[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 91 (Friday, May 10, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Pages 20669-20671]
[FR Doc No: 2019-09633]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-85781; File No. SR-FINRA-2019-004]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Financial Industry Regulatory
Authority, Inc.; Order Approving a Proposed Rule Change To Expand Time
for Non-Parties To Respond to Arbitration Subpoenas and Orders of
Appearance of Witnesses or Production of Documents

May 6, 2019.

I. Introduction

    On January 29, 2019, Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc.
(``FINRA'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission''), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (``Exchange Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4
thereunder,\2\ a proposed rule change to amend FINRA Rule 12512(d)
through (e) and FINRA Rule 12513(d) through (e) of the Code of
Arbitration Procedure for Customer Disputes (``Customer Code'') and
FINRA Rule 13512(d) through (e) and FINRA Rule 13513(d) through (e) of
the Code of Arbitration Procedure for Industry Disputes (``Industry
Code'' and together, ``Codes''), to expand the time for non-parties to
respond to arbitration subpoenas and orders of appearance of witnesses
or production of documents, and to make related changes to enhance the
discovery process for forum users.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The proposed rule change was published for comment in the Federal
Register on February 12, 2019.\3\ The public comment period closed on
March 5, 2019. The Commission received four comment letters in response
to the Notice, all supporting the proposed rule change.\4\ On April 22,
2019, FINRA responded to the comment letters received in response to
the Notice.\5\ On March 19, 2019, FINRA extended the time period in
which the Commission must approve the proposed rule change, disapprove
the proposed rule change, or institute proceedings to determine whether
to approve or disapprove the proposed rule change to May 13, 2019.\6\
This order approves the proposed rule change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See Exchange Act Release No. 85063 (Feb. 6, 2019), 84 FR
3518 (Feb. 12, 2019) (File No. SR-FINRA-2019-004) (``Notice'').
    \4\ See Letter from Steven B. Caruso, Maddox Hargett Caruso,
P.C., dated February 11, 2019 (``Caruso Letter''); letter from
Christine Lazaro, Public Investors Arbitration Bar Association
(``PIABA''), dated February 22, 2019 (``PIABA Letter''); letter from
William Jacobson, Cornell Securities Law Clinic, dated March 1, 2019
(``Cornell Letter''); and letter from Nicole Iannarone, Georgia
State University College of Law, dated March 5, 2019 (``Georgia
State Letter''). Comment letters are available on the Commission's
website at https://www.sec.gov.
    \5\ See Letter from Kristine A. Vo, Principal Counsel, FINRA, to
Ms. Vanessa Countryman, Acting Secretary, U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission, dated April 22, 2019 (``FINRA Letter''). The
FINRA Letter is available on FINRA's website at http://www.finra.org, at the principal office of FINRA, on the Commission's
website at https://www.sec.gov/comments/sr-finra-2019-004/srfinra2019004.htm, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.
    \6\ See Letter from Kristine A. Vo, Principal Counsel, FINRA, to
Lourdes Gonzalez, Assistant Chief Counsel--Sales Practices, Division
of Trading and Markets, Securities and Exchange Commission, dated
March 19, 2019.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Description of the Proposed Rule Change 7
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ The subsequent description of the proposed rule change is
substantially excerpted from FINRA's description in the Notice. See
Notice, 84 FR at 3518-3519.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Parties exchange documents and information to prepare for an
arbitration through the discovery process. The Codes currently provide
that parties in FINRA arbitration who seek discovery from a non-party
may request the panel to issue: (1) An order of appearance of witnesses
or production of documents if the non-party is subject to FINRA's
jurisdiction as an associated person or member firm or (2) a subpoena
if the non-party is not subject to FINRA's jurisdiction.\8\ If the
panel decides to issue the order or subpoena, FINRA will transmit the
signed order or subpoena to the moving party to serve on the non-
party.\9\ If a non-party receiving an order or a subpoena objects to
the scope or propriety of the order or subpoena, the non-party may,
within 10 calendar days of service of the order or subpoena, file
written objections through the Director of the Office of Dispute
Resolution (Director).\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See Rules 12512 and 12513. See also Rules 13512 and 13513.
    \9\ See Notice, 84 FR at 3518.
    \10\ See Rules 12512 and 12513. See also Rules 13512 and 13513.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FINRA is proposing three amendments to the Codes to enhance the
discovery process for forum users, particularly non-parties.
Specifically, FINRA is proposing to amend the Codes to:
    (1) Extend the response time for non-parties to object to an order
or subpoena from 10 calendar days of service to 15 calendar days of
receipt of the order or subpoena; \11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ Receipt of overnight mail service, overnight delivery
service, hand delivery, email or facsimile is accomplished on the
date of delivery. See Notice, 84 FR at 3519, n. 8.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (2) exclude first-class mail as an option to serve documents on a
non-party and as an option for the non-party to file the objection to
the scope or propriety of the order or subpoena; \12\ and
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ Filing and service by first-class mail is accomplished on
the date of mailing, but it can take several days to confirm
receipt. For purposes of this rule proposal, service by overnight
mail, overnight delivery, hand delivery, facsimile or email is
accomplished on the date of delivery.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (3) codify the current practice that the Director sends, at the
same time, objections and responses to the panel after the reply date
has elapsed, unless otherwise directed by the panel.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ FINRA states that the Director sends the complete set of
motion papers to the panel to ensure that the panel receives the
advocacy positions of all parties at the same time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Comment Summary

Supportive Comments

    As noted above, the Commission received four comment letters on the
proposed rule change.\14\ Overall, all four commenters support the
proposal and believe that it represents a fair and reasonable approach
to helping expedite the arbitration process.\15\ More specifically, all
four commenters explained that the extension of time to respond to an
order or subpoena would help ensure that non-parties have sufficient
time to respond to an order or subpoena during arbitration and enhance
the discovery process for forum users.\16\ The commenters also believe
that FINRA's proposed change to the acceptable methods of service would
help enable forum users to ``better facilitate and confirm service of
subpoenas and orders.'' \17\ One

