[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 206 (Wednesday, October 24, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 65030-65034]
[FR Doc No: 2012-26144]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-68066; File No. SR-NYSEMKT-2012-52]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE MKT LLC; Notice of Filing and
Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Amending Rule 17--
Equities To Add a New Paragraph (c)(3) Addressing the Authority of the
Exchange or Archipelago Securities LLC To Cancel Orders When a
Technical or Systems Issue Occurs and To Describe the Operation of an
Error Account for Arca Securities

October 18, 2012.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) \1\ of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 (the ``Act'') \2\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\3\ notice is hereby
given that on October 10, 2012, NYSE MKT LLC (the ``Exchange'' or
``NYSE MKT'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the
``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I and II
below, which Items have been prepared by the self-regulatory
organization. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit
comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange proposes to amend Rule 17--Equities by adding a new
paragraph (c)(3) that addresses the authority of the Exchange or
Archipelago Securities LLC (``Arca Securities'') to cancel orders when
a technical or systems issue occurs and to describe the operation of an
error account for Arca Securities. The text of the proposed rule change
is available on the Exchange's Web site at www.nyse.com, at the
principal office of the Exchange, and at the Commission's Public
Reference Room.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to amend Rule 17--Equities by adding a new
paragraph (c)(3) that addresses the authority of the Exchange or Arca
Securities to cancel orders when a technical or systems issue occurs
and to describe the operation of an error account for Arca
Securities.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Arca Securities is a facility of the Exchange. Accordingly,
under Rule 17--Equities, the Exchange is responsible for filing with
the Commission rule changes and fees relating to Arca Securities'
functions. In addition, the Exchange is using the phrase ``Arca
Securities or the Exchange'' in this rule filing to reflect the fact
that a decision to take action with respect to orders affected by a
technical or systems issue may be made in the capacity of Arca
Securities or the Exchange depending on where those orders are
located at the time of that decision.
    From time to time, the Exchange also uses non-affiliate third-
party broker-dealers to provide outbound routing services (i.e.,
third-party Routing Brokers). In those cases, orders are submitted
to the third-party Routing Broker through Arca Securities, the
third-party Routing Broker routes the orders to the routing
destination in its name, and any executions are submitted for
clearance and settlement in the name of Arca Securities so that any
resulting positions are delivered to Arca Securities upon
settlement. As described above, Arca Securities normally arranges
for any resulting securities positions to be delivered to the member
organization that submitted the corresponding order to the Exchange.
If error positions (as defined in proposed Rule 17(c)(3)(B)--
Equities) result in connection with the Exchange's use of a third-
party Routing Broker for outbound routing, and those positions are
delivered to Arca Securities through the clearance and settlement
process, Arca Securities would be permitted to resolve those
positions in accordance with proposed Rule 17(c)(3)--Equities. If
the third-party Routing Broker received error positions in
connection with its role as a routing broker for the Exchange, and
the error positions were not delivered to Arca Securities through
the clearance and settlement process, then the third-party Routing
Broker would resolve the error positions itself, and Arca Securities
would not be permitted to accept the error positions, as set forth
in proposed Rule 17(c)(3)(B)(ii)--Equities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Arca Securities is the approved routing broker of the Exchange,
subject to the conditions listed in Rule 17(c)--Equities. The Exchange
relies on Arca Securities to provide outbound routing services from
itself to routing destinations of Arca Securities (``routing
destinations'').\5\ When Arca Securities routes orders to a routing
destination, it does so by sending a corresponding order in its own
name to the routing destination. In the normal course, routed orders
that are executed at routing destinations are submitted for clearance
and settlement in the name of Arca Securities, and Arca Securities
arranges for any resulting securities positions to be delivered to the
member organization that submitted the corresponding order to the
Exchange. However, from time to time, the Exchange and Arca Securities
encounter situations in which it becomes necessary to cancel orders and
resolve error positions.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ The Exchange has also been approved to receive inbound
routes of equities orders by Arca Securities from the NYSE Arca
Equities, Inc. (``NYSE Arca'') and New York Stock Exchange LLC
(``NYSE''). See Rule 17(c)(2)--Equities.
    \6\ The examples described in this filing are not intended to be
exclusive. Proposed Rule 17(c)(3)--Equities would provide general
authority for the Exchange or Arca Securities to cancel orders in
order to maintain fair and orderly markets when technical and
systems issues are occurring, and Rule 17(c)(3)--Equities also would
set forth the manner in which error positions may be handled by the
Exchange or Arca Securities. The proposed rule change is not limited
to addressing order cancellation or error positions resulting only
from the specific examples described in this filing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Examples of Circumstances That May Lead to Canceled Orders
    A technical or systems issue may arise at Arca Securities, a
routing destination, or the Exchange that may cause the Exchange or
Arca Securities to take steps to cancel orders if the Exchange or Arca
Securities determines that such action is necessary to maintain a fair
and orderly market. The examples set forth below describe some of the
circumstances in which the Exchange or Arca Securities may decide to
cancel orders.
    Example 1. If Arca Securities or a routing destination experiences
a technical or systems issue that results in Arca Securities not
receiving responses to immediate or cancel (``IOC'') orders that it
sent to the routing destination, and that issue is not resolved in a
timely manner, Arca Securities or the Exchange would seek to cancel the
routed orders affected by the issue.\7\ For instance, if Arca
Securities experiences a connectivity issue affecting the manner in
which it sends or receives order messages to or from routing
destinations, it may be unable to receive timely execution or
cancellation reports from the routing destinations, and Arca Securities
or the Exchange may consequently seek to cancel the affected routed
orders. Once the decision is made to cancel those routed orders, any
cancellation that a member organization submitted to the Exchange on
its initial order during such a situation would be honored.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ In a normal situation (i.e., one in which a technical or
systems issue does not exist), Arca Securities should receive an
immediate response to an IOC order from a routing destination, and
would pass the resulting fill or cancellation on to the member
organization. After submitting an order that is routed to a routing
destination, if a member organization sends an instruction to cancel
that order, the cancellation is held by the Exchange until a
response is received from the routing destination. For instance, if
the routing destination executes that order, the execution would be
passed on to the member organization and the cancellation
instruction would be disregarded.
    \8\ If a member organization did not submit a cancellation to
the Exchange, however, that initial order would remain ``live'' and
thus be eligible for execution or posting on the Exchange, and
neither the Exchange nor Arca Securities would treat any execution
of that initial order or any subsequent routed order related to that
initial order as an error.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Example 2. If the Exchange experiences a systems issue, the
Exchange may take steps to cancel all outstanding orders affected by
that issue and notify affected member organizations of the
cancellations. In those cases, the Exchange would seek to cancel any
routed orders related to the member organizations' initial orders.
Examples of Circumstances That May Lead to Error Positions
    In some instances, the technical or systems issue at Arca
Securities, a routing destination, the Exchange, or a non-affiliate
third-party Routing Broker may also result in Arca Securities acquiring
an error position that it must resolve. The examples set forth below
describe some of the circumstances in which error positions may arise.
    Example A. Error positions may result from routed orders that the
Exchange or Arca Securities attempts to cancel but that are executed
before the routing destination receives the cancellation message or
that are executed because the routing destination is unable to process
the cancellation message. Using the situation described in Example 1
above, assume that the Exchange seeks to cancel orders routed to a
routing destination because it is not receiving timely execution or
cancellation reports from the routing destination. In such a situation,
Arca Securities may still receive executions from the routing
destination after connectivity is restored, which it would not then
allocate to member organizations because of the earlier decision to
cancel

