Thus, for 2018, MIAX Emerald's expense for providing network
connectivity services was approximately $4.7 million, while its revenue
for providing network connectivity services was $0. For 2019, MIAX
Emerald projects 10 full months of revenue for network connectivity
services (March 1-December 31), of $2.5 million, however it also
projects increased expense for providing network connectivity services
for 2019, as compared to 2018. Nevertheless, utilizing 2018 expense
figures, for 2019, MIAX Emerald's expense for providing network
connectivity services would be approximately $4.7 million, while its
revenue for providing network connectivity services would be $2.5
million. On a fully annualized basis, utilizing 2018 expense figures
and 2019 projected revenue extrapolated out to a full year run rate,
MIAX Emerald's expense for providing network connectivity services
would be approximately $4.7 million, while its revenue for providing
network connectivity services would be $3 million. Accordingly, for
both 2018 and 2019, the total MIAX Emerald projected revenue for
providing network connectivity services during 2018 ($0) and during
2019 ($2.5 million) is less than total actual and projected MIAX
Emerald expense for providing network connectivity services for 2018
($4.7 million) and 2019 (greater than $4.7 million).
    The Exchange also believes its proposal to offer 10Gb ULL
connections as dedicated connections furthers the objectives of Section
6(b)(5) of the Act \37\ in that it is designed to promote just and
equitable principles of trade, to remove impediments to and perfect the
mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system, and,
in general to protect investors and the public interest and is not
designed to permit unfair discrimination between customer, issuers,
brokers and dealers. In particular, for the Dedicated Connection, the
Exchange's MENI is configured to provide Members and non-Members of the
Exchange network connectivity to the trading platforms, market data
systems, test systems, and disaster recovery facilities of the
Exchange. Any Member or non-Member can purchase a Dedicated Connection.
The Exchange determined to design its network architecture in a manner
that offered 10Gb ULL connections as dedicated connections (as opposed
to shared connections) in order to provide cost saving opportunities
for itself and for its Members, by reducing the amount of equipment
that the Exchange would have to purchase and to which the Members would
have to connect. A dedicated 10Gb ULL connection does not offer any
unfair advantage over a shared 10GB ULL connection, as is being offered
solely as a cost-saving measure to the Exchange and its Members.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \37\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange notes that other exchanges have similar connectivity
alternatives for their participants, including similar low-latency
connectivity. For example, Nasdaq PHLX LLC (``Phlx''), NYSE Arca, Inc.
(``Arca''), NYSE American LLC (``NYSE American'') and Nasdaq ISE, LLC
(``ISE'') all offer a 1Gb, 10Gb and 10Gb low latency ethernet
connectivity alternatives to each of their participants.\38\ The
Exchange further notes that Phlx, ISE, Arca and NYSE American each
charge higher rates for such similar connectivity to primary and
secondary facilities,\39\ however the Exchange also notes that the
Exchange's 10Gb ULL connection is dedicated solely to one market (the
Exchange) whereas the Exchange believes that other exchanges offer a
shared 10Gb ULL connection to multiple markets. While MIAX Emerald's
proposed connectivity fees are substantially lower than the fees
charged by Phlx, ISE, Arca and NYSE American, MIAX Emerald believes
that it offers significant value to Members over other exchanges in
terms