commenter states that the new acceptable service methods would further
its efforts to ``provide no-cost advocacy to retail investors who
cannot obtain legal representation because [they] do not cost
anything.'' \18\ This commenter also supports the proposed fifteen-day
response deadline because ``it would promote speed and efficiency in
arbitration.'' \19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ See supra note 4.
    \15\ See Caruso Letter (stating that ``proposed changes would be
a fair, equitable and reasonable approach that would expedite and
facilitate the efficiency of the arbitration process . . . ''; PIABA
Letter (supporting the proposed rule changes ``insofar as they
strike a good balance between promoting fast and efficient discovery
and allowing for the normal internal operations of third parties to
work to respond to subpoenas and orders.''); Georgia State Letter
(stating that the proposal would ``promote speed and efficiency in
arbitration''); and Cornell Letter (stating that the proposal is an
important step towards ``enhancing the discovery process for forum
users.'').
    \16\ See Cornell Letter. See also Caruso Letter (stating that
``the proposed amendments would address forum users concerns and
would help ensure that non-parties wanting to object to an order or
subpoena have sufficient time to do so.''); PIABA Letter (supporting
``the proposed rule changes, insofar as they strike a good balance
between promoting fast and efficient discovery and allowing for the
normal internal operations of third parties to work to respond to
subpoenas and orders.''); Georgia State Letter (stating that
patterning its rule on those of other fora would create familiarity
with the process, resulting in ``more timely answers from non-
parties and FINRA spending less time enforcing orders and subpoenas
that were not answered.'').
    \17\ PIABA Letter. See also Georgia State Letter (stating that
the proposal would ``enhance the speed of and lower costs in
arbitration by amending the methods of service.''); Caruso Letter
(stating that the proposal ``enable forum users to be better able to
confirm and facilitate the timing of discovery obligations.'');
Cornell Letter (predicting that the new proposed service methods
would ``speed[] up the time it takes to serve documents to non-
parties.'').
    \18\ Georgia State Letter.
    \19\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Additional Guidance

    One commenter suggests that FINRA amend the proposal to use service
(instead of receipt) as the trigger for determining response
deadlines.\20\ Specifically, the commenter believes that the use of
``receipt'' instead of ``service'' as a trigger for responses
``introduces uncertainty into the process [because w]hile service can
be verified, a serving party may not be aware of when a request is
received by a third party.'' \21\ The commenter also points out that
``other similar forums currently use service and not receipt as the
trigger for calculating a response deadline.'' \22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ See id.
    \21\ Georgia State Letter.
    \22\ Id. (stating that service is the trigger for responses in
federal court, in the JAMS arbitration forum, and to SEC and FTC
requests).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In response, FINRA explains that the receipt of overnight mail
service, overnight delivery service, hand delivery, email, or facsimile
is accomplished on the date of delivery.\23\ Accordingly, FINRA
believes that parties will be able to determine the date of delivery
because, other than for overnight mail service and overnight delivery
service, typically delivery will be the same date as service.\24\ FINRA
also states that the rule change excludes first class mail as an option
to serve documents on a non-party, in part, because it may be difficult
to determine the date of delivery and, thereby, receipt.\25\ For these
reasons, FINRA did not take commenter's recommended change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ See supra note 5; see also Notice.
    \24\ See FINRA Letter.
    \25\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Similarly, another commenter recommends that FINRA adopt a
certified mail option to ``verify when the order or subpoena was
received.'' \26\ In response, FINRA states that service by overnight
mail, overnight delivery, hand delivery, email, or facsimile allow the
parties to verify both the date of delivery and receipt and, therefore,
certified mail is unnecessary.\27\ Accordingly, FINRA did not take the
commenters recommended change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ See Cornell Letter.
    \27\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Discussion and Commission Findings

    After careful review of the proposed rule change and the comment
letters, the Commission finds that the proposal is consistent with the
requirements of the Exchange Act and the rules and regulations
thereunder that are applicable to a national securities
association.\28\ Specifically, the Commission finds that the proposed
rule change is consistent with Section 15A(b)(6) of the Exchange
Act,\29\ which requires, among other things, that FINRA rules be
designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to
promote just and equitable principles of trade, and, in general, to
protect investors and the public interest. The Commission agrees with
FINRA and the commenters that the proposed rule changes would protect
investors and the public interest by improving the FINRA arbitration
forum for the parties that use it.\30\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ In approving this rule change, the Commission has
considered the rule's impact on efficiency, competition, and capital
formation. See 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).
    \29\ 15 U.S.C. 78o-3(b)(6).
    \30\ See supra note 15; see also FINRA Letter.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As stated in the proposal, forum users have expressed concerns
about the amount of time that non-parties have to respond to orders and
subpoenas \31\ since the individual at a non-party firm who is
responsible for responding to an order or subpoena may not actually
receive a copy of the order or subpoena until after the tenth day from
service has passed.\32\ Once the objection to an order or subpoena is
waived, the non-party must respond to the order or subpoena or risk
incurring sanctions or disciplinary action.\33\ Consequently, the
Commission believes the extension from 10 calendar days of service to
15 calendar days of receipt of the order or subpoena would address
forum users' concerns because the proposal would help to provide
sufficient time to non-parties wanting to object to an order or
subpoena. Consequently, we also believe that the proposal would also
help prevent accidental waivers that could cause sanctions or
disciplinary action, protest, and thus further delays in resolving
arbitration claims between parties.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \31\ See Notice, 84 FR at 3818-3519, n. 4 (citing a letter from
Kevin M. Carroll, Managing Director and Associate General Counsel,
Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association, to Jennifer
Piorko Mitchell, Vice President and Deputy Corporate Secretary,
FINRA, dated June 2, 2017 (responding to FINRA's March 2017 Special
Notice on FINRA's engagement programs), www.finra.org/sites/default/files/notice_comment_file_ref/SN-32117_SIFMA-KevinCarroll_comment.pdf).
    \32\ See FINRA Notice at 3519 (Non-parties do not have access to
the Dispute Resolution Party Portal (Party Portal). As a result,
they are currently served using other means, such as first-class
mail, overnight mail service, overnight delivery service, hand
delivery, email, or facsimile. Consequently, a firm that is a non-
party to an arbitration is not able to anticipate the arrival of an
order or subpoena and instruct front-line employees to route these
high priority documents to the appropriate individual responsible
for responding to the discovery request).
    \33\ See FINRA Notice at 3519 (citing Rules 12212 and 12511).
See also Rules 13212 and 13511).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission acknowledges one commenter's concern that adopting a
trigger for response to a subpoena or order date based on the date of
``receipt'' rather than the date of ``service'' may cause confusion
since ``a serving party may not be aware of when a request is received
by a third party.'' \34\ However, we are also concerned that a non-
party to the arbitration may not be able to anticipate the arrival of
an order or subpoena, which could lead to inadvertently waiving its
right to object. In addition, we note FINRA's statement that parties
will be able to determine the date of delivery because, other than for
overnight mail service and overnight delivery service, typically
delivery will be the same date as service.\35\ In sum, the Commission
believes that the risks related to the inability to anticipate receipt
of a subpoena or order support adopting a trigger date based on the
date of receipt rather than the date of service.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \34\ Georgia State Letter.
    \35\ See FINRA Letter.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission also acknowledges another commenter's request to
adopt a certified mail delivery option.\36\ However, the Commission
also notes that service by overnight mail, overnight delivery, hand
delivery, email, or facsimile will allow the parties to verify both the
date of delivery and receipt.\37\ Therefore, on balance, the Commission
believes that the proposed available delivery options will accommodate
the commenter's concern.\38\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \36\ See Cornell Letter.
    \37\ See FINRA Letter.
    \38\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission also agrees with FINRA's proposal to exclude first-
class mail as an option to serve documents on the non-party and as an
option for the non-party to file the objection to the scope or
propriety of the order or subpoena. As stated in the proposal, forum
users have previously raised concerns that the use of first-class mail