the affected routed orders. Instead, Arca Securities would post those
positions into its error account and resolve the positions in the
manner described below.
    Example B. Error positions may result from an order processing
issue at a routing destination. For instance, if a routing destination
experienced a systems problem that affects its order processing, it may
transmit back a message purporting to cancel a routed order, but then
subsequently submit an execution of that same order (i.e., a locked-in
trade) to The Depository Trust & Clearing Corporation (``DTCC'') for
clearance and settlement. In such a situation, the Exchange would not
then allocate the execution to the member organization because of the
earlier cancellation message from the routing destination. Instead,
Arca Securities would post those positions into its error account and
resolve the positions in the manner described below.
    Example C. Error positions may result if Arca Securities receives
an execution report from a routing destination but does not receive
clearing instructions for the execution from the routing destination.
For instance, assume that a member organization sends the Exchange an
order to buy 100 shares of ABC stock, which causes Arca Securities to
send an order to a routing destination that is subsequently executed,
cleared and closed out by that routing destination, and the execution
is ultimately communicated back to that member organization. On the
next trading day (T+1), if the routing destination does not provide
clearing instructions for that execution, Arca Securities would still
be responsible for settling that member organization's purchase, but
would be left with a short position in its error account.\9\ Arca
Securities would resolve the position in the manner described below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ To the extent that Arca Securities incurred a loss in
covering its short position, it would submit a reimbursement claim
to that routing destination.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Example D. Error positions may result from a technical or systems
issue that causes orders to be executed in the name of Arca Securities
that are not related to Arca Securities' function as the Exchange's
routing broker and are not related to any corresponding orders of
member organizations. As a result, Arca Securities would not be able to
assign any positions resulting from such an issue to member
organizations. Instead, Arca Securities would post those positions into
its error account and resolve the positions in the manner described
below.
    In the circumstances described above, Arca Securities may not learn
about an error position until T+1, either: (1) During the clearing
process when a routing destination has submitted to DTCC a transaction
for clearance and settlement for which Arca Securities never received
an execution confirmation; or (2) when a routing destination does not
recognize a transaction submitted by Arca Securities to DTCC for
clearance and settlement. Moreover, the affected member organizations'
trade may not be nullified absent express authority under Exchange
rules.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See, e.g., Rule 128--Equities (regarding clearly erroneous
executions).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Proposed Amendments to Rule 17--Equities
    The Exchange proposes to amend Rule 17--Equities to add new
paragraph (c)(3) to address the cancellation of orders due to technical
or systems issues and the use of an error account by Arca Securities.
    Specifically, under paragraph (c)(3)(A) of the proposed rule, the
Exchange or Arca Securities would be expressly authorized to cancel
orders as may be necessary to maintain fair and orderly markets if a
technical or systems issue occurred at the Exchange, Arca Securities,
or a routing destination.\11\ The Exchange or Arca Securities would be
required to provide notice of the cancellation to affected member
organizations as soon as practicable.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ Such a situation may not cause the Exchange to declare
self-help against the routing destination pursuant to Rule 611 of
Regulation NMS. If the Exchange or Arca Securities determines to
cancel orders routed to a routing destination under proposed Rule
17(c)(3)--Equities, but does not declare self-help against that
routing destination, the Exchange would continue to be subject to
the trade-through requirements in Rule 611 with respect to that
routing destination.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Paragraph (c)(3)(B) of the proposed rule would permit Arca
Securities to maintain an error account for the purpose of addressing
positions that result from a technical or systems issue at Arca
Securities, the Exchange, a routing destination, or a non-affiliate
third-party Routing Broker that affects one or more orders (``error
positions''). By definition, an error position would not include any
position that results from an order submitted by a member organization
to the Exchange that is executed on the Exchange and processed pursuant
to Rule 132--Equities.\12\ In addition, the Exchange proposes to add to
the proposed rule that for purposes of proposed Rule 17(c)(3)--
Equities, uncompared transactions that may be processed pursuant to
Rule 134(e)--Equities are not error positions of Arca Securities.\13\
Arca Securities also would not be permitted to accept any positions in
its error account from an account of a member organization and could
not permit any member organization to transfer any positions from the
member organization's account to Arca Securities' error account under
the proposed rule.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ As provided in Rule 132(a)--Equities, ``Each party to a
contract shall submit data regarding its side of the contract
(``trade data'') to a Fully-Interfaced Clearing Agency for
comparison or settlement, but each party shall be free to select the
Fully-Interfaced Clearing Agency of its choice for such purpose.''
    \13\ Rule 134(e)--Equities provides for the manner by which
uncompared transactions at the Exchange are resolved.
    \14\ The purpose of this provision is to clarify that Arca
Securities may address error positions under the proposed rule that
are caused by a technical or systems issue, but that Arca Securities
may not accept from a member organization positions that are
delivered to the member organization through the clearance and
settlement process, even if those positions may have been related to
a technical or systems issue at Arca Securities, the Exchange, a
routing destination of Arca Securities, or a non-affiliate third-
party Routing Broker. This provision would not apply, however, to
situations like the one described above in which Arca Securities
incurred a short position to settle a member organization purchase,
as the member organization did not yet have a position in its
account as a result of the purchase at the time of Arca Securities'
action (i.e., Arca Securities' action was necessary for the purchase
to settle into the member organization's account). Moreover, to the
extent a member organization receives positions pursuant to Rule
132--Equities in connection with a technical or systems issue, that
member organization may seek to rely on Rule 18--Equities if it
experiences a loss. That rule provides member organizations with the
ability to file claims against the Exchange ``related to an Exchange
system failure.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Under paragraph (c)(3)(C), in connection with a particular
technical or systems issue, Arca Securities or the Exchange would be
permitted to either (1) assign all resulting error positions to member
organizations, or (2) have all resulting error positions liquidated, as
described below. Any determination to assign or liquidate error
positions, as well as any resulting assignments, would be required to
be made in a nondiscriminatory fashion.
    Arca Securities or the Exchange would be required to assign all
error positions resulting from a particular technical or systems issue
to the applicable member organizations affected by that technical or
systems issue if Arca Securities or the Exchange:
     Determined that it has accurate and sufficient information
(including valid clearing information) to assign the positions to all
of the applicable member organizations affected by that technical or
systems issue;
     Determined that it has sufficient time pursuant to normal
clearance and

