[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 97 (Friday, May 18, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 29721-29726]
[FR Doc No: 2012-12035]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-66984; File No. SR-NYSEAmex-2012-29]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE Amex LLC; Notice of Filing of
Proposed Rule Change Amending Commentary .07 to NYSE Amex Options Rule
904 To Eliminate Position Limits for Options on the SPDR[supreg] S&P
500[supreg] Exchange-Traded Fund Which List and Trade Under the Symbol
SPY

May 14, 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 May 2, 2012, NYSE Amex LLC (the ``Exchange'' or ``NYSE Amex'')
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 Exchange. The Commission is publishing
this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change from
interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange proposes to amend Commentary .07 to NYSE Amex Options
Rule 904 to eliminate position limits for options on the SPDR[supreg]
S&P 500[supreg] exchange-traded fund (``SPY ETF''),\3\ which list and
trade under the symbol SPY. The text of the proposed rule change is
available at the Exchange, the Commission's Public Reference Room, and
www.nyse.com.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ ``SPDR[supreg],'' ``Standard & Poor's[supreg],''
``S&P[supreg],'' ``S&P 500[supreg],'' and ``Standard & Poor's 500''
are registered trademarks of Standard & Poor's Financial Services
LLC. The SPY ETF represents ownership in the SPDR S&P 500 Trust, a
unit investment trust that generally corresponds to the price and
yield performance of the SPDR S&P 500 Index.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 purpose of the proposal is to amend Commentary .07 to NYSE Amex
Options Rule 904 to eliminate position limits for SPY options.

Background

    Position limits serve as a regulatory tool designed to address
potential manipulative schemes and adverse market impact surrounding
the use of options. The Exchange understands that the Commission, when
considering the appropriate level at which to set option position and
exercise limits, has considered the concern that the limits be
sufficient to prevent investors from disrupting the market in the
security underlying the option.\4\ This consideration has been balanced
by the concern that the limits ``not be established at levels that are
so low as to discourage participation in the options market by
institutions and other investors with substantial hedging needs or to
prevent specialists and market-makers from adequately meeting their
obligations to maintain a fair and orderly market.'' \5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 40969 (January 22,
1999), 64 FR 4911, 4912-4913 (February 1, 1999) (SR-CBOE-98-23)
(citing H.R. No. IFC-3, 96th Cong., 1st Sess. at 189-91 (Comm. Print
1978)).
    \5\ Id. at 4913.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    SPY options are currently the most actively traded option class in
terms of average daily volume (``ADV'').\6\ The Exchange believes that,
despite the popularity of SPY options as evidenced by their significant
volume, the current position limits on SPY options could be a deterrent
to the optimal use of this product as a hedging tool. The Exchange
further believes that position limits on SPY options may inhibit the
ability of certain large market participants, such as mutual funds and
other institutional

investors with substantial hedging needs, to utilize SPY options and
gain meaningful exposure to the hedging function they provide.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ SPY ADV was 2,156,482 contracts in April 2012. ADV for the
same period for the next four most actively traded options was:
Apple Inc. (option symbol AAPL)--1,074,351; S&P 500 Index (option
symbol SPX)--656,250; PowerShares QQQ Trust\SM\, Series 1 (option
symbol QQQ)--573,790; and iShares[supreg] Russell 2000[supreg] Index
Fund (option symbol IWM)--550,316.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that current experience with the trading of
SPY options, as well as the Exchange's surveillance capabilities, has
made it appropriate to consider other, less prophylactic alternatives
to regulating SPY options, while still seeking to ensure that large
positions in SPY options will not unduly disrupt the options or
underlying cash markets. Accordingly, the Exchange proposes to
eliminate the position limits on SPY options--currently 900,000
contracts on the same side of the market.\7\ In proposing the
elimination of position limits on SPY options, the Exchange has
considered several factors, including (1) the availability of
economically equivalent products and their respective position limits,
(2) the liquidity of the option and the underlying security, (3) the
market capitalization of the underlying security and the related index,
(4) the reporting of large positions and requirements surrounding
margin, and (5) the potential for market on close volatility.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See Commentary .07 to NYSE Amex Options Rule 904. See also
Securities Exchange Act Release No. 64966 (July 26, 2011), 76 FR
45899 (August 1, 2011) (SR-NYSEAmex-2011-50).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Economically Equivalent Products