is too slow and thus slows down the discovery process.\39\ The
Commission agrees that by requiring forum users to serve or transmit
discovery-related documents through overnight mail service, overnight
delivery, hand delivery, email, or facsimile, the proposal would help
forum users confirm and expedite discovery, and therefore expedite the
arbitration process.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \39\ See FINRA Notice at 3519.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, the Commission supports the proposal's codification of the
current practice that the Director sends, at the same time, objections
and responses to the panel after the reply date has elapsed, unless
otherwise directed by the panel. This ensures that all members on the
panel receive all the parties' advocacy positions at the same time. The
Commission agrees that the proposed rule change will enhance forum
users' understanding of existing case administration procedures and
will improve transparency concerning forum operations.\40\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \40\ See FINRA Notice at 3519 (FINRA notes that the proposed
rule change would impact all members, including members that are
funding portals or have elected to be treated as capital acquisition
brokers (``CABs''), given that the funding portal and CAB rule sets
incorporate the impacted FINRA rules by reference).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

V. Conclusion

    It is therefore ordered pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the
Exchange Act \41\ that the proposal (SR-FINRA-2019-004), be and hereby
is approved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \41\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).
    \42\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\42\
Eduardo A. Aleman,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2019-09633 Filed 5-9-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 95 (Wednesday, May 17, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Pages 31535-31539]
[FR Doc No: 2023-10466]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-97481; File No. SR-CboeEDGX-2023-033]

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

May 11, 2023.
    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 April 28, 2023, Cboe EDGX Exchange, Inc. (``Exchange'' or ``EDGX'')
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'') the
proposed rule change as described in Items I, II, and III below, which
Items have been prepared by the Exchange. The Commission is publishing
this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change from
interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    Cboe EDGX Exchange, Inc. (the ``Exchange'' or ``EDGX Options'')
proposes to amend its Fee Schedule. The text of the proposed rule
change is provided in Exhibit 5.
    The text of the proposed rule change is also available on the
Exchange's website (http://markets.cboe.com/us/options/regulation/rule_filings/edgx/), at the Exchange's Office of the Secretary, and at
the Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to amend its Fee Schedule to modify its
market data fees for EDGX Options Top.\3\ Particularly, the Exchange
proposes to modify the Professional and Non-Professional User Fees,
adopt a new Enterprise Fee for EDGX Options Top, and make other
clarifying, non-substantive changes.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ EDGX Options Top is an uncompressed data feed that offers
top of book quotations and execution information based on options
orders entered into the System. Uncompressed data is disseminated
``as is'' in the native format by the Exchange, with no compression.
    \4\ The Exchange initially filed the proposed fee changes on
January 3, 2023 (SR-CboeEDGX-2023-001). On March 1, 2023, the
Exchange withdrew that filing and submitted SR-CboeEDGX-2023-015 in
place of SR-CboeEDGX-2023-001, which the Exchange withdrew on March
1, 2023. On March 10, 2023 the Exchange withdrew CboeEDGX-2023-015
and submitted SR-CboeEDGX-2023-020. On April 28, 2023, the Exchange
withdrew that filing and submitted this filing.

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

    The Exchange first proposes to reduce the rates for Professional
and Non-Professional User fees for EDGX Options Top. The Exchange
currently charges Internal Distributors and External Distributors that
redistribute any of the EDGX Options Data Feeds different fees for
their Professional Users \5\ and Non-Professional Users.\6\ The
Exchange currently assesses a monthly fee for Professional Users of
$10.00 per User and a monthly fee of $1.00 per Non-Professional
User.\7\ Further, the Fee Schedule provides that Distributors and Users
of any one of EDGX Options market data products (i.e., EDGX Options
Top, EDGX Options Depth, EDGX Options Auction Feed, EDGX Options
Complex Depth, EDGX Options Complex Top, and EDGX Options Complex
Auction Fees) may receive, at no additional charge, access to any or
all of the other market data products listed. The Exchange proposes to
reduce the rates for the User fees for EDGX Options Top. Particularly,
the Exchange proposes to reduce the monthly (i) Professional User fee
from $10 per user to $5 per user and (ii) Non-Professional User fee
from $1.00 per user to $0.10 per user. The Exchange also proposes to
start charging separate User fees for EDGX Options Top. User Fees for
the Exchange's remaining market data products will continue to receive,
at no additional charge, access to any or all of the other market data
products listed (with the exception of EDGX Options Top). The Exchange
has reformatted the Market Data Fees tables to make this clear.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ A Professional User of an Exchange Market Data product is
any User other than a Non-Professional User.
    \6\ A ``Non-Professional User'' of an Exchange Market Data
product is a natural person or qualifying trust that uses Data only
for personal purposes and not for any commercial purpose and, for a
natural person who works in the United States, is not: (i)
registered or qualified in any capacity with the Securities and
Exchange Commission, the Commodities Futures Trading Commission, any
state securities agency, any securities exchange or association, or
any commodities or futures contract market or association; (ii)
engaged as an ``investment adviser'' as that term is defined in
section 202(a)(11) of the Investment Advisors Act of 1940 (whether
or not registered or qualified under that Act); or (iii) employed by
a bank or other organization exempt from registration under federal
or state securities laws to perform functions that would require
registration or qualification if such functions were performed for
an organization not so exempt; or, for a natural person who works
outside of the United States, does not perform the same functions as
would disqualify such person as a Non-Professional User if he or she
worked in the United States.
    \7\ Distributors that receive EDGX Options Data Feeds are
required to count every Professional User and Non-Professional User
to which they provide the market data product(s).
    \8\ The Exchange is not proposing any changes to the current
User Fee rates for its other market data products at this time and
Users of any one of the remaining market data products may continue
to receive, at no additional charge, access to any or all of the
other market data products listed (i.e., except for EDGX Options
Top).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange lastly proposes to establish a $20,000 per month
Enterprise Fee that will permit a Distributor to purchase a monthly
(and optional) Enterprise license to receive the EDGX Options Top Data
for distribution to an unlimited number of Professional and Non-
Professional Users. The Enterprise Fee is an alternative to
Professional and Non-Professional User fees and it is assessed in
addition to the Distribution Fee, which the Exchange proposes to make
clear in the Fee Schedule. The Enterprise Fee may provide an
opportunity to reduce fees. For example, if a Distributor distributes
EDGX Options Top to 15,000 Professional Users who each receive EDGX
Options Top at $5.00 per month (as proposed), then that Distributor
will pay $75,000 per month in Professional Users fees. If the
Distributor instead were to purchase the proposed Enterprise license,
then it would alternatively pay a flat fee of $20,000 for an unlimited
number of Professional and Non-Professional Users. A Distributor must
pay a separate Enterprise Fee for each entity that controls the display
of EDGX Options Top if it wishes for such Users to be covered by the
Enterprise Fee rather than by per User fees.\9\ A Distributor that pays
the Enterprise Fee will not have to report its number of such Users on
a monthly basis. Rather, every six months, it must provide the Exchange
with a count of the total number of Professional and Non-Professional
users of EDGX Options Top.\10\ The Exchange notes that the purchase of
an Enterprise license is voluntary and a firm may elect to instead use
the per User structure and benefit from the proposed per User Fees
described above. For example, a firm that does not have a sufficient
number of Users to benefit from purchase of the license need not do so.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ For example, if a Distributor (e.g., Refinitiv) that
distributes EDGX Options Top to Retail Brokerage Firm A and Retail
Brokerage Firm B (which ``entities'' redistribute BZX Options Top to
its respective Users) and wishes to have the Users under each firm
covered by an Enterprise license, the Distributor would be subject
to two Enterprise Fees.
    \10\ See Cboe Global Markets north American Data Policies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the ``Act'') and the rules and
regulations thereunder applicable to the Exchange and, in particular,
the requirements of section 6(b) of the Act.\11\ Specifically, the
Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with the
section 6(b)(5) \12\ requirements that the rules of an exchange be
designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to
promote just and equitable principles of trade, to foster cooperation
and coordination with persons engaged in regulating, clearing,
settling, processing information with respect to, and facilitating
transactions in securities, to remove impediments to and perfect the
mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system, and,
in general, to protect investors and the public interest. Additionally,
the Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with the
section 6(b)(5) requirement that the rules of an exchange not be
designed to permit unfair discrimination between customers, issuers,
brokers, or dealers. The Exchange also believes this proposal is
consistent with section 6(b)(8) of the Act, which requires that the
rules of an exchange not impose any burden on competition that is not
necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.\13\
In addition, the Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is
consistent with section 11(A) of the Act as it supports (i) fair
competition among brokers and dealers, among exchange markets, and
between exchange markets and markets other than exchange markets, and
(ii) the availability to brokers, dealers, and investors of information
with respect to quotations for and transactions in securities.\14\ The
Exchange also believes the proposed rule change is consistent with
section 6(b)(4) of the Act,\15\ which requires that Exchange rules
provide for the equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees, and
other charges among its Members and other persons using its facilities.
The Exchange first notes that it operates in a highly competitive
environment. Indeed, there are currently 16 registered options
exchanges that trade options. Based on publicly available information,
no single options exchange has more than 18% of the market share.\16\
The Exchange believes top-of-book quotation and transaction data is
highly competitive as national securities exchanges compete vigorously
with each other to provide efficient,