of network monitoring and reporting, which MIAX Emerald believes is a
competitive advantage, and differentiates its connectivity versus
connectivity to other exchanges. Additionally, the Exchange's proposed
connectivity fees to its disaster recovery facility are within the
range of the fees charged by other exchanges for similar connectivity
alternatives.\40\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \38\ See Phlx and ISE Rules, General Equity and Options Rules,
General 8, Section 1(b). Phlx and ISE each charge a monthly fee of
$2,500 for each 1Gb connection, $10,000 for each 10Gb connection and
$15,000 for each 10Gb Ultra connection, which the equivalent of the
Exchange's 10Gb ULL connection. See also NYSE American Fee Schedule,
Section V.B, and Arca Fees and Charges, Co-Location Fees. NYSE
American and Arca each charge a monthly fee of $5,000 for each 1Gb
circuit, $14,000 for each 10Gb circuit and $22,000 for each 10Gb LX
circuit, which the equivalent of the Exchange's 10Gb ULL connection.
    \39\ Id.
    \40\ See Nasdaq ISE, Options Rules, Options 7, Pricing Schedule,
Section 11.D. (charging $3,000 for disaster recovery testing &
relocation services); see also Cboe Exchange, Inc. (``Cboe'') Fees
Schedule, p. 14, Cboe Command Connectivity Charges (charging a
monthly fee of $2,000 for a 1Gb disaster recovery network access
port and a monthly fee of $6,000 for a 10Gb disaster recovery
network access port).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change would
place certain market participants at the Exchange at a relative
disadvantage compared to other market participants or affect the
ability of such market participants to compete. In particular, the
Exchange has received no official complaints from Members, non-Members
(extranets and service bureaus), third-parties that purchase the
Exchange's connectivity and resell it, and customers of those
resellers, that the Exchange's fees or the Proposed Fees are negatively
impacting or would negatively impact their abilities to compete with
other market participants or that they are placed at a disadvantage.
    The Exchange believes that the Proposed Fees do not place certain
market participants at a relative disadvantage to other market
participants because the connectivity pricing is associated with
relative usage of the various market participants and does not impose a
barrier to entry to smaller participants. As described above, the less
expensive 1Gb direct connection is generally purchased by market
participants that utilize less bandwidth. The market participants that
purchase 10Gb ULL direct connections utilize the most bandwidth, and
those are the participants that consume the most resources from the
network. Accordingly, the Proposed Fees do not favor certain categories
of market participants in a manner that would impose a burden on
competition; rather, the allocation of the Proposed Fees reflects the
network resources consumed by the various size of market participants--
lowest bandwidth consuming members pay the least, and highest bandwidth
consuming members pays the most, particularly since higher bandwidth
consumption translates to higher costs to the Exchange.
Inter-Market Competition
    The Exchange believes the Proposed Fees do not place an undue
burden on competition on other SROs that is not necessary or
appropriate. In particular, options market participants are not forced
to connect to (and purchase market data from) all options exchanges, as
shown by the number of Members of the Exchange as compared to the much
greater number of members at other options exchanges (as described
above). Not only does MIAX Emerald have less than half the number of
members as certain other options exchanges, but there are also a number
of the Exchange's Members that do not connect directly to MIAX Emerald.
There are a number of large market makers and broker-dealers that are
members of other options exchange but not Members of MIAX Emerald.
Additionally, other exchanges have similar connectivity alternatives
for their participants, including similar low-latency connectivity, but
with much higher rates to connect.\41\ The Exchange is also unaware of
any assertion that its existing fee levels or the Proposed Fees would
somehow unduly impair its competition with other options exchanges. To
the contrary, if the fees charged are deemed too high by market
participants, they can simply disconnect.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \41\ See supra note 38.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    While the Exchange recognizes the distinction between connecting to
an exchange and trading at the exchange, the Exchange notes that it
operates in a highly competitive options market in which market
participants can readily connect and trade with venues they desire. In
such an environment, the Exchange must continually adjust its fees to
remain competitive with other exchanges. The Exchange believes that the
proposed changes reflect this competitive environment.

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

    Written comments were neither solicited nor received.

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

    The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act,\42\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(2) \43\ 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 shall institute proceedings to determine whether
the proposed rule should be approved or disapproved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \42\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii).
    \43\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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-EMERALD-2019-31 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-EMERALD-2019-31. 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-EMERALD-2019-31 and should be submitted
on or before September 27, 2019.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\44\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \44\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Jill M. Peterson,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2019-19215 Filed 9-5-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 149 (Friday, August 2, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 46977-46980]
[FR Doc No: 2013-18625]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2013-N-0007]

Generic Drug User Fee--Abbreviated New Drug Application, Prior
Approval Supplement, Drug Master File, Final Dosage Form Facility, and
Active Pharmaceutical Ingredient Facility Fee Rates for Fiscal Year
2014

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing the rate
for the abbreviated new drug application (ANDA), prior approval
supplement to an approved ANDA (PAS), drug master file (DMF), generic
drug active pharmaceutical ingredient (API), and finished dosage form
(FDF) facilities user fees related to the Generic Drug User Fee Program
for fiscal year (FY) 2014. The Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act
(the FD&C Act), as amended by the Generic Drug User Fee Amendments of
2012 (GDUFA), as