    The Exchange has considered the existence of economically
equivalent or similar products, and their respective position limits,
if any, in assessing the appropriateness of proposing an elimination of
position limits for SPY options.
    For example, AM-settled options on the S&P 500 Index, which list
and trade exclusively on the Chicago Board Options Exchange (``CBOE'')
under the symbol SPX, are currently not subject to position limits.\8\
Moreover, SPX options are 10 times the size of SPY options, so that a
position of only 90,000 SPX options is the equivalent of a position of
900,000 SPY options, which is the current position limit for SPY
options.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 44994 (October 26,
2001), 66 FR 55722 (November 2, 2001) (SR-CBOE-2001-22). Position
limits were also eliminated for options on the S&P 100 Index (option
symbol OEX) and the Dow Jones Industrial Average (option symbol
DJX).
    \9\ The Exchange notes that the reduced-value option on the S&P
500 Index (option symbol XSP) is the equivalent size of SPY options
and, similar to SPX options, is not subject to position limits. See
Securities Exchange Act Release No. 56350 (September 4, 2007), 72 FR
51878 (September 11, 2007) (SR-CBOE-2007-79).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Similarly, the C2 Options Exchange (``C2'') has recently introduced
a PM-settled S&P 500 cash settled contract (``SPXPM''), which also is
not subject to position limits.\10\ This contract, unlike the existing
SPX contract, is cash-settled based on the closing value of the S&P 500
Index. In this respect, SPXPM is very much like SPY options in that it
is settled at the close, albeit into cash as opposed to shares of the
underlying like SPY options.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 65256 (September 2,
2011), 76 FR 55969 (September 9, 2011) (SR-C2-2011-008) (``SPXPM
Approval'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that, because SPX, SPXPM, and SPY options are
ultimately derivative of the same benchmark--the S&P 500 Index--they
should be treated equally from a position limit perspective. As a
practical matter, investors utilize SPX, SPXPM, and SPY options and
their respective underlying instruments and futures to gain exposure to
the same benchmark index: The S&P 500. Further, because the creation
and redemption process for the underlying SPY ETF allows large
investors to transfer positions from a basket of stocks comprising the
S&P 500 index to an equivalent number of ETF shares (and the reverse)
with relative ease, there is no reason to disadvantage options
overlying the one versus the other. The Exchange believes that this
view is supported by the recent expansion of various exemptions from
position limits, such as the Delta-Based Equity Hedge Exemption \11\
for positions of a member, member organization or non-member affiliate
that are delta neutral, which allows SPY option positions to be delta-
hedged by positions in SPX options. Given that SPX options are not
subject to position limits, a member or member organization (or non-
member affiliate thereof) could theoretically establish a position in
SPY options far in excess of the current 900,000 contract limit,
provided that the position is hedged with SPX options. The Exchange
believes that this situation accurately reflects the economic
equivalence of SPX and SPY options, supporting the Exchange's proposal
to further acknowledge this equivalence by eliminating position limits
in SPY options.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See Commentary .10 to NYSE Amex Options Rule 904.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange also believes that Commission findings in approving
the SPXPM options further support treating SPY options in the same
manner as SPX and SPXPM options for purposes of position limits. In
particular, the Commission noted in approving SPXPM options that ``C2's
proposal will offer investors another investment option through which
they could obtain and hedge exposure to the S&P 500 stocks,'' and that
``C2's proposal will provide investors with the ability to trade an
option on the S&P 500 index in an all-electronic market, which may
better meet the needs of investors who may prefer to trade
electronically.'' \12\ The Commission also noted that ``C2's proposal
will provide investors with added flexibility through an additional
product that may be better tailored to meet their particular
investment, hedging, and trading needs.'' \13\ The Exchange believes
that these Commission findings apply equally to SPY options. In this
respect, SPY options with no position limit will (1) offer investors
another investment option through which they could obtain and hedge
significant levels of exposure to the S&P 500 stocks, (2) be available
to trade on the Exchange (and presumably all other U.S. options
exchanges) electronically, and (3) provide investors with added
flexibility through an additional product that may be better tailored
to meet their particular investment, hedging, and trading needs,
because, among other things, they are PM-settled.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ See SPXPM Approval at 55975.
    \13\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange notes that, with respect to competition amongst
economically equivalent products, a 2005 paper by Hans Dutt and
Lawrence Harris that set forth a model to determine appropriate
position limits for cash-settled index derivatives observed that
``markets and their regulators should take a closer look at the
underlying economic rationale for the levels at which they currently
set their position limits to ensure that the limits adequately protect
markets from manipulation and that inconsistent position limits do not
produce competitive advantages and disadvantages among contracts.''
\14\ On this point, the Exchange believes that if no position limits
have been found to be warranted on both SPX and SPXPM options, then
such treatment should be extended to SPY options so that inconsistent
position limits do not produce competitive advantages and disadvantages
among contracts.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ The Journal of Futures Markets, Vol. 25, no. 10, 945-965,
949 (2005) (``Position Limits for Cash-Settled Derivative
Contracts,'' by Hans R. Dutt and Lawrence E. Harris) (``Dutt-Harris
Paper''). In the paper, the authors examined existing position
limits to determine whether they were consistent with the model the
authors developed, and found that the results indicated that
existing limits were not correlated with the limits suggested by
their model.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, the Exchange notes that the Dutt-Harris Paper focuses
its attention on the concerns relating to manipulation of cash-settled
derivatives, stating that ``[a]lthough