reliable, and low-cost data to a wide range of investors and market
participants. Indeed, there are several competing products offered by
other national securities exchanges today, not counting products
offered by the Exchange's affiliates, and each of the Exchange's
affiliated U.S. options exchanges also offers similar top-of-book
data.\17\ Each of those exchanges offer top-of-book quotation and last
sale information based on their own quotation and trading activity that
is substantially similar to the information provided by the Exchange
through the EDGX Options Top Feed. Further, the quote and last sale
data contained in the EDGX Options Top Feed is identical to the data
sent to OPRA for redistribution to the public.\18\ Accordingly,
Exchange top-of-book data is widely available today from a number of
different sources.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \12\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
    \13\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(8).
    \14\ 15 U.S.C. 78k-1.
    \15\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).
    \16\ See Cboe Global Markets U.S. Options Market Month-to-Date
Volume Summary (April 24, 2023), available at https://markets.cboe.com/us/options/market_statistics/.
    \17\ See e.g., NYSE Arca Options Proprietary Market Data Fees
Schedule, MIAX Options Exchange, Fee Schedule, Section 6 (Market
Data Fees), Nasdaq PHLX Options 7 Pricing Schedule, Section 10
(Proprietary Data Feed Fees) and Cboe Data Services, LLC Fees
Schedule.
    \18\ The Exchange notes that it makes available the top-of-book
and last sale data that is included in the EDGX Options Top Data
Feed no earlier than the time at which the Exchange sends that data
to OPRA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Moreover, the EDGX Options Top is distributed and purchased on a
voluntary basis, in that neither the Exchange nor market data
distributors are required by any rule or regulation to make this data
available. Accordingly, Distributors and Users can discontinue use at
any time and for any reason, including due to an assessment of the
reasonableness of fees charged. As described above, market participants
have a wide variety of alternative market data products from which to
choose, such as similar proprietary data products offered by other
exchanges and consolidated data. Further, the Exchange is not required
to make any proprietary data products available or to offer any
specific pricing alternatives to any customers. Moreover, persons
(including broker-dealers) who subscribe to any exchange proprietary
data feed must also have equivalent access to consolidated Options
Information \19\ from OPRA for the same classes or series of options
that are included in the proprietary data feed, and proprietary data
feeds cannot be used to meet that particular requirement.\20\ As such,
all proprietary data feeds are purely optional and only those that deem
the product to be of sufficient overall value and usefulness would
purchase it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ ``Consolidated Options Information'' means consolidated
Last Sale Reports combined with either consolidated Quotation
Information or the BBO furnished by OPRA. Access to consolidated
Options Information is deemed ``equivalent'' if both kinds of
information are equally accessible on the same terminal or work
station. See Limited Liability Company Agreement of Options Price
Reporting Authority, LLC (``OPRA Plan''), Section 5.2(c)(iii). The
Exchange notes that this requirement under the OPRA Plan is also
reiterated under the Cboe Global Markets Global Data Agreement and
Cboe Global Markets North American Data Policies, which subscribers
to any exchange proprietary product must sign and are subject to,
respectively. Additionally, the Exchange's Data Order Form (used for
requesting the Exchange's market data products) requires
confirmation that the requesting market participant receives data
from OPRA.
    \20\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission has repeatedly expressed its preference for
competition over regulatory intervention in determining prices,
products, and services in the securities markets. Particularly, in
Regulation NMS, the Commission highlighted the importance of market
forces in determining prices and SRO revenues and, also, recognized
that current regulation of the market system ``has been remarkably
successful in promoting market competition in its broader forms that
are most important to investors and listed companies.'' \21\ Making
similar data products available to market participants fosters
competition in the marketplace, and constrains the ability of exchanges
to charge supracompetitive fees. In the event that a market participant
views one exchange's data product as more or less attractive than a
competitor they can and do switch between similar products. The
proposed fees are a result of the competitive environment, as the
Exchange seeks to adopt fees to attract purchasers who may be
interested in purchasing only the EDGX Options Top Data Feed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 51808 (June 9,
2005), 70 FR 37496, 37499 (June 29, 2005) (``Regulation NMS Adopting
Release'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes the proposed changes to reduce the rates of
the current Professional and Non-Professional User fees for EDGX
Options Top Feed are reasonable as Distributors will be subject to
lower User fees for EDGX Options Top Feed. Distributors who only wish
to distribute EDGX Options Top Feed will therefore be subject to lower
User fees. Additionally, the User fees continue to be in line with and/
or lower than User fees assessed by other exchanges for similar
data.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ See e.g., Nasdaq PHLX Options 7 Pricing Schedule, Section
10 (Proprietary Data Feed Fees), which provides for a fee of $40 per
month to professional users and $1.00 per month to non-professional
users to cover the usage of PHLX Options (TOPO) Data, TOPO Plus
Orders, PHLX Orders and PHLX Depth Data feeds. See also NYSE
American Options Proprietary Market Data Fees schedule, which
provides for a fee of $50 per month to professional users and $1.00
per month to non-professional users of American Options Top Data,
American Options Deep and American Options Complex products. By
comparison, the total combined Professional User fee for the
Exchange's market data products is significantly lower at $11 per
Professional User (i.e., $1 per Professional Users of EDGX Options
Top, as proposed, and $10 per Professional User of any of the
remaining EDGX Options market data products). The Exchange's
combined Non-Professional User Fee at $1.10 per Non-Professional
User (i.e., $0.10 per Non-Professional User of EDGX Options Top, as
proposed, and $1 per Non-Professional User of any of the remaining
EDGX Options market data products) is still in line with, and not a
significant departure from, PHLX's and NYSE American's
aforementioned Non-Professional User fees.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that the proposed fees are equitable and not
unfairly discriminatory because they will be charged uniformly to
Distributors who distribute EDGX Options Top. The Exchange also
believes continuing to offer EDGX Options Top Data to Non-Professional
Users at a lower cost than Professional Users results in greater equity
among data recipients, as Professional Users are categorized as such
based on their employment and participation in financial markets, and
thus, are compensated to participate in the markets. Although Non-
Professional Users too can receive significant financial benefits
through their participation in the markets, the Exchange believes it is
reasonable to charge more for those Users who are more directly engaged
in the markets. The Exchange believes assessing lower User fees for
EDGX Options Top as compared to the remaining EDGX Options market data
feeds is also equitably and not unfairly discriminatory. Particularly,
the EDGX Options Top Feed contains less information than other market
data products, including EDGX Options Depth (indeed, the information
contained in EDGX Options Top is a subset of the information that is
included in EDGX Options Depth). The Exchange believes it is equitable
to have pricing based, in part, upon the amount of information
contained in each data feed and the value of that information to market
participants. Thus, the Exchange believes it's reasonable for EDGX
Options Top to have lower User fees than the other EDGX Options market
data products because it offers less data than other products.
Additionally, the Exchange believes the proposed reduced User fee for
EDGX Options Top as compared to the User fees for the remaining EDGX
Options market data products is reasonable, equitable and not unfairly
discriminatory as the Exchange continues to provide that Users of any
one of EDGX Options Depth, EDGX