further amended by the FDA User Fee Correction Act of 2012, authorizes
FDA to assess and collect user fees for certain applications and
supplements for human generic drug products, on applications in the
backlog as of October 1, 2012 (only applicable to FY 2013), on FDF and
API facilities, and on type II active pharmaceutical ingredient DMFs to
be made available for reference. GDUFA directs FDA to establish each
year the Generic Drug User Fee rates for the upcoming year, and publish
those rates in the Federal Register 60 days before the start of the
upcoming FY. This document establishes FY 2014 rates for an ANDA
($63,860), PAS ($31,930), DMF ($31,460), domestic API facility
($34,515), foreign API facility ($49,515), domestic FDF facility
($220,152), and foreign FDF facility ($235,152). These fees are
effective on October 1, 2013, and will remain in effect through
September 30, 2014.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: David Miller, Office of Financial
Management (HFA-100), Food and Drug Administration, 1350 Piccard Dr.,
PI50, Rm. 210J, Rockville, MD 20850,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    Sections 744A and 744B of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 379j-41 and 379j-
42) establish fees associated with human generic drug products. Fees
are assessed on: (1) Certain applications in the backlog as of October
1, 2012 (only applicable to FY 2013); (2) certain types of applications
and supplements for human generic drug products; (3) certain facilities
where APIs and FDFs are produced; and (4) certain DMFs associated with
human generic drug products (section 744B(a) of the FD&C Act).

II. Fee Revenue Amount for FY 2014

    The base revenue amount for FY 2014 is $299,000,000, as set in the
statute prior to the inflation adjustment. GDUFA directs FDA to use the
yearly revenue amount as a starting point to set the fee rates for each
fee type. For more information about GDUFA, please refer to the FDA Web
site (http://www.fda.gov/gdufa). The ANDA, PAS, DMF, API facility, and
FDF facility fee calculations for FY 2014 are described in this
document.

Inflation Adjustment

    GDUFA specifies that the $299,000,000 is to be further adjusted for
inflation increases for FY 2014 using two separate adjustments--one for
personnel compensation and benefits (PC&B) and one for non-PC&B costs
(see section 744B(c)(1) of the FD&C Act).
    The component of the inflation adjustment for PC&B costs shall be
one plus the average annual percent change in the cost of all PC&B paid
per full-time equivalent position (FTE) at FDA for the first 3 of the 4
preceding FYs, multiplied by the proportion of PC&B costs to total FDA
costs of the review of human generic drug activities for the first 3 of
the preceding 4 FYs (see section 744B(c)(1)(B) of the FD&C Act). The
data on total PC&B paid and numbers of FTE paid, from which the average
cost per FTE can be derived, are published in FDA's Justification of
Estimates for Appropriations Committees.
    Table 1 of this document summarizes the actual cost and total FTE
for the specified FYs, and provides the percent change from the
previous FY and the average percent change over the first 3 of the 4
FYs preceding FY 2014. The 3-year average is 2.05 percent.

              Table 1--FDA Personnel Compensation and Benefits (PC&B) Each Year and Percent Change
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Fiscal year                     2010               2011               2012          3-Year average
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total PC&B..........................     $1,634,108,000     $1,761,655,000     $1,824,703,000  .................
Total FTE...........................             12,526             13,331             13,382  .................
PC&B per FTE........................           $130,457           $132,147           $136,355  .................
% Change from Previous Year.........              1.67%              1.30%              3.18%              2.05%
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The statute specifies that this 2.05 percent should be multiplied
by the proportion of PC&B expended for the review of human generic drug
activities. Since the first year of the Generic Drug User Fee Program
has not been completed and those costs are not yet available, costs for
the entire Agency will be used. Table 2 of this document shows the
total amount of expenditures made by FDA broken down by PC&B and Non-
PC&B for FYs 2010, 2011, and 2012.

           Table 2--PC&B and Non-PC&B as a Percent of Total Expenditures by FDA Over the Last 3 Years
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Fiscal year                     2010               2011               2012          3-Year average
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PC&B................................     $1,634,108,000     $1,761,655,000     $1,824,703,000  .................
Non-PC&B............................     $1,536,502,000     $1,571,752,000     $1,725,793,000  .................
Total Costs.........................     $3,170,610,000     $3,333,407,000     $3,550,496,000  .................
PC&B percent........................                52%                53%                51%                52%
Non-PC&B percent....................                48%                47%                49%                48%
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The payroll adjustment is 2.05 percent multiplied by 52 percent (or
1.066 percent).
    The statute specifies that the portion of the inflation adjustment
for non-PC&B costs for FY 2014 is the average annual percent change
that occurred in the Consumer Price Index (CPI) for urban consumers
(Washington-Baltimore, DC-MD-VA-WV; not seasonally adjusted; all items;
annual index) for the first 3 of the preceding 4 years of available
data multiplied by the proportion of all costs of the process for the
review of human generic drug activities other than PC&B (see section
744B(c)(1)(C) of the FD&C Act). Table 3 of this document provides the
summary data for the percent change in the specified CPI for the
Baltimore-Washington area. The data are published by the Bureau of
Labor Statistics and can be found on their Web site at http://
data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/

surveymost?cu by checking the box marked ``Washington-Baltimore All
Items, November 1996 = 100 - CUURA311SAO'' and then clicking on the
``Retrieve Data'' button.