several scholars have argued that cash settlement may increase the risk
of market manipulation, until recently, the theoretical problems
arising from potential cash settlement manipulation has been considered
minor, as evidenced by the lack of academic interest in this area.''
\15\ The paper further noted that ``[t]he reason for this may arise
from the fact that most exchange-traded derivative index contracts that
are cash settled are broad-based, and each of the underlying components
typically possesses ample liquidity,'' and that ``manipulation of the
underlying components would likely be extremely costly to the would-be
manipulator.'' \16\ This suggests that whatever manipulation risk does
exist in a cash-settled, broad-based product such as SPXPM, the
corresponding manipulation risk in a physically-settled, but equally
broad-based product such as SPY, is likely to be equally low, if not
lower.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ Id. at 946.
    \16\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Similarly, the Exchange notes that in the Dutt-Harris Paper the
authors observed that the lack of scholarly interest in the cash-
settlement manipulation problem may have been ``due to the fact that,
until recently, most U.S. exchange-traded cash-settled derivative
contracts were based on broad indices of very liquid stocks,'' and that
``[m]anipulation of such instruments require very large trades that are
costly to make and easy to detect through conventional surveillance.''
\17\ This observation applies equally to SPY options, which are based
on a broad index of very liquid stocks and can easily be created by
submitting a position in the underlying securities. Moreover, it
provides additional support for the Exchange's view that the enhanced
reporting and surveillance for SPY options discussed below adequately
address concerns about manipulation.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ Id. at 948.
    \18\ The authors of the Dutt-Harris Paper further posited that
``position limits need only apply during the period when cash
settlement takes place.'' Id. at 964. The Exchange notes that no
such period exists with respect to SPY options, which are physically
settled.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Liquidity in the Option and the Underlying Security