Options Auction Feed, EDGX Options Complex Top, EDGX Options Complex
Depth, and/or EDGX Options Complex Auction Feed may receive, at no
additional charge, access to any or all of the other aforementioned
market data products.
    The Exchange next notes it is not required to charge a single User
fee to cover all its available data products, but none-the-less has
opted to not charge for separate User Fees for EDGX Options data feeds
since EDGX Options Top was adopted in January 2018.\23\ However, the
Exchange now wishes to have separate User fees for EDGX Options Top.
The Exchange believes the proposed change is reasonable, equitable and
not unfairly discriminatory as all of EDGX Options data products are
purely optional. As stated above, the Exchange also believes charging
separate User fees is equitable as it allows the Exchange to assess
prices based on the amount of information contained in each feed, which
can provide an opportunity to assess lower fees for products that
contain less information. Particularly, the proposed rule change
enables market participants who only want top-of-book and execution
data and do not need other types of market data, including depth-of-
book, complex order and auction feed data, to purchase such top-of-book
and execution data at a lower price. Those who wish to receive more
comprehensive data, including the foregoing, may still continue to do
so at the current (and higher) price. Additionally, as noted above, the
data contained in the EDGX Options Top Feed is a subset of the data
included in the EDGX Options Depth Feed. As such, a User that receives
EDGX Options Depth Feed would not need to also receive the EDGX Options
Top Feed since the EDGX Options Depth Feed is already inclusive of the
data contained in the EDGX Options Top Feed. Only those Distributors
that deem one or more of the products to be of sufficient overall value
and usefulness would purchase them for distribution to Users. Further,
Distributors are not required to distribute, and Users are not required
to receive, any one particular data product and may choose to receive
none, one, or several of the Exchange's market data products.
Additionally, the Exchange is not required to provide any fee waiver to
Distributors of EDGX Options Top, including for User fees. In fact,
another exchange similarly adopted separate fees for different data
products that historically had otherwise been provided under a single
fee.\24\ The Exchange believes the proposed change is equitable and not
unfairly discriminatory as it will apply uniformly to Distributors.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 82462 (January 8,
2018), 83 FR 1647 (January 12, 2018) (SR-CboeEDGX-2017-010).
    \24\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 79556 (December 14,
2016), 81 FR 92935 (December 20, 2016) (SR-NASDAQ-2016-167).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed Enterprise Fee for EDGX Options Top Feed is equitable
and reasonable as the proposed fee could result in a fee reduction for
Distributors with a large number of Professional and Non-Professional
Users. If a Distributors has a smaller number of Professional Users of
EDGX Options Top Data, then it may continue using the per User
structure and benefit from the proposed per EDGX Options Top User Fee
reductions. By reducing prices for Distributors with a large number of
Professional and Non-Professional Users, the Exchange believes that
more firms may choose to receive and to distribute EDGX Options Top
Data, thereby expanding the distribution of this market data for the
benefit of investors.
    The Exchange further believes that the proposed Enterprise Fee is
reasonable because it will simplify reporting for certain Distributors
that have large numbers of Professional and Non-Professional Users.
Firms that pay the proposed Enterprise Fee will not have to report the
number of Users on a monthly basis as they currently do, but rather
will only have to count Professional and Non-Professional Users every
six months, which is a significant reduction in administrative burden.
Finally, as described above the Enterprise Fee is entirely optional. A
firm that does not have a sufficient number of Users to benefit from
purchase of the license need not do so.