settlement deadlines to evaluate the information necessary to assign
the positions to all of the applicable member organizations affected by
that technical or systems issue; and
     Had not determined to cancel all orders affected by that
technical or systems issue.
    For example, a technical or systems issue of limited scope or
duration may occur at a routing destination, and the resulting trades
may be submitted for clearance and settlement by such routing
destination to DTCC. If there were a small number of trades, there may
be sufficient time to match positions with member organization orders
and avoid using the error account.
    There may be scenarios, however, where Arca Securities determines
that it is unable to assign all error positions resulting from a
particular technical or systems issue to all of the affected member
organizations, or determines to cancel all affected routed orders. For
example, in some cases, the volume of questionable executions and
positions resulting from a technical or systems issue might be such
that the research necessary to determine which member organization to
assign those executions to could be expected to extend past the normal
settlement cycle for such executions. Furthermore, if a routing
destination experiences a technical or systems issue after Arca
Securities has transmitted IOC orders to it that prevents Arca
Securities from receiving responses to those orders, Arca Securities or
the Exchange may determine to cancel all routed orders affected by that
issue. In such a situation, Arca Securities or the Exchange would not
pass on to the member organizations any executions on the routed orders
received from the routing destination.
    The proposed rule also would require Arca Securities to liquidate
error positions as soon as practicable.\15\ In liquidating error
positions, Arca Securities would be required to provide complete time
and price discretion for the trading to liquidate the error positions
to a third-party broker-dealer and could not attempt to exercise any
influence or control over the timing or methods of trading to liquidate
the error positions. Arca Securities also would be required to
establish and enforce policies and procedures reasonably designed to
restrict the flow of confidential and proprietary information between
the third-party broker-dealer and Arca Securities/the Exchange
associated with the liquidation of the error positions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ If Arca Securities determines in connection with a
particular technical or systems issue that some error positions can
be assigned to some affected member organizations but other error
positions cannot be assigned, Arca Securities would be required
under the proposed rule to liquidate all such error positions
(including those positions that could be assigned to the affected
member organizations).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Under proposed paragraph (c)(3)(D), Arca Securities and the
Exchange would be required to make and keep records to document all
determinations to treat positions as error positions and all
determinations for the assignment of error positions to member
organizations or the liquidation of error positions, as well as records
associated with the liquidation of error positions through the third-
party broker-dealer.
2. Statutory Basis
    The proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b) \16\ of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the ``Act''), in general, and
furthers the objectives of Section 6(b)(5),\17\ in particular, in that
it is designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and
practices, to promote just and equitable principles of trade, to foster
cooperation and coordination with persons engaged in facilitating
transactions in securities, 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 it is not
designed to permit unfair discrimination among customers, brokers, or
dealers. The Exchange believes that this proposal is in keeping with
those principles since Arca Securities' or the Exchange's ability to
cancel orders during a technical and systems issue and to maintain an
error account facilitates the smooth and efficient operations of the
market. Specifically, the Exchange believes that allowing Arca
Securities or the Exchange to cancel orders during a technical or
systems issue would allow the Exchange to maintain fair and orderly
markets. Moreover, the Exchange believes that allowing Arca Securities
to assume error positions in an error account and to liquidate those
positions, subject to the conditions set forth in the proposed
amendments to Rule 17--Equities, would be the least disruptive means to
correct these errors, except in cases where Arca Securities can assign
all such error positions to all affected member organizations of the
Exchange. Overall, the proposed amendments are designed to ensure full
trade certainty for market participants and to avoid disrupting the
clearance and settlement process. The proposed amendments are also
designed to provide a consistent methodology for handling error
positions in a manner that does not discriminate among member
organizations. The proposed amendments are also consistent with Section
6 of the Act insofar as they would require Arca Securities to establish
controls to restrict the flow of any confidential information between
the third-party broker and Arca Securities/the Exchange associated with
the liquidation of error positions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \17\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate
in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.

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

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

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

    Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not: (i)
Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public
interest; (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii)
become operative for 30 days after the date of the filing, or such
shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become effective
pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \18\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(6)
\19\ thereunder.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \19\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). In addition, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)
requires a self-regulatory organization to give the Commission
written notice of its intent to file the proposed rule change at
least five business days prior to the date of filing of the proposed
rule change, or such shorter time as designated by the Commission.
The Exchange has satisfied this requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange has asked the Commission to waive the 30-day operative
delay.\20\ The Commission notes that it previously approved NYSE Arca
Equities Rule 7.45(d), which is substantively identical to the instant
proposed rule change.\21\ The Commission finds that waiving the 30-day
operative delay is consistent with the protection of investors and the
public interest because it will allow the

Exchange to implement the proposed rule change as part of a planned
implementation of similar rules on the Exchange's affiliate exchanges.
Accordingly, the Commission designates the proposal operative upon
filing.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii).
    \21\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 66963 (May 10,
2012), 77 FR 28919 (May 16, 2012) (SR-NYSEArca-2012-22).
    \22\ For purposes only of waiving the 30-day operative delay,
the Commission has considered the proposed rule change's impact on
efficiency, competition, and capital formation. 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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.

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-NYSEMKT-2012-52 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NYSEMKT-2012-52. This
file number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of
10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of 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; the Commission does
not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should
submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All
submissions should refer to File Number SR-NYSEMKT-2012-52 and should
be submitted on or before November 14, 2012.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-26144 Filed 10-23-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 191 (Wednesday, October 4, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 46227-46228]
[FR Doc No: 2017-21298]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings #2

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric
rate filings:

    Docket Numbers: ER17-1840-000.
    Applicants: Canton Mountain Wind, LLC.
    Description: Fifth Supplement to June 15, 2017 Canton Mountain
Wind, LLC tariff filing.
    Filed Date: 9/28/17.
    Accession Number: 20170928-5074.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/10/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-2554-000.
    Applicants: Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: 2017-09-28_SA 2997 Palo Alto
Wind-MidAmerican 1st Rev GIA (J529 J590) to be effective 9/14/2017.
    Filed Date: 9/28/17.
    Accession Number: 20170928-5065.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/19/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-2555-000.

    Applicants: PacifiCorp.
    Description: Tariff Cancellation: Termination of Lower Valley
Energy? Ancillary Services Agreement to be effective 9/30/2017.
    Filed Date: 9/28/17.
    Accession Number: 20170928-5104.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/19/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-2556-000.
    Applicants: PacifiCorp.
    Description: Tariff Cancellation: Termination of UAMPS Price
Construct Agmt to be effective 11/29/2017.
    Filed Date: 9/28/17.
    Accession Number: 20170928-5105.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/19/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-2557-000.
    Applicants: New England Power Company.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Large Generator
Interconnection Agrmnt with Wheelabrator Millbury & CEII Request to be
effective 9/26/2017.
    Filed Date: 9/28/17.
    Accession Number: 20170928-5132.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/19/17.

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric
securities filings:

    Docket Numbers: ES17-59-000.
    Applicants: Portland General Electric Company.
    Description: Application of Portland General Electric Company for
Authority to Issue Short-Term Debt Securities.
    Filed Date: 9/28/17.
    Accession Number: 20170928-5129.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/19/17.

    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by
clicking on the links or querying the docket number.

    Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above
proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00
p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be
considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the
proceeding.
    eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing
requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying
facilities filings can be found at: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For other information, call<PHONE_NUMBER>
(toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: September 28, 2017.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2017-21298 Filed 10-3-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: November 2, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 211)]
[Notices]
[Page 66478-66480]
[DOCID:fr02no05-144]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-52684; File No. SR-MSRB-2005-15]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Municipal Securities Rulemaking
Board; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule
Change Relating to Revisions to the Series 9/10 Examination Program

October 26, 2005.
    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 October 18, 2005, the Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board
(``MSRB'' or ``Board''), filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission (``Commission'' or ``SEC'') the proposed rule change as
described in Items I, II and III below, which Items have been prepared
by the MSRB. The MSRB has designated the proposed rule change as
constituting a stated policy, practice, or interpretation with respect
to the meaning, administration, or enforcement of an existing rule of
the self-regulatory organization pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(i) of
the Act,\3\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(1) thereunder,\4\ which renders the
proposal effective upon filing with the Commission. 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.
    \3\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(i).
    \4\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The MSRB is filing with the Commission revisions to the study
outline and selection specifications for the Limited Principal--General
Securities Sales Supervisor (Series 9/10) examination program.\5\ The
proposed revisions update the material to reflect changes to the laws,
rules, and regulations covered by the examination, as well as modify
the content of the examination program to track more closely the
functional workflow of a Series 9/10 limited principal. The MSRB is not
proposing any textual changes to the rules of the MSRB.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ The MSRB is also proposing corresponding revisions to the
Series 9/10 question bank, but based upon instructions from the
Commission staff, the MSRB is submitting SR-MSRB-2005-15 for
immediate effectiveness pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(i) of the
Act and Rule 19b-4(f)(1) thereunder, and is not filing the question
bank for Commission review. See letter to Diane G. Klinke, General
Counsel, MSRB, from Belinda Blaine, Associate Director, Division of
Market Regulation, SEC, dated July 24, 2000. The question bank is
available for Commission review.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The revised study outline is available on the MSRB's Web site
(http://www.msrb.org), at the MSRB's principal office, and at the