               Table 3--Annual and 3-Year Average Percent Change in Baltimore-Washington Area CPI
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                Year                         2010               2011               2012          3-Year average
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Annual CPI..........................            142.218            146.975            150.212  .................
Annual Percent Change...............              1.72%              3.34%              2.20%              2.42%
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To calculate the inflation adjustment for non-pay costs, we
multiply the 2.42 percent by the proportion of costs FDA obligated for
costs other than PC&B. Since 52 percent was obligated for PC&B as shown
in table 2 of this document, 48 percent is the portion of costs other
than PC&B. The non-pay adjustment is 2.42 percent times 48 percent, or
1.161 percent.
    To complete the inflation adjustment, we add the PC&B component
(1.066 percent) to the non-PC&B component (1.161 percent) for a total
inflation adjustment of 2.227 percent (rounded), and then add one,
making 1.02227. We then multiply the base revenue amount for FY 2014
($299,000,000) by 1.02227, yielding an inflation adjusted amount of
$305,659,000 (rounded to the nearest thousand dollars).

III. ANDA and PAS Fees

    Under GDUFA, the FY 2014 ANDA and PAS fees are owed by each
applicant that submits an ANDA or a PAS, on or after October 1, 2013.
These fees are due on the receipt date of the ANDA or PAS. Section
744B(b)(2)(B) specifies that the ANDA and PAS fees will make up 24
percent of the $305,659,000, which is $73,358,000 (rounded to the
nearest thousand dollars).
    In order to calculate the ANDA fee, FDA estimated the number of
full application equivalents (FAEs) that will be submitted in FY 2014.
This is done by estimating the number of ANDAs and PASs that will incur
the fee in FY 2014 and converting them into FAEs. Applications count as
one FAE and supplements count as one-half an FAE since the fee for a
PAS is one half of the fee for an ANDA. However, GDUFA requires that 75
percent of the fees paid for an ANDA or PAS filing fee be refunded if
its receipt is refused due to issues other than failure to pay fees
(section 744B(a)(3)(D) of the FD&C Act). Therefore, an ANDA or PAS that
is considered not to have been received by the Secretary due to reasons
other than failure to pay fees counts as one-fourth of an FAE if the
applicant initially paid a full application fee, or one-eighth of an
FAE if the applicant paid the supplement fee (one half of the full
application fee amount).
    It was determined that approximately 911 ANDAs will incur an ANDA
filing fee in FY 2014. This number is based on available data from the
first 8 months of FY 2013 and estimating the last 4 months based on the
current trend. In contrast to previous non-fee paying FYs, the first
year of GDUFA implementation saw a significant increase in Changes
Being Effected (CBE) submissions and a significant decrease in PAS
submissions. Due to the trend of FY 2013 submissions, FDA utilized
available FY 2013 data to estimate the number of such supplement
submissions for FY 2014. The estimated number of PASs to be received in
FY 2014 is 480, based on an annualized estimate of the number of
receipts for FY 2013.
    After taking into account estimates of the number of ANDAs and PASs
that are likely to be refused due to issues other than failure to pay
fees, and the number that are likely to be resubmitted in the same
fiscal year, FDA estimates that the total number of fee-paying FAEs
that will be received in FY 2014 is 1,148.8.
    The FY 2014 application fee is estimated by dividing the number of
full application equivalents that will pay the fee in FY 2014 (1,148.8)
into the fee revenue amount to be derived from application fees in FY
2014 ($73,358,000). The result, rounded to the nearest $10, is a fee of
$63,860 per ANDA. Section 744B(b)(2)(B) of the FD&C Act states that the
PAS fee is equal to half the ANDA fee; therefore the PAS fee is
$31,930.
    We note that the statute provides that those ANDAs that include
information about the production of active pharmaceutical ingredients
other than by reference to a DMF will pay an additional fee that is
based on the number of such active pharmaceutical ingredients and the
number of facilities proposed to produce those ingredients. (See
section 744B(a)(3)(F) of the FD&C Act.) FDA considers that this
additional fee is unlikely to be assessed often; therefore, FDA has not
included projections concerning the amount of this fee in calculating
the fees for ANDAs and PASs.