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change would
result in any burden on competition that is not necessary or
appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The Exchange
operates in a highly competitive environment, and its ability to price
top-of-book data is constrained by competition among exchanges that
offer similar data products to their customers. For example, Top-of-
book data is broadly disseminated by competing U.S. options exchanges.
In this competitive environment potential Distributors are free to
choose which competing product to purchase to satisfy their need for
market information. Often, the choice comes down to price, as market
data customers look to purchase cheaper data products, and quality, as
market participants seek to purchase data that represents significant
market liquidity.
    The Exchange believes that the proposed fees do not put any market
participants at a relative disadvantage compared to other market
participants. As discussed, the proposed fees would apply to all
similarly situated Distributors of EDGX Options Top on an equal and
non-discriminatory basis. The Exchange believes the differentiated fees
for Professional and Non-Professional Users of EDGX Options Top is
appropriate given Professional Users are categorized as such based on
their employment and participation in financial markets, and thus, are
compensated to participate in the markets. Non-Professional Users too
can receive significant financial benefits through their participation
in the markets, however the Exchange believes it is reasonable to
charge more to those Users who are more directly engaged in the
markets. The Exchange therefore believes that the proposed fee neither
favors nor penalizes one or more categories of market participants in a
manner that would impose an undue burden on competition.
    The Exchange believes that the proposed fees do not impose a burden
on competition or on other SROs that is not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act. In particular, market
participants are not forced to subscribe to EDGX Options Top Data, or
any of the Exchange's data feeds, as described above. As noted, the
quote and last sale data contained in the Exchange's EDGX Options Top
feed is identical to the data sent to OPRA for redistribution to the
public. Accordingly, Exchange top-of-book data is therefore widely
available today from a number of different sources.
    Because market data customers can find suitable substitute feeds,
an exchange that overprices its market data products stands a high risk
that users may substitute another product. These competitive pressures
ensure that no one exchange's market data fees can impose an undue
burden on competition, and the Exchange's proposed fees do not do so
here.

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

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

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

    The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to section
19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \25\ and paragraph (f) of Rule 19b-4 \26\
thereunder. At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed
rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule
change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or
appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or
otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission
takes such action, the Commission will institute proceedings to
determine whether the proposed rule change should be approved or
disapproved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \26\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Solicitation of Comments

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and
arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule
change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of
the following methods:

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to [email protected]. Please include
File Number SR-CboeEDGX-2023-033 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-CboeEDGX-2023-033. This
file number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's internet website (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml).
Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written
statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with
the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed
rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those
that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions
of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for website viewing and printing in
the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC
20549 on official business days between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and
3:00 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available for inspection
and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. Do not include
personal identifiable information in submissions; you should submit
only information that you wish to make available publicly. We may
redact in part or withhold entirely from publication submitted material
that is obscene or subject to copyright protection. All submissions
should refer to File Number SR-CboeEDGX-2023-033 and should be
submitted on or before June 7, 2023.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sherry R. Haywood,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2023-10466 Filed 5-16-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 67 (Friday, April 6, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Page 20829]
[FR Doc No: 2012-8337]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket Nos. FDA-2011-E-0371 and FDA-2011-E-0379]

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

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has determined the
regulatory review period for NATROBA and is publishing this notice of
that determination as required by law. FDA has made the determination
because of the submission of applications to the Director of Patents
and Trademarks, Department of Commerce, for the extension of patents
which claim that human drug product.

ADDRESSES: Submit electronic comments to http://www.regulations.gov.
Submit written petitions along with three copies and written comments
to the Division of Dockets Management (HFA-305), Food and Drug
Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Beverly Friedman, Office of Regulatory
Policy, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg.
51, Rm. 6222, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Drug Price Competition and Patent Term
Restoration Act of 1984 (Pub. L. 98-417) and the Generic Animal Drug
and Patent Term Restoration Act (Pub. L. 100-670) generally provide
that a patent may be extended for a period of up to 5 years so long as
the patented item (human drug product, animal drug product, medical
device, food additive, or color additive) was subject to regulatory
review by FDA before the item was marketed. Under these acts, a
product's regulatory review period forms the basis for determining the
amount of extension an applicant may receive.
    A regulatory review period consists of two periods of time: A
testing phase and an approval phase. For human drug products, the
testing phase begins when the exemption to permit the clinical
investigations of the drug becomes effective and runs until the
approval phase begins. The approval phase starts with the initial
submission of an application to market the human drug product and
continues until FDA grants permission to market the drug product.
Although only a portion of a regulatory review period may count toward
the actual amount of extension that the Director of Patents and
Trademarks may award (for example, half the testing phase must be
subtracted as well as any time that may have occurred before the patent
was issued), FDA's determination of the length of a regulatory review
period for a human drug product will include all of the testing phase
and approval phase as specified in 35 U.S.C. 156(g)(1)(B).
    FDA recently approved for marketing the human drug product NATROBA
(spinosad). NATROBA is indicated for the topical treatment of head lice
infestations in patients four years of age and older. Subsequent to
this approval, the Patent and Trademark Office received a patent term
restoration application for NATROBA (U.S. Patent Nos. 6,063,771 and
6,342,482) from Eli Lilly and Company, and the Patent and Trademark
Office requested FDA's assistance in determining these patents'
eligibility for patent term restoration. In a letter dated June 22,
2011, FDA advised the Patent and Trademark Office that this human drug
product had undergone a regulatory review period and that the approval
of NATROBA represented the first permitted commercial marketing or use
of the product. Thereafter, the Patent and Trademark Office requested
that FDA determine the product's regulatory review period.
    FDA has determined that the applicable regulatory review period for
NATROBA is 2,261 days. Of this time, 1,534 days occurred during the
testing phase of the regulatory review period, while 727 days occurred
during the approval phase. These periods of time were derived from the
following dates:
    1. The date an exemption under section 505(i) of the Federal Food,
Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the FD&C Act) (21 U.S.C. 355(i)) became
effective: November 11, 2004. FDA has verified the applicant's claim
that the date the investigational new drug application became effective
was on November 11, 2004.
    2. The date the application was initially submitted with respect to
the human drug product under section 505(b) of the FD&C Act: January
22, 2009. FDA has verified the applicant's claim that the new drug
application (NDA) for NATROBA (NDA 22-408) was submitted on January 22,
2009.
    3. The date the application was approved: January 18, 2011. FDA has
verified the applicant's claim that NDA 22-408 was approved on January
18, 2011.
    This determination of the regulatory review period establishes the
maximum potential length of a patent extension. However, the U.S.
Patent and Trademark Office applies several statutory limitations in
its calculations of the actual period for patent extension. In its
applications for patent extension, this applicant seeks 1,493 days of
patent term extension.
    Anyone with knowledge that any of the dates as published are
incorrect may submit to the Division of Dockets Management (see
ADDRESSES) either electronic or written comments and ask for a
redetermination by June 5, 2012. Furthermore, any interested person may
petition FDA for a determination regarding whether the applicant for
extension acted with due diligence during the regulatory review period
by October 3, 2012. To meet its burden, the petition must contain
sufficient facts to merit an FDA investigation. (See H. Rept. 857, part
1, 98th Cong., 2d sess., pp. 41-42, 1984.) Petitions should be in the
format specified in 21 CFR 10.30.
    Interested persons may submit to the Division of Dockets Management
(see ADDRESSES) electronic or written comments and written petitions.
It is only necessary to send one set of comments. However, if you
submit a written petition, you must submit three copies of the
petition. Identify comments with the docket number found in brackets in
the heading of this document.
    Comments and petitions that have not been made publicly available
on regulations.gov may be viewed in the Division of Dockets Management
between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday.