Commission's Public Reference Room. However, the MSRB has omitted the
Series 9/10 selection specifications from this filing and has submitted
the specifications under separate cover to the Commission with a
request for confidential treatment pursuant to Rule 24b-2 under the
Act.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 17 CFR 240.24b-2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 MSRB 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 MSRB 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
    Section 15B(b)(2)(A) of the Act \7\ authorizes the MSRB to
prescribe standards of training, experience, competence, and such other

qualifications as the Board finds necessary or appropriate in the
public interest or for the protection of investors. The MSRB has
developed examinations that are designed to establish that persons
associated with brokers, dealers and municipal securities dealers that
effect transactions in municipal securities have attained specified
levels of competence and knowledge. The MSRB periodically reviews the
content of the examinations to determine whether revisions are
necessary or appropriate in view of changes pertaining to the subject
matter covered by the examinations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78o-4(b)(2)(A).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    MSRB Rule G-3(c) states that the Municipal Securities Sales
Supervisor may only supervise those activities and functions relating
directly to customer sales and purchases of municipal securities. The
activities over which a Municipal Securities Sales Principal may have
responsibility include: approving transactions with customers;
approving the opening of customer accounts; approving discretionary
accounts and related transactions; reviewing all customer accounts
regularly and frequently; supervising the handling of written customer
complaints; and reviewing correspondence with customers in the
solicitation or execution of municipal securities transactions. The
supervision of activities such as trading, underwriting, research, and
providing financial advice and counseling to issuers cannot be the
responsibility of the Municipal Securities Sales Principal; such
activities must be supervised by a person qualified as a Municipal
Securities Principal. MSRB rules do not specify that a broker, dealer
or municipal securities dealer must maintain any Municipal Securities
Sales Principals on its staff.
    The only examination that qualifies a Municipal Securities Sales
Principal is the General Securities Sales Supervisor Qualification
Examination (Series 9/10). The Series 9/10 examination is an industry-
wide examination and tests a candidate's knowledge of securities
industry rules and regulations and certain statutory provisions
pertinent to the supervision of sales activities.
    The Series 9/10 examination program is shared by the MSRB and the
following self-regulatory organizations (``SROs''): the American Stock
Exchange LLC; the Chicago Board Options Exchange, Incorporated; the
National Association of Securities Dealers, Inc. (``NASD''); the New
York Stock Exchange, Inc. (``NYSE''); the Pacific Exchange, Inc.; and
the Philadelphia Stock Exchange, Inc.
    A committee of industry representatives, together with the staff of
the MSRB and the SROs, recently undertook a periodic review of the
Series 9/10 examination program. As a result of this review, the MSRB
is proposing to update the content of the examination to cover
Regulation S-P;\8\ MSRB Rules G-37 and G-38; SRO research analyst and
anti-money laundering rules; municipal fund securities (e.g., 529
college savings plans); and exchange traded funds. MSRB is further
proposing revisions to the study outline to reflect the SEC short sale
requirements. In addition, as part of an ongoing effort to align the
examination more closely to the supervisory duties of a Series 9/10
limited principal, MSRB is proposing to modify the content of the
examination to track the functional workflow of a Series 9/10 limited
principal. Also, MSRB is proposing to include questions related to
parallel rules of the MSRB, the options exchanges, NASD, and the NYSE
in the same section of the examination.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 17 CFR 248.1-18; 17 CFR 248.30; and 17 CFR 248, Appendix A.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As a result of the revisions, MSRB is proposing to modify the main
section headings and the number of questions on each section of the
Series 9/10 study outline as follows: Section 1--Hiring,
Qualifications, and Continuing Education, 9 questions; Section 2--
Supervision of Accounts and Sales Activities, 94 questions; Section 3--
Conduct of Associated Persons, 14 questions; Section 4--Recordkeeping
Requirements, 8 questions; Section 5--Municipal Securities Regulation,
20 questions; and Section 6--Options Regulation, 55 questions. Section
6, which covers options, constitutes the Series 9 portion of the
examination. Series 10 covers general securities and municipal
securities. The revised examination continues to cover the areas of
knowledge required for the supervision of sales activities.
    The MSRB is proposing these changes to the entire content of the
Series 9/10 examination, including the selection specifications and
question bank. The number of questions on the Series 9/10 examination
will remain at 200, and candidates will continue to have four hours to
complete the Series 10 portion and one and one-half hours to complete
the Series 9 portion. Also, each question will continue to count one
point, and each candidate must correctly answer 70 percent of the
questions on each series, 9 and 10, to receive a passing grade.
    As noted below, the MSRB understands that the other SROs also will
file with the Commission similar proposed rule changes reflecting the
revisions to the Series 9/10 examination program.
2. Statutory Basis
    The MSRB believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with
Section 15B(b)(2)(A) of the Act,\9\ which authorizes the MSRB to
prescribe standards of training, experience, competence, and such other
qualifications as the Board finds necessary or appropriate in the
public interest or for the protection of investors. Section
15B(b)(2)(A) of the Act also provides that the Board may appropriately
classify municipal securities brokers and municipal securities dealers
and their associated personnel and require persons in any such class to
pass tests prescribed by the Board.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78o-4(b)(2)(A).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The MSRB does not believe that the proposed rule change will result
in any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act, as amended.

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 proposed rule change has become effective pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A)(i) of the Act \10\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(i) thereunder,\11\ in
that the proposed rule change constitutes a stated policy, practice, or
interpretation with respect to the meaning, administration, or
enforcement of an existing rule of the self-regulatory organization.
MSRB proposes to implement the revised Series 9/10 examination program
no later than November 30, 2005. At any time within 60 days of the
filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission may summarily
abrogate 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.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(i).
    \11\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(i).
    \12\ See Section 19(b)(3)(C) of the Act, 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(C).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include

File Number SR-MSRB-2005-15 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

     Send paper comments in triplicate to Jonathan G. Katz,
Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, Station Place, 100 F
Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549-9303.
    All submissions should refer to File Number SR-MSRB-2005-15. This
file number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used.
To help the Commission process and review your comments more
efficiently, please use only one method. The Commission will post all
comments on the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml
). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments,

all written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that
are filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating
to the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person,
other than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance
with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for inspection
and copying in the Commission's Public Reference Room. Copies of such
filing also will be available for inspection and copying at the
principal office of the MSRB. All comments received will be posted
without change; the Commission does not edit personal identifying
information from submissions. You should submit only information that
you wish to make available publicly. All submissions should refer to
File Number SR-MSRB-2005-15 and should be submitted on or before
November 23, 2005.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation,
pursuant to delegated authority.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Jonathan G. Katz,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E5-6052 Filed 11-1-05; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 149 (Monday, August 3, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 46662-46666]
[FR Doc No: 2020-16687]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2020-N-1692]

Generic Drug User Fee Rates for Fiscal Year 2021

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act or
statute), as amended by the Generic Drug User Fee Amendments of 2017
(GDUFA II), authorizes the Food and Drug Administration (FDA, Agency,
or we) to assess and collect fees for abbreviated new drug applications
(ANDAs), drug master files (DMFs), generic drug active pharmaceutical
ingredient (API) facilities, finished dosage form (FDF) facilities,
contract manufacturing organization (CMO) facilities, and generic drug
applicant program user fees. In this document, FDA is announcing fiscal
year (FY) 2021 rates for GDUFA II fees.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Andrew Bank, Office of Financial
Management, Food and Drug Administration, 4041 Powder Mill Rd., Rm.
62019A, Beltsville, MD 20705-4304,<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 types of applications for human generic
drug products; (2) certain facilities where APIs and FDFs are produced;
(3) certain DMFs associated with human generic drug products; and (4)
generic drug applicants who have approved ANDAs (the program fee) (see
section 744B(a)(2)-(5) of the FD&C Act).
    GDUFA II provides that user fees should total $493,600,000 annually
adjusted each year for inflation. For FY 2021, the generic drug fee
rates are: ANDA ($196,868), DMF ($69,921), domestic API facility
($41,671), foreign API facility ($56,671), domestic FDF facility
($184,022), foreign FDF facility ($199,022), domestic CMO facility
($61,341), foreign CMO facility ($76,341), large size operation generic
drug applicant program ($1,542,993), medium size operation generic drug
applicant program ($617,197), and small business generic drug applicant
program ($154,299). These fees are effective on October 1, 2020, and
will remain in effect through September 30, 2021.