IV. DMF Fee

    Under GDUFA, the DMF fee is owed by each person that owns a type II
active pharmaceutical ingredient DMF that is referenced, on or after
October 1, 2012, in a generic drug submission by an initial letter of
authorization. This is a one-time fee for each individual DMF. This fee
is due no later than the date on which the first generic drug
submission is submitted that references the associated DMF. Under
section 744B(a)(2)(D)(iii) of the FD&C Act, if a DMF has successfully
undergone an initial completeness assessment and the fee is paid, the
DMF will be placed on a publicly available list documenting DMFs
available for reference. Thus, some DMF holders may choose to pay the
fee prior to the date that it would otherwise be due in order to have
the DMF placed on that list.
    In order to calculate the DMF fee, FDA assessed the volume of DMF
submissions over time. The statistical forecasting methodology of power
regression analysis was selected because this model showed a very good
fit to the distribution of DMF submissions over time. Based on the 8
months of available data representing the total paid DMFs from FY 2013
and projecting a 5-year timeline (October 2013 to October 2017), FDA is
estimating 583 fee-paying DMFs for FY 2014.
    The FY 2014 DMF fee is determined by dividing the DMF revenue by
the estimated number of fee-paying DMFs in FY 2014. Section
744B(b)(2)(A) specifies that the DMF fees will make up 6 percent of the
$305,659,000, which is $18,340,000 (rounded to the nearest thousand
dollars). Dividing the DMF revenue amount ($18,340,000) by the
estimated fee-paying DMFs (583), and rounding to the nearest $10,
yields a DMF fee of $31,460 for FY 2014.

V. Foreign Facility Fee Differential

    Under GDUFA, the fee for a facility located outside the United
States and its territories and possessions shall be not less than
$15,000 and not more than $30,000 higher than the amount of the

fee for a facility located in the United States and its territories and
possessions, as determined by the Secretary. The basis for this
differential is the extra cost incurred by conducting an inspection
outside the United States and its territories and possessions. For FY
2014 FDA has determined that the differential for foreign facilities
will be $15,000. The differential may be adjusted in future years.

VI. FDF Facility Fee

    Under GDUFA, the annual FDF facility fee is owed by each person
that owns a facility which is identified, or intended to be identified,
in at least one generic drug submission that is pending or approved to
produce one or more finished dosage forms of a human generic drug or an
active pharmaceutical ingredient used in a human generic drug. These
fees are due no later than the first business day on or after October 1
of each such year. Section 744B(b)(2)(C) of the FD&C Act specifies that
the FDF facility fee revenue will make up 56 percent of $305,659,000,
which is $171,169,000 (rounded to the nearest thousand dollars).
    In order to calculate the FDF fee, FDA has used the data submitted
by generic drug facilities through the self-identification process
mandated in the GDUFA statute and specified in a Notice of Requirement
published on October 2, 2012. The total number of FDF facilities
identified through self-identification was 748. Of the total facilities
identified as FDF, there were 315 domestic facilities and 433 foreign
facilities. The foreign facility differential is $15,000. In order to
calculate the fee for domestic facilities, we must first subtract the
fee revenue that will result from the foreign facility fee
differential. We take the foreign facility differential ($15,000) and
multiply it by the number of foreign facilities (433) to determine the
total fees that will result from the foreign facility differential. As
a result of that calculation the foreign fee differential will make up
$6,495,000 of the total FDF fee revenue. Subtracting the foreign
facility differential fee revenue ($6,495,000) from the total FDF
facility target revenue ($171,169,000) results in a remaining fee
revenue balance of $164,674,000. To determine the domestic FDF facility
fee, we divide the $164,674,000 by the total number of facilities (748)
which gives us a domestic FDF facility fee of $220,152. The foreign FDF
facility fee is $15,000 more than the domestic FDF facility fee, or
$235,152.