    Dated: March 19, 2012.
Jane A. Axelrad,
Associate Director for Policy, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research.
[FR Doc. 2012-8337 Filed 4-5-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4160-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 81 (Tuesday, April 28, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 23526-23527]
[FR Doc No: 2015-09752]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 7518-018]

Erie Boulevard Hydropower, L.P. and Saint Regis Mohawk Tribe;
Notice of Application Accepted for Filing, Soliciting Comments, Motions
To Intervene, and Protests

    Take notice that the following hydroelectric application has been
filed with the Commission and is available for public inspection:
    a. Types of Application: Surrender of License.
    b. Project No.: 7518-018.
    c. Date Filed: January 21, 2015.
    d. Applicants: Erie Boulevard Hydropower, L.P. (Erie) and Saint
Regis Mohawk Tribe (Tribe).
    e. Name of Projects: Hogansburg Hydroelectric Project.
    f. Location: On the St. Regis River in Franklin County, New York.
The project does not occupy any federal lands.
    g. Filed Pursuant to: Federal Power Act, 16 U.S.C. 791a-825r.
    h. Applicant Contact: For Erie, Mr. John A. Whittaker, IV, Winston
& Strawn LLP, 1700 K Street NW., Washington, DC 20006, Phone: 202-282-
5766, Email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>For Tribe: Mr. John J. Privitera,
McNamee, Lochner, Titus & Williams, P.C., 677 Broadway, Albany, NY
12207, Phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>, Email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    i. FERC Contact: M. Joseph Fayyad at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or email at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    j. Deadline for filing comments, motions to intervene and protests,
is 30 days from the issuance date of this notice. The Commission
strongly encourages electronic filing. All documents may be filed using
the Commission's eFiling system at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling.asp. Commenters can submit brief comments up to 6,000
characters, without prior registration, using the eComment system at
http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/ecomment.asp. You must include your
name and contact information at the end of your comments. For
assistance, please contact FERC Online Support at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>(866) 208-3676 (toll free), or (202) 502-
8659 (TTY). In lieu of electronic filing, please send a paper copy to:
Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20426. Please include the project number (P-7518-018) on
any comments, motions to intervene, protests, or recommendations filed.

    k. Description of Request: The applicants propose to surrender the
license for the Hogansburg Project due to uneconomic conditions
resulting from a number of issues regarding project's potential effects
on fish passage and water quality that were raised during relicensing
proceedings. The applicants have consulted with the relevant state and
federal resource agencies and stakeholders and have entered into a
Settlement Agreement with those entities endorsing the surrender and
decommissioning process. As part of the Surrender, the applicants
intend to decommission the project facilities.
    l. Locations of the Application: A copy of the application is
available for inspection and reproduction at the Commission's Public
Reference Room, located at 888 First Street NE., Room 2A, Washington,
DC 20426, or by calling<PHONE_NUMBER>. This filing may also be viewed
on the Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling.asp. Enter the docket number excluding the last three digits in
the docket number field to access the document. You may also register
online at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp to be
notified via email of new filings and issuances related to this or
other pending projects. For assistance, call 1-866-208- 3676 or email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>for TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>. A copy is
also available for inspection and reproduction at the address in item
(h) above.
    m. Individuals desiring to be included on the Commission's mailing
list should so indicate by writing to the Secretary of the Commission.
    n. Comments, Protests, or Motions to Intervene: Anyone may submit
comments, a protest, or a motion to intervene in accordance with the
requirements of Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.210, .211,
.214. In determining the appropriate action to take, the Commission
will consider all protests or other comments filed, but only those who
file a motion to intervene in accordance with the Commission's Rules
may become a party to the proceeding. Any comments, protests, or
motions to intervene must be received on or before the specified
comment date for the particular application.
    o. Filing and Service of Responsive Documents: Any filing must (1)
bear in all capital letters the title ``COMMENTS'', ``PROTEST'', or
``MOTION TO INTERVENE'', as applicable; (2) set forth in the heading
the name of the applicant and the project number of the application to
which the filing responds; (3) furnish the name, address, and telephone
number of the person protesting or intervening; and (4) otherwise
comply with the requirements of 18 CFR 385.2001 through 385.2005. All
comments, motions to intervene or protests must set forth their
evidentiary basis and otherwise comply with the requirements of 18 CFR
4.34(b). All comments, motions to intervene or protests should relate
to project works which are the subject of the license surrender.
Agencies may obtain copies of the application directly from the
applicant. A copy of any protest or motion to intervene must be served
upon each representative of the applicant specified in the particular
application. If an intervener files comments or documents with the
Commission relating to the merits of an issue that may affect the
responsibilities of a particular resource agency, they must also serve
a copy of the document on that resource agency. A copy of all other
filings in reference to this application must be accompanied by proof
of service on all persons listed in the service list prepared by the
Commission in this proceeding, in accordance with 18 CFR 4.34(b) and
385.2010.
    p. As provided for in 18 CFR 4.34(b)(5)(i), the applicant must
file, no later than 60 days following the date of issuance of this
notice of acceptance: (1) a copy of the water quality certification;
(2) a copy of the request for certification, including proof of the
date on which the certifying agency received the request; or (3)
evidence of waiver of water quality certification.

    Dated: April 16, 2015.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2015-09752 Filed 4-27-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 20 (Tuesday, January 31, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 4842-4843]
[FR Doc No: 2012-1978]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-66229; File No. SR-NSX-2012-01]

 Self-Regulatory Organizations; National Stock Exchange, Inc.;
Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To
Amend its Rules To Extend Pilot Program Regarding Trading Pauses in
Individual Securities Due to Extraordinary Market Volatility

January 24, 2012.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the ``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given
that on January 11, 2012, National Stock Exchange, Inc. (the
``Exchange'' or ``NSX'') filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission (``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in
Items I and II below, which Items have been prepared by the Exchange.
The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the
proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    National Stock Exchange, Inc. (``NSX[supreg]'' or ``Exchange'') is
proposing to amend its rules to extend a certain pilot program
regarding trading pauses in individual securities due to extraordinary
market volatility.
    The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's
Web site at http://www.nsx.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 Exchange included statements
concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and
discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The
text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in
Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in
Sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant parts of such
statements.