II. Fee Revenue Amount for FY 2021

    GDUFA II directs FDA to use the yearly revenue amount determined
under the statute as a starting point to set the fee rates for each fee
type. For more information about GDUFA II, please refer to the FDA
website (https://www.fda.gov/gdufa). The ANDA, DMF, API facility, FDF
facility, CMO facility, and generic drug applicant program fee (GDUFA
program fee) calculations for FY 2021 are described in this document.
    The base revenue amount for FY 2021 is $513,223,160. This is the
amount

calculated for the prior fiscal year, FY 2020, pursuant to the statute
(see section 744B(b)(1) of the FD&C Act). GDUFA II specifies that the
$513,223,160 is to be adjusted for inflation increases for FY 2021
using two separate adjustments--one for personnel compensation and
benefits (PC&B) and one for non-PC&B costs (see sections 744B(c)(1)(B)
and (C) 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 fiscal years, multiplied by the proportion of PC&B costs to
total FDA costs of human generic drug activities for the first 3 of the
preceding 4 fiscal years (see section 744B(c)(1)(B) of the FD&C Act).
    Table 1 summarizes the actual cost and total FTEs for the specified
fiscal years, and provides the percent change from the previous fiscal
year and the average percent change over the first 3 of the 4 fiscal
years preceding FY 2021. The 3-year average is 1.2644 percent.

              Table 1--FDA Personnel Compensation and Benefits (PC&B) Each Year and Percent Change
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Fiscal year                       2017               2018               2019        3-year average
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total PC&B.............................     $2,581,551,000     $2,690,678,000     $2,620,052,000  ..............
Total FTEs.............................             17,022             17,023             17,144  ..............
PC&B per FTE...........................           $151,660           $158,061           $152,826  ..............
Percent Change from Previous Year......             2.8845             4.2206            -3.3120          1.2644
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The statute specifies that this 1.2644 percent should be multiplied
by the proportion of PC&B expended for human generic drug activities
for the first 3 of the preceding 4 fiscal years. Table 2 shows the
amount of PC&B and the total amount obligated for human generic drug
activities from FY 2017 through FY 2019.

Table 2--PC&B as a Percent of Fee Revenues Spent on the Process of Human Generic Drug Applications Over the Last
                                                     3 Years
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Fiscal year                       2017               2018               2019        3-year average
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PC&B...................................       $271,748,229       $332,617,643       $356,874,114  ..............
Non-PC&B...............................       $262,058,852       $276,911,265       $290,439,277  ..............
Total Costs............................       $533,807,081       $609,528,908       $647,313,391  ..............
PC&B Percent...........................            50.9076            54.5696            55.1316         53.5363
Non-PC&B Percent.......................            49.0924            45.4304            44.8684         46.4637
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The payroll adjustment is 1.2644 percent multiplied by 53.5363
percent (or 0.6769 percent).
    The statute specifies that the portion of the inflation adjustment
for non-PC&B costs for FY 2021 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 other than PC&B costs to
total costs of human generic drug activities (see section 744B(c)(1)(C)
of the FD&C Act). As a result of a geographical revision made by the
Bureau of Labor and Statistics in January 2018,\1\ the ``Washington-
Baltimore, DC-MD-VA-WV'' index was discontinued and replaced with two
separate indices (i.e., ``Washington-Arlington-Alexandria, DC-VA-MD-
WV'' and ``Baltimore-Columbia-Towson, MD''). In order to continue
applying a CPI which best reflects the geographic region in which FDA
is headquartered and which provides the most current data available,
the Washington-Arlington-Alexandria index will be used in calculating
the relevant adjustment factors for FY 2021 and subsequent years. Table
3 provides the summary data for the percent change in the specified
CPI. The data are published by the Bureau of Labor Statistics and can
be found on its website at: https://data.bls.gov/pdq/SurveyOutputServlet?data_tool=dropmap&series_id=CUURS35ASA0,CUUSS35ASA0.

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

    \1\ The Bureau of Labor Statistics' announcement of the
geographical revision can be viewed at https://www.bls.gov/cpi/additional-resources/geographic-revision-2018.htm.

        Table 3--Annual and 3-Year Average Percent Change in CPI for Washington-Arlington-Alexandria Area
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                      Year                             2017            2018            2019       3-year average
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Annual CPI......................................         256.221         261.445         264.777  ..............
Annual Percent Change...........................          1.1045          2.0389          1.2745          1.4726
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To calculate the inflation adjustment for non-pay costs, we
multiply the 3-year average percent change in the CPI (1.4726 percent)
by the proportion of all costs other than PC&B to total costs of human
generic drug activities obligated. Because 53.5363 percent was
obligated for PC&B as shown in Table 2, 46.4637 percent is the portion
of costs other than PC&B. The non-pay adjustment is 1.4726 percent
times 46.4637 percent, or 0.6842 percent.

    To complete the inflation adjustment for FY 2021, we add the PC&B
component (0.6769 percent) to the non-PC&B component (0.6842 percent)
for a total inflation adjustment of 1.3611 percent (rounded), and then
add 1, making an inflation adjustment multiple of 1.013611. We then
multiply the base revenue amount for FY 2021 ($513,223,160) by
1.013611, yielding an inflation-adjusted amount of $520,209,000
(rounded to the nearest thousand dollars).

III. ANDA Filing Fee

    Under GDUFA II, the FY 2021 ANDA filing fee is owed by each
applicant that submits an ANDA on or after October 1, 2020. This fee is
due on the submission date of the ANDA. Section 744B(b)(2)(B) of the
FD&C Act specifies that the ANDA fee will make up 33 percent of the
$520,209,000, which is $171,668,970.
    To calculate the ANDA fee, FDA estimated the number of full
application equivalents (FAEs) that will be submitted in FY 2021. The
submissions are broken down into three categories: New originals
(submissions that have not been received by FDA previously);
submissions that FDA refused to receive (RTR-ed) for reasons other than
failure to pay fees; and applications that are resubmitted after an RTR
decision for reasons other than failure to pay fees. An ANDA counts as
one FAE; however, 75 percent of the fee paid for an ANDA that has been
RTR-ed shall be refunded according to GDUFA II if: (1) The ANDA is
refused for a cause other than failure to pay fees, or (2) the ANDA has
been withdrawn prior to receipt (section 744B(a)(3)(D)(i) of the FD&C
Act). Therefore, an ANDA that is considered not to have been received
by FDA due to reasons other than failure to pay fees or withdrawn prior
to receipt counts as one-fourth of an FAE. After an ANDA has been RTR,
the applicant has the option of resubmitting. For user fee purposes,
these resubmissions are equivalent to new original submissions--ANDA
resubmissions are charged the full amount for an application (one FAE).
    FDA utilized data from ANDAs submitted from October 1, 2018, to
April 30, 2020, to estimate the number of new original ANDAs that will
incur filing fees in FY 2021. For FY 2021, the Agency estimates that
approximately 867 new original ANDAs will be submitted and incur filing
fees. Not all of the new original ANDAs will be received by the Agency
and some of those not received will be resubmitted in the same fiscal
year. Therefore, the Agency expects that the FAE count for ANDAs will
be 872 for FY 2021.
    The FY 2021 application fee is estimated by dividing the number of
FAEs that will pay the fee in FY 2021 (872) into the fee revenue amount
to be derived from ANDA application fees in FY 2021 ($171,668,970). The
result, rounded to the nearest dollar, is a fee of $196,868 per ANDA.
    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 anticipates 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.