    The Exchange has also considered the liquidity of SPY options and
the underlying SPY ETF in assessing the appropriateness of proposing an
elimination of position limits for SPY options.
    In approving the elimination of position and exercise limits on SPX
options, the Commission noted that the deep, liquid markets for the
securities underlying the S&P 500 Index reduced concerns regarding
market manipulation or disruption in the underlying markets.\19\ The
Commission further noted that removing position limits for SPX options
could also bring additional depth and liquidity, in terms of both
volume and open interest, without increasing concerns regarding
intermarket manipulations or disruptions of the options or the
underlying securities.\20\ The Exchange similarly believes that this
would be the case if position limits for SPY options were eliminated.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ See supra note 4 at 4913.
    \20\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In this regard, both the SPY ETF and SPY options similarly exhibit
deep, liquid markets. However, SPY options are not as active as SPX
options when adjusted for the difference in their notional size.\21\ As
described below, the Exchange believes that this is partly due to the
existence of position limits for SPY options. The table below compares
the ADV in both SPX and SPY options, and includes an ``implied SPY
volume'' figure that reflects theoretical SPY ADV without the
constraint of position limits:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ SPX options have a notional value 10 times greater than SPY
options (i.e., one SPX contract equals 10 SPY contracts).

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Implied SPY
           Date range               Trade days    SPX option ADV  SPY option ADV    Implied SPY     option ADV
                                                                                option ADV       shortfall
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jan 1, 2011 to Dec 31, 2011.....             252       1,567,535       5,789,511      15,675,353       9,885,842
Jan 1,2012 to Apr 19, 2012......              75       1,343,735       4,525,709      13,437,353       8,911,644
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that certain factors may result in SPX
options--adjusted for their larger notional size--currently trading
with greater volume than SPY options.\22\ In this regard, the Exchange
believes that, based on input from various market participants, the
existence of position limits in SPY options is reason in itself to
instead utilize SPX options. Anecdotally, market participants perceive
value in avoiding the regulatory risk of exceeding the SPY option
position limit by instead using SPX options for their hedging needs.
The Exchange also believes that, while exemptions are available with
respect to position limits for SPY options, such exemptions, and the
regulatory burden attendant therewith, may dissuade investors from
using SPY options when they can instead use an SPX option without the
need for such an exemption. Because SPY and SPX options are
economically equivalent products, an investor deciding between the two
would generally trade the product with the least barriers or
requirements to engage in such activity. In this respect, SPX options
are currently the easier product to trade.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ The Exchange notes that the ``Implied SPY Option ADV
Shortfall'' has narrowed over time and at an accelerated rate, which
the Exchange believes is a direct result of the implementation of
the Delta-Based Equity Hedge Exemption that allows SPY options to be
hedged via SPX options.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As a further comparison, the following table sets forth certain
data for both the SPY ETF and the combined volume for the component
securities upon which the S&P 500 Index is based:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                 S&P 500 Index       S&P 500 Index
                                  underlying      underlying component                    SPY ETF average daily
          Date range             component ADV    average daily value      SPY ETF ADV         value traded
                                     \23\                traded
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jan. 1, 2011 to Dec. 31, 2011.   3,289,595,675       $4,149,726,217,456     218,227,747          $27,297,097,993
Jan. 1, 2012 to Apr. 19, 2012.   2,851,457,600        3,860,704,307,080     145,164,527           19,684,577,239
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This data shows that there is tremendous liquidity in both SPY ETF
shares and the component securities upon which the S&P 500 Index is
based. While the ADV for the components underlying the S&P 500 Index is
greater than the ADV for the SPY ETF, the Exchange believes that SPY
ETF volume has been, is currently and will likely continue to be within
a range that the Commission has previously determined to be a deep,
liquid market.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ The data considers the aggregate volume for all component
stocks of the S&P 500 Index.
    \24\ See supra note 4 at n. 13. The ADV for the components of
the indexes underlying the options for which position limits were
eliminated were 94.77 million shares (DJX), 244.3 million shares
(OEX), and 757.5 million shares (SPX).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Market Capitalization of the Underlying Security and the Related Index