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

1. Purpose
    With this rule change, the Exchange is proposing to extend a pilot
program currently in effect regarding trading pauses in individual
securities due to extraordinary market volatility under NSX Rule
11.20B. Currently, unless otherwise extended or approved permanently,
this pilot program will expire on January 31, 2012. The instant rule
filing proposes an extension to the pilot program until July 31, 2012.
    NSX Rule 11.20B (Trading Pauses in Individual Securities Due to
Extraordinary Market Volatility) was approved by the Securities and
Exchange Commission (the ``Commission'') on June 10, 2010 on a pilot
basis to end on December 10, 2010.\3\ The pilot program end date was
subsequently extended until April 11, 2011.\4\ Similar rule changes
were adopted by other markets in the national market system in a
coordinated manner. As the Exchange noted in its filing to adopt NSX
Rule 11.20B, during the pilot period, the Exchange, in conjunction with
other markets in the national market system, would continue to assess
whether additional securities need to be added and whether the
parameters of the rule would need to be modified to accommodate trading
characteristics of different securities. NSX Rule 11.20B was expanded
to include additional exchange traded products on September 10,
2010.\5\ The pilot program end date was further extended to August 11,
2011 or the date on which a limit up/limit down mechanism to address
extraordinary market volatility, if adopted applies.\6\ The pilot
program was then again lengthened until January 31, 2012.\7\ The
Exchange, in consultation with the Commission and other markets, is now
proposing that this pilot program be extended until July 31, 2012.
Accordingly, pursuant to the instant rule filing, the expiration date
of the pilot program referenced in

Commentary .05 to Rule 11.20B is proposed to be changed from ``January
31, 2012'' to ``July 31, 2012.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 62252 (June 10,
2010), 75 FR 34186 (June 16, 2010) (SR-NSX-2010 05).
    \4\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 63512 (December 9,
2010), 75 FR 78786 (December 16, 2010) (SR-NSX-2010-17).
    \5\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 62884 (September 10,
2010), 75 FR 56618 (September 16, 2010) (SR-NSX-2010-08).
    \6\ See Securities and Exchange Act Release No. 34-64213 (April
6, 2011), 76 FR 20409 (April 12, 2011) (SR-NSX-2011-04).
    \7\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 34-65095 (August 10,
2011), 76 FR 50777 (August 16, 2011) (SR-NSX-2011-08).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with the provisions of Section 6(b) and Section 11A of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 \8\ (the ``Act''), in general, and Section 6(b)(5)
of the Act,\9\ in particular, in that it is designed, among other
things, to promote clarity, transparency and full disclosure, in so
doing, to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to
promote just and equitable principles of trade, to remove impediments
to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national
market system, and, in general, to maintain fair and orderly markets
and protect investors and the public interest. Moreover, the proposed
rule change is not discriminatory in that it uniformly applies to all
ETP Holders. The Exchange believes that the extension of the pilot
program will promote uniformity among markets with respect to trading
pauses.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b) and 15 U.S.C. 78k-1, respectively.
    \9\ 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 inappropriate burden on competition.

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

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

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

    The Exchange has filed the proposed rule change pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act \10\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder.\11\
Because the proposed rule change does not: (i) Significantly affect the
protection of investors or the public interest; (ii) impose any
significant burden on competition; and (iii) become operative prior to
30 days from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as
the Commission may designate, if consistent with the protection of
investors and the public interest, the proposed rule change has become
effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \12\ and Rule 19b-
4(f)(6)(iii) thereunder.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(iii).
    \11\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
    \12\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \13\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). In addition, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii)
requires the Exchange to give the Commission written notice of the
Exchange's intent to file the proposed rule change along with a
brief description and text of 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A proposed rule change filed under Rule 19b-4(f)(6)\14\ normally
does not become operative for 30 days after the date of filing.
However, pursuant to Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii)\15\ the Commission may
designate a shorter time if such action is consistent with the
protection of investors and the public interest. The Exchange has asked
the Commission to waive the 30-day operative delay so that the proposal
may become operative immediately upon filing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
    \15\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission believes that waiving the 30-day operative delay is
consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest, as
it will allow the pilot program to continue uninterrupted, thereby
avoiding the investor confusion that could result from a temporary
interruption in the pilot program. For this reason, the Commission
designates the proposed rule change to be operative upon filing.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ For purposes only of waiving the 30-day operative delay,
the Commission has also considered the proposed rule's impact on
efficiency, competition, and capital formation. See 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.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and
arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule
change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of
the following methods:

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File No. SR-NSX-2012-01 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 No. SR-NSX-2012-01. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet 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
a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of such 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 No. SR-NSX-2012-01 and should be
submitted on or before February 21, 2012.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-1978 Filed 1-30-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 226 (Wednesday, November 23, 2016)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 84465]
[FR Doc No: 2016-28363]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

21 CFR Part 101

Food Labeling

CFR Correction

0
In Title 21 of the Code of Federal Regulations, parts 100 to 169,
revised as of April 1, 2016, on pages 43 and 44, in Sec.  101.9,
paragraphs (j)(1)(i), (2) introductory text, (3) introductory text, and
the first sentence of (j)(4) are revised to read as follows. And, on
page 50, the effective date note at the end of Sec.  101.9 is removed.

Sec.  101.9   Nutrition labeling of food.

* * * * *
    (j) * * *
    (1)(i) Food offered for sale by a person who makes direct sales to
consumers (e.g., a retailer) who has annual gross sales made or
business done in sales to consumers that is not more than $500,000 or
has annual gross sales made or business done in sales of food to
consumers of not more than $50,000, Provided, That the food bears no
nutrition claims or other nutrition information in any context on the
label or in labeling or advertising. Claims or other nutrition
information subject the food to the provisions of this section, Sec.
101.10, or Sec.  101.11, as applicable.
* * * * *
    (2) Except as provided in Sec.  101.11, food products that are:
* * * * *
    (3) Except as provided in Sec.  101.11, food products that are:
* * * * *
    (4) Except as provided in Sec.  101.11, foods that contain
insignificant amounts of all of the nutrients and food components
required to be included in the declaration of nutrition information
under paragraph (c) of this section, Provided, That the food bears no
nutrition claims or other nutrition information in any context on the
label or in labeling or advertising. * * *
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2016-28363 Filed 11-22-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 1301-00-D