IV. DMF Fee

    Under GDUFA II, the DMF fee is owed by each person that owns a type
II API 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 DMF. This fee is due on the earlier of the date
on which the first generic drug submission is submitted that references
the associated DMF or the date on which the DMF holder requests the
initial completeness assessment. 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.
    To calculate the DMF fee, FDA assessed the volume of DMF
submissions over time. The Agency assessed DMFs from October 1, 2018,
to April 30, 2020, and concluded that averaging the number of fee-
paying DMFs provided the most accurate model for predicting fee-paying
DMFs for FY 2021. The monthly average of paid DMF submissions the
Agency received in FY 2019 and FY 2020 is 31. To determine the FY 2021
projected number of fee-paying DMFs, the average of 31 DMF submissions
is multiplied by 12 months, which results in 372 estimated FY 2021 fee-
paying DMFs. FDA is estimating 372 fee-paying DMFs for FY 2021.
    The FY 2021 DMF fee is determined by dividing the DMF target
revenue by the estimated number of fee-paying DMFs in FY 2021. Section
744B(b)(2)(A) of the FD&C Act specifies that the DMF fees will make up
5 percent of the $520,209,000, which is $26,010,450. Dividing the DMF
revenue amount ($26,010,450) by the estimated fee-paying DMFs (372),
and rounding to the nearest dollar, yields a DMF fee of $69,921 for FY
2021.

V. Foreign Facility Fee Differential

    Under GDUFA II, the fee for a facility located outside the United
States and its territories and possessions shall be $15,000 higher than
the amount of the fee for a facility located in the United States and
its territories and possessions. The basis for this differential is the
extra cost incurred by conducting an inspection outside the United
States and its territories and possessions.

VI. FDF and CMO Facility Fees

    Under GDUFA II, the annual FDF facility fee is owed by each person
who owns an FDF facility that is identified in at least one approved
generic drug submission owned by that person or its affiliates. The CMO
facility fee is owed by each person who owns an FDF facility that is
identified in at least one approved ANDA but is not identified in an
approved ANDA held by the owner of that facility or its affiliates.
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 and CMO facility fee revenue will make up 20
percent of the $520,209,000, which is $104,041,800.
    To calculate the fees, data from FDA's Integrity Services (IS) were
utilized as the primary source of facility information for determining
the denominators of each facility fee type. IS is the master data
steward for all facility information provided in generic drug
submissions received by FDA. A facility's reference status in an
approved generic drug submission is extracted directly from submission
data rather than relying on data from self-identification. This
information provided the number of facilities referenced as FDF
manufacturers in at least one approved generic drug submission. Based
on FDA's IS data, the FDF and CMO facility denominators are 188 FDF
domestic, 278 FDF foreign, 92 CMO domestic, and 111 CMO foreign
facilities for FY 2021.
    GDUFA II specifies that the CMO facility fee is to be equal to one-
third the amount of the FDF facility fee. Therefore, to generate the
target collection revenue amount from FDF and CMO facility fees
($104,041,800), FDA must weight a CMO facility as one-third of an FDF
facility. FDA set fees based on the estimate of 188 FDF

domestic, 278 FDF foreign, 30.67 CMO domestic (92 multiplied by one-
third), and 37 CMO foreign facilities (111 multiplied by one-third),
which equals 533.67 total weighted FDF and CMO facilities for FY 2021.
    To calculate the fee for domestic facilities, FDA first determines
the total fee revenue that will result from the foreign facility
differential by subtracting the fee revenue resulting from the foreign
facility fee differential from the target collection revenue amount
($104,041,800) as follows. The foreign facility fee differential
revenue equals the foreign facility fee differential ($15,000)
multiplied by the number of FDF foreign facilities (278) plus the
foreign facility fee differential ($15,000) multiplied by the number of
CMO foreign facilities (111), totaling $5,835,000. This results in
foreign fee differential revenue of $5,835,000 from the total FDF and
CMO facility fee target collection revenue. Subtracting the foreign
facility differential fee revenue ($5,835,000) from the total FDF and
CMO facility target collection revenue ($104,041,800) results in a
remaining facility fee revenue balance of $98,206,800. To determine the
domestic FDF facility fee, FDA divides the $98,206,800 by the total
weighted number of FDF and CMO facilities (533.67), which results in a
domestic FDF facility fee of $184,022. The foreign FDF facility fee is
$15,000 more than the domestic FDF facility fee, or $199,022.
    According to GDUFA II, the domestic CMO fee is calculated as one-
third the amount of the domestic FDF facility fee. Therefore, the
domestic CMO fee is $61,341, rounded to the nearest dollar. The foreign
CMO fee is calculated as the domestic CMO fee plus the foreign fee
differential of $15,000. Therefore, the foreign CMO fee is $76,341.

VII. API Facility Fee

    Under GDUFA II, the annual API facility fee is owed by each person
who owns a facility that is identified in: (1) At least one approved
generic drug submission or (2) in a Type II API DMF referenced in at
least one approved 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 the API facility fee
will make up 7 percent of $520,209,000 in fee revenue, which is
$36,414,630.
    To calculate the API facility fee, data from FDA's IS were utilized
as the primary source of facility information for determining the
denominator. As stated above, IS is the master data steward for all
facility information provided in generic drug submissions received by
FDA. A facility's reference status in an approved generic drug
submission is extracted directly from submission data rather than
relying on data from self-identification. This information provided the
number of facilities referenced as API manufacturers in at least one
approved generic drug submission.
    The total number of API facilities identified was 664; of that
number, 81 were domestic and 583 were foreign facilities. The foreign
facility differential is $15,000. To calculate the fee for domestic
facilities, FDA must first subtract the fee revenue that will result
from the foreign facility fee differential. FDA takes the foreign
facility differential ($15,000) and multiplies it by the number of
foreign facilities (583) to determine the total fee revenue that will
result from the foreign facility differential. As a result of that
calculation, the foreign fee differential revenue will make up
$8,745,000 of the total API fee revenue. Subtracting the foreign
facility differential fee revenue ($8,745,000) from the total API
facility target revenue ($36,414,630) results in a remaining balance of
$27,669,630. To determine the domestic API facility fee, we divide the
$27,669,630 by the total number of facilities (664), which gives us a
domestic API facility fee of $41,671. The foreign API facility fee is
$15,000 more than the domestic API facility fee, or $56,671.

VIII. Generic Drug Applicant Program Fee

    Under GDUFA II, if a person and its affiliates own at least one but
not more than five approved ANDAs on October 1, 2020, the person and
its affiliates shall owe a small business GDUFA program fee. If a
person and its affiliates own at least six but not more than 19
approved ANDAs, the person and its affiliates shall owe a medium size
operation GDUFA program fee. If a person and its affiliates own at
least 20 approved ANDAs, the person and its affiliates shall owe a
large size operation GDUFA program fee. These fees are due no later
than the first business day on or after October 1 of each such year.
Section 744B(b)(2)(E) of the FD&C Act specifies the GDUFA program fee
will make up 35 percent of $520,209,000 in fee revenue, which is
$182,073,150.
    To determine the appropriate number of parent companies for each
tier, the Agency asked companies to claim their ANDAs and affiliates in
the Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER) NextGen Portal. The
companies were able to confirm relationships currently present in the
Agency's records, while also reporting newly approved ANDAs, newly
acquired ANDAs, and new affiliations.
    In determining the appropriate number of approved ANDAs, the Agency
has factored in a number of variables that could affect the collection
of the target revenue: (1) Inactive ANDAs--applicants who have not
submitted an annual report for one or more of their approved
applications within the past 2 years; (2) FY 2018 Program Fee Arrears
List--applicants who failed to satisfy the FY 2018 program fee and were
unresponsive to attempts to collect; (3) Center for Biologics
Evaluation and Research (CBER) approved ANDAs-- applicants and their
affiliates with CBER-approved ANDAs in addition to CDER's approved
ANDAs; (4) Withdrawals of approved ANDAs by April 1st-- applicants who
have submitted a written request for withdrawal of approval by April
1st of the previous fiscal year; and (5) Abbreviated Antibiotic
Applications (AADA) conversions--ANDAs (previously AADAs) for bulk
antibiotic drug substance converted and refiled as DMFs. The list of
original approved ANDAs from the Generic Drug Review Platform as of
April 30, 2020, shows 283 applicants in the small business tier, 67
applicants in the medium size tier, and 73 applicants in the large size
tier. Factoring in all the variables for the fourth year of GDUFA II,
the Agency estimates there will be 220 applicants in the small business
tier, 60 applicants in the medium size tier, and 72 applicants in the
large size tier for FY 2021.
    To calculate the GDUFA program fee, GDUFA II provides that large
size operation generic drug applicants pay the full fee, medium size
operation applicants pay two-fifths of the full fee, and small business
applicants pay one-tenth of the full fee. To generate the target
collection revenue amount from GDUFA program fees ($182,073,150), we
must weigh medium and small tiered applicants as a subset of a large
size operation generic drug applicant. FDA will set fees based on the
weighted estimate of 22.00 applicants in the small business tier (220
multiplied by 10 percent), 24.00 applicants in the medium size tier (60
multiplied by 40 percent), and 72 applicants in the large size tier,
arriving at 118 total weighted applicants for FY 2021.
    To generate the large size operation GDUFA program fee, FDA divides
the target revenue amount of $182,073,150 by 118, which equals
$1,542,993. The medium size operation GDUFA program fee is 40 percent
of the full fee ($617,197), and the small business operation GDUFA
program fee is 10 percent of the full fee ($154,299).