VII. API Facility Fee

    Under GDUFA, the annual API facility fee is owed by each person
that owns a facility which produces, or which is pending review to
produce, one or more active pharmaceutical ingredients identified, or
intended to be identified, in at least one generic drug submission that
is pending or approved or in a Type II active pharmaceutical ingredient
drug master file referenced in such generic drug submission. These fees
are due no later than the first business day on or after October 1 of
each such year. Section 744B(b)(2)(D) of the FD&C Act specifies that
the API facility fee will make up 14 percent of $305,659,000 in fee
revenue, which is $42,792,000 (rounded to the nearest thousand
dollars).
    In order to calculate the API fee, FDA has used the data submitted
by generic drug facilities through the self-identification process. The
total number of API facilities identified through self-identification
was 903. Of the total facilities identified as API, there were 128
domestic facilities and 775 foreign facilities. The foreign facility
differential is $15,000. In order to calculate the fee for domestic
facilities, we must first subtract the fee revenue that will result
from the foreign facility fee differential. We take the foreign
facility differential ($15,000) and multiply it by the number of
foreign facilities (775) to determine the total fees that will result
from the foreign facility differential. As a result of that calculation
the foreign fee differential will make up $11,625,000 of the total API
fee revenue. Subtracting the foreign facility differential fee revenue
($11,625,000) from the total API facility target revenue ($42,792,000)
results in a remaining balance of $31,167,000. To determine the
domestic API facility fee, we divide the $31,167,000 by the total
number of facilities (903) which gives us a domestic API facility fee
of $34,515. The foreign API facility fee is $15,000 more than the
domestic API facility fee, or $49,515.

VIII. Fee Payment Options and Procedures

    The new fee rates are effective October 1, 2013. To pay the ANDA,
PAS, DMF, API facility, and FDF facility fee, you must complete a
Generic Drug User Fee cover sheet, available at http://www.fda.gov/gdufa, and generate a user fee identification (ID) number. Payment must
be made in U.S. currency drawn on a U.S. bank by electronic check,
check, bank draft, U.S. postal money order, or wire transfer.
    FDA has partnered with the U.S. Department of the Treasury to
utilize Pay.gov, a Web-based payment application, for online electronic
payment. The Pay.gov feature is available on the FDA Web site after
completing the generic drug user fee cover sheet and generating the
user fee ID number.
    Please include the user fee ID number on your check, bank draft, or
postal money order and make payable to the order of the Food and Drug
Administration. Your payment can be mailed to: Food and Drug
Administration, P.O. Box 979108, St. Louis, MO 63197-9000. If checks
are to be sent by a courier that requests a street address, the courier
can deliver checks to: U.S. Bank, Attention: Government Lockbox 979108,
1005 Convention Plaza, St. Louis, MO 63101. (Note: This U.S. Bank
address is for courier delivery only.) Please make sure that the FDA
post office box number (P.O. Box 979108) is written on the check, bank
draft, or postal money order.
    If paying by wire transfer, please reference your unique user fee
ID number when completing your transfer. The originating financial
institution may charge a wire transfer fee. Please ask your financial
institution about the fee and include it with your payment to ensure
that your fee is fully paid. The account information is as follows: New
York Federal Reserve Bank, U.S. Department of Treasury, TREAS NYC, 33
Liberty St., New York, NY 10045, account number: 75060099, routing
number: 021030004, SWIFT: FRNYUS33, Beneficiary: FDA, 1350 Piccard Dr.,
Rockville, MD 20850. The tax identification number of FDA is 53-
0196965.

    Dated: July 29, 2013.
Leslie Kux,
Assistant Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2013-18625 Filed 8-1-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4160-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 163 (Tuesday, August 23, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 57634-57635]
[FR Doc No: 2016-20214]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Sunshine Act Meeting

    Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the
Government in the Sunshine Act, Public Law 94-409, that the Securities
and Exchange Commission will hold a closed meeting on Thursday, August
25, 2016 at 2 p.m.
    Commissioners, Counsel to the Commissioners, the Secretary to the
Commission, and recording secretaries will attend the closed meeting.
Certain staff members who have an interest in the matters also may be
present.
    The General Counsel of the Commission, or her designee, has
certified that, in her opinion, one or more of the exemptions set forth
in 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(3), (5), (7), 9(B) and (10) and 17 CFR
200.402(a)(3), (a)(5), (a)(7), (a)(9)(ii) and (a)(10), permit
consideration of the scheduled matter at the closed meeting.
    Commissioner Piwowar, as duty officer, voted to consider the items
listed for the closed meeting in closed session.
    The subject matter of the closed meeting will be:
    Institution and settlement of injunctive actions;
    Institution and settlement of administrative proceedings;
    Resolution of litigation claims; and
    Other matters relating to enforcement proceedings.
    At times, changes in Commission priorities require alterations in
the scheduling of meeting items.

    For further information and to ascertain what, if any, matters have
been added, deleted or postponed, please contact Brent J. Fields from
the Office of the Secretary at<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: August 18, 2016.
Brent J. Fields,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2016-20214 Filed 8-19-16; 11:15 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P