IX. Fee Schedule for FY 2021

    The fee rates for FY 2021 are set out in Table 4.

                    Table 4--Fee Schedule for FY 2021
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                          Fees rates for
                      Fee category                            FY 2021
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Applications:
    Abbreviated New Drug Application (ANDA).............        $196,868
    Drug Master File (DMF)..............................          69,921
Facilities:
    Active Pharmaceutical Ingredient (API) Domestic.....          41,671
    API--Foreign........................................          56,671
    Finished Dosage Form (FDF)--Domestic................         184,022
    FDF--Foreign........................................         199,022
    Contract Manufacturing Organization (CMO)--Domestic.          61,341
    CMO--Foreign........................................          76,341
GDUFA Program:
    Large size operation generic drug applicant.........       1,542,993
    Medium size operation generic drug applicant........         617,197
    Small business operation generic drug applicant.....         154,299
------------------------------------------------------------------------

X. Fee Payment Options and Procedures

    The new fee rates are effective October 1, 2020. To pay the ANDA,
DMF, API facility, FDF facility, CMO facility, and GDUFA program fees,
a Generic Drug User Fee Cover Sheet must be completed, available at
https://www.fda.gov/gdufa and https://userfees.fda.gov/OA_HTML/gdufaCAcdLogin.jsp, and a user fee identification (ID) number must be
generated. 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, credit
card, or wire transfer. The preferred payment method is online using
electronic check (Automated Clearing House (ACH), also known as eCheck)
or credit card (Discover, VISA, MasterCard, American Express). 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 website after completing the
Generic Drug User Fee Cover Sheet and generating the user fee ID
number. Secure electronic payments can be submitted using the User Fees
Payment Portal at https://userfees.fda.gov/pay. (Note: Only full
payments are accepted; no partial payments can be made online.) Once an
invoice is located, ``Pay Now'' should be selected to be redirected to
Pay.gov. Electronic payment options are based on the balance due.
Payment by credit card is available for balances less than $25,000. If
the balance exceeds this amount, only the ACH option is available.
Payments must be made using U.S bank accounts as well as U.S. credit
cards.
    The user fee ID number must be included on the check, bank draft,
or postal money order and must be made payable to the order of the Food
and Drug Administration. Payments 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. For questions concerning courier
delivery, U.S. Bank can be contacted at<PHONE_NUMBER>. This telephone
number is only for questions about courier delivery.) The FDA post
office box number (P.O. Box 979108) must be written on the check, bank
draft, or postal money order.
    For payments made by wire transfer, the unique user fee ID number
must be referenced. Without the unique user fee ID number, the payment
may not be applied. If the payment amount is not applied, the invoice
amount will be referred to collections. The originating financial
institution may charge a wire transfer fee. Applicable wire transfer
fees must be included with payment to ensure fees are fully paid.
Questions about wire transfer fees should be addressed to the financial
institution. The following account information should be used to send
payments by wire transfer: U.S. Department of the Treasury, TREAS NYC,
33 Liberty St., New York, NY 10045, account number: 75060099, routing
number: 021030004, SWIFT: FRNYUS33. FDA's tax identification number is
53-0196965.

    Dated: July 28, 2020.
Lauren K. Roth,
Associate Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2020-16687 Filed 7-31-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4164-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 43 (Thursday, March 5, 2015)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 11863-11865]
[FR Doc No: 2015-05085]

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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

Bureau of Industry and Security

15 CFR Part 748

[Docket No. 150206120-5120-01]
RIN 0694-AG50

Amendments to Existing Validated End-User Authorization in the
People's Republic of China: Samsung China Semiconductor Co. Ltd.

AGENCY: Bureau of Industry and Security, Commerce.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: In this rule, the Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS) amends
the Export Administration Regulations (EAR) to revise the existing
authorization for Validated End User Samsung China Semiconductor Co.
Ltd. (Samsung China) in the People's Republic of China (PRC).
Specifically, BIS amends Supplement No. 7 to Part 748 of the EAR to add
two items to Samsung China's eligible items that may be exported,
reexported or transferred (in country) to the company's eligible
facilities (also known as ``eligible destinations'') in the PRC.

DATES: This rule is effective March 5, 2015.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mi-Yong Kim, Chair, End-User Review
Committee, Office of the Assistant Secretary, Export Administration,
Bureau of Industry and Security, U.S. Department of Commerce, Phone:
202-482-5991; Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; Email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

Authorization Validated End-User

    Validated End-Users (VEUs) are designated entities located in
eligible destinations to which eligible items may be exported,
reexported, or transferred (in-country) under a general authorization
instead of a license. The names of the VEUs, as well as the dates they
were so designated, and their respective eligible destinations and
items are identified in Supplement No. 7 to Part 748 of the EAR. Under
the terms described in that supplement, VEUs may obtain eligible items
without an export license from BIS, in conformity with Section 748.15
of the EAR. Eligible items vary between VEUs and may include
commodities, software, and technology, except those controlled for
missile technology or crime control reasons on the Commerce Control
List (CCL) (part 774 of the EAR).
    VEUs are reviewed and approved by the U.S. Government in accordance
with the provisions of Section 748.15 and Supplement Nos. 8 and 9 to
Part 748 of the EAR. The End-User Review Committee (ERC), composed of
representatives from the Departments of State, Defense, Energy, and
Commerce, and other agencies, as appropriate, is responsible for
administering the VEU program. BIS amended the EAR in a final rule
published on June 19, 2007 (72 FR 33646) to create Authorization VEU.

Amendment to Existing VEU Authorization for Samsung China Semiconductor
Co. Ltd (Samsung China) in the People's Republic of China (PRC)

Revision to the List of ``Eligible Items (by ECCN)'' for Samsung China

    In this final rule, BIS amends Supplement No. 7 to Part 748 to add
two Export Control Classification Numbers (ECCNs), 2B006.a and
2B006.b.1.d, to the list of items that may be exported, reexported or
transferred (in-country) to Samsung China's facility in the PRC under
Authorization VEU. The revised list of eligible items for Samsung China
is as follows:

Eligible Items (by ECCN) That May Be Exported, Reexported or
Transferred (In-Country) to the Eligible Destination Identified Under
Samsung China Semiconductor Co. Ltd.'s Validated End-User Authorization

    1C350.c.3, 1C350.d.7, 2B006.a, 2B006.b.1.d, 2B230, 2B350.d.2,
2B350.g.3, 2B350.i.3, 3A233, 3B001.a.1, 3B001.b, 3B001.c, 3B001.e,
3B001.f, 3B001.h, 3C002, 3C004, 3D002, and 3E001 (limited to
``technology'' for items classified under 3C002 and 3C004 and
``technology'' for use consistent with the International Technology
Roadmap for Semiconductors process for items classified under ECCNs
3B001 and 3B002).

Export Administration Act

    Since August 21, 2001, the Export Administration Act of 1979, as
amended, has been in lapse. However, the President, through Executive
Order 13222 of August 17, 2001, 3 CFR 2001 Comp., p. 783 (2002), as
amended by Executive Order 13637 of March 8, 2013, 78 FR 16129 (March
13, 2013), and as extended by the Notice of August 7, 2014, 79 FR 46959
(August 11, 2014) has continued the EAR in effect under the
International Emergency Economic Powers Act (50 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.).
BIS continues to carry out the provisions of the Export Administration
Act, as appropriate and to the extent permitted by law, pursuant to
Executive Order 13222, as amended by Executive Order 13637.

Rulemaking Requirements

    1. Executive Orders 13563 and 12866 direct agencies to assess all
costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if
regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize
net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public
health and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity). Executive
Order 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and
benefits, reducing costs, harmonizing rules, and promoting flexibility.
This rule has been determined to be not significant for purposes of
Executive Order 12866.
    2. This rule involves collections previously approved by the Office
of Management and Budget (OMB) under Control Number 0694-0088, ``Multi-
Purpose Application,'' which carries a burden hour estimate of 43.8
minutes to prepare and submit form BIS-748; and for recordkeeping,
reporting and review requirements in connection with Authorization VEU,
which carries an estimated burden of 30 minutes per submission. This
rule is expected to result in a decrease in license applications
submitted to BIS. Total burden hours associated with the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.) (PRA) and OMB Control
Number 0694-0088 are not expected to increase significantly as a result
of this rule. Notwithstanding any other provisions of law, no person is
required to respond to, nor be subject to a penalty for failure to
comply with a

collection of information subject to the requirements of the PRA,
unless that collection of information displays a currently valid OMB
Control Number.
    3. This rule does not contain policies with Federalism implications
as that term is defined under Executive Order 13132.
    4. Pursuant to the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), 5 U.S.C.
553(b)(B), BIS finds good cause to waive requirements that this rule be
subject to notice and the opportunity for public comment because they
are unnecessary. In determining whether to grant VEU designations, a
committee of U.S. Government agencies evaluates information about and
commitments made by candidate companies, the nature and terms of which
are set forth in 15 CFR part 748, Supplement No. 8. The criteria for
evaluation by the committee are set forth in 15 CFR 748.15(a)(2). The
information, commitments, and criteria for this extensive review were
all established through the notice of proposed rulemaking and public
comment process (71 FR 38313 (July 6, 2006) (proposed rule), and 72 FR
33646 (June 19, 2007) (final rule)). Given the similarities between the
authorizations provided under the VEU program and export licenses (as
discussed further below), the publication of this information does not
establish new policy. Publication of this rule in other than final form
is unnecessary because the authorizations granted in the rule are
consistent with the authorizations granted to exporters for individual
licenses (and amendments or revisions thereof), which do not undergo
public review. In addition, as with license applications, VEU
authorization applications contain confidential business information,
which is necessary for the extensive review conducted by the U.S.
Government in assessing such applications. This information is
extensively reviewed according to the criteria for VEU authorizations,
as set out in 15 CFR 748.15(a)(2). Additionally, just as the
interagency reviews license applications, the authorizations granted
under the VEU program involve interagency deliberation and result from
review of public and non-public sources, including licensing data, and
the measurement of such information against the VEU authorization
criteria. Given the nature of the review, and in light of the parallels
between the VEU application review process and the review of license
applications, public comment on this authorization and subsequent
amendments prior to publication is unnecessary. Moreover, because, as
noted above, the criteria and process for authorizing and administering
VEUs were developed with public comments, allowing additional public
comment on this amendment to individual VEU authorizations, which was
determined according to those criteria, is unnecessary.
    Section 553(d) of the APA generally provides that rules may not
take effect earlier than thirty (30) days after they are published in
the Federal Register. BIS finds good cause to waive the 30- day delay
in effectiveness under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3) because the delay would be
contrary to the public interest. BIS is simply amending the
authorization of an existing VEU by adding two ECCNs to the list of
eligible items that may be sent to that VEU, consistent with
established objectives and parameters administered and enforced by the
responsible designated departmental representatives to the End-User
Review Committee. Delaying this action's effectiveness could cause
confusion regarding which items are authorized by the U.S. Government
and in turn stifle the purpose of the VEU Program. Accordingly, it is
contrary to the public interest to delay this rule's effectiveness.
    No other law requires that a notice of proposed rulemaking and an
opportunity for public comment be given for this final rule. Because a
notice of proposed rulemaking and an opportunity for public comment are
not required under the APA or by any other law, the analytical
requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.)
are not applicable. As a result, no final regulatory flexibility
analysis is required and none has been prepared.

List of Subjects in 15 CFR Part 748

    Administrative practice and procedure, Exports, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.

    Accordingly, part 748 of the EAR (15 CFR parts 730-774) is amended
as follows:

PART 748--[AMENDED]

0
1. The authority citation for 15 CFR part 748 continues to read as
follows:

    Authority: 50 U.S.C. app. 2401 et seq.; 50 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.;
E.O. 13026, 61 FR 58767, 3 CFR, 1996 Comp., p. 228; E.O. 13222, 66
FR 44025, 3 CFR, 2001 Comp., p. 783; Notice of August 7, 2014, 79 FR
46959 (August 11, 2014).

0
2. Amend Supplement No. 7 to Part 748 by revising the entry for
``Samsung China Semiconductor Co. Ltd.'' in ``China (People's Republic
of)'' to read as follows:

  Supplement No. 7 to Part 748--Authorization Validated End-User (VEU): List of Validated End-Users, Respective
                   Items Eligible for Export, Reexport and Transfer, and Eligible Destinations
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                               Validated  end-   Eligible items (by                           Federal Register
           Country                   user               ECCN)         Eligible destination        citation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Nothing in this Supplement shall be deemed to supersede other provisions in the EAR, including but not limited
                                              to Sec.   748.15(c).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                  * * * * * * *
                               Samsung China    1C350.c.3,            Samsung China         78 FR 41291, 7/10/
                                Semi conductor   1C350.d.7, 2B006.a,   Semiconductor Co.     13. 78 FR 69535, 11/
                                Co. Ltd.         2B006.b.1.d, 2B230,   Ltd. No. 1999,        20/13. 79 FR 30713,
                                                 2B350.d.2,            North Xiaohe Road     5/29/14. 80 FR
                                                 2B350.g.3,            Xi'an, China 710119.  [INSERT PAGE
                                                 2B350.i.3, 3A233,                           NUMBER], March 5,
                                                 3B001.a.1, 3B001.b,                         2015.
                                                 3B001.c, 3B001.e,
                                                 3B001.f, 3B001.h,
                                                 3C002, 3C004,
                                                 3D002, and 3E001
                                                 (limited to
                                                 ``technology'' for
                                                 items classified
                                                 under 3C002 and
                                                 3C004 and
                                                 ``technology'' for
                                                 use consistent with
                                                 the International
                                                 Technology Roadmap
                                                 for Semiconductors
                                                 process for items
                                                 classified under
                                                 ECCNs 3B001 and
                                                 3B002).
                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Dated: February 27, 2015.
Kevin J. Wolf,
Assistant Secretary for Export Administration.
[FR Doc. 2015-05085 Filed 3-4-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 3510-33-P