    The Exchange has also considered the market capitalization of the
SPY ETF and the S&P 500 Index in assessing the appropriateness of
proposing an elimination of position limits for SPY options.
    The Exchange understands that the Commission similarly considered
the market capitalization of the underlying index when it approved the
elimination of position limits in SPX options. Accordingly, the
Exchange believes that the capitalization of and the deep, liquid
markets for the underlying SPY ETF reduces concerns regarding market
manipulation or disruption in the underlying market. The table below
shows the market capitalization of the SPY ETF and the S&P 500 Index:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                 Average S&P 500 Index   Average SPY ETF  market
                          Date range                                   market cap                  cap
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jan. 1, 2011 to Dec. 31, 2011.................................      $11,818,270,341,270          $89,533,777,897
Jan. 1, 2012 to Apr. 19, 2012.................................       12,547,946,920,000           99,752,986,022
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This data shows the enormous capitalization of both the SPY ETF and
the component securities upon which the S&P 500 Index is based. While
the capitalization for the components underlying the S&P 500 Index is
greater than that for the SPY ETF, the Exchange believes that the SPY
ETF capitalization has nonetheless been, is currently and will likely
continue to be at a level consistent with that which the Commission has
previously determined to be enormously capitalized.\25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ See supra note 9 at 51879. Specifically, the market
capitalization of the component securities of the Russell 2000 Index
(``RUT'') of $1.73 trillion was determined to be enormously
capitalized.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange notes that the theoretical limit on one's ability to
hedge both SPX and SPY options is the full market capitalization of the
S&P 500 Index itself. This similarly contributes to the Exchange's
determination that it is appropriate for position limits on SPY options
to be eliminated.

Large Position Reporting and Margin Requirements

    The Exchange has also considered the reporting of large option
positions and related margin requirements in assessing the
appropriateness of proposing an elimination of position limits for SPY
options.
    The Exchange notes that the Large Option Position Reporting
(``LOPR'') requirement in NYSE Amex Options Rule 906 would continue to
apply. Rule 906 requires members and member organizations to file a
report with the Exchange with respect to each account in which the
member or member organization has an interest; each account of a
partner, officer, director, trustee or employee of such member
organization; and each customer account that has established an
aggregate position (whether long or short) that meets certain
determined thresholds (e.g., 200 or more option contracts if the
underlying security is a stock or Exchange-Traded Fund Share). Rule 906
also permits the Exchange to impose a higher margin requirement upon
the account of a member or member organization when it determines that
the account maintains an under-hedged position.
    Monitoring accounts maintaining large positions provides the
Exchange with the information necessary to determine whether to impose
additional margin and/or whether to assess capital charges upon a
member organization carrying the account. In addition, the Commission's
net capital rule, Rule 15c3-1 under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the ``Act''),\26\ imposes a capital charge on members to the extent of
any margin deficiency resulting from the higher margin requirement,
which should serve as an additional form of protection.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ 17 CFR 240.15c3-1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In approving SPXPM, the Commission addressed concerns about the
lack of a position limit by noting that CBOE will rely on its enhanced
surveillance requirements and procedures for SPX options to monitor
trading activity in SPXPM options.\27\ Similarly, the Exchange notes
that certain option products are currently traded on the Exchange
without position limits (e.g., the NASDAQ[supreg] 100 Index option
(option symbol NDX) and the Russell 2000[supreg] Index option (option
symbol RUT)), and believes that the reporting, surveillance and
monitoring mechanisms in place for these products are effective and
could easily accommodate SPY options if position limits thereon are
eliminated.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ See SPXPM Approval at 55972.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Market on Close Volatility

    The Exchange has also considered the potential for resulting or
increased market on close volatility in assessing the appropriateness
of proposing an elimination of position limits for SPY options.
    SPY options are American-style, physically settled options that can
be exercised at any time and settle into shares of the underlying SPY
ETF. A key characteristic of the SPY ETF is that the number of shares
outstanding is limited only by the number of shares available in the
component securities of the S&P 500 Index, which can be used to create
additional SPY ETF shares as needed. This in-kind creation and
redemption mechanism has proven to be quite robust, as evidenced by the
SPY ETF's close tracking of its benchmark index and the relatively
small premiums or discounts to Net Asset Value (``NAV'') that it has
historically exhibited.\28\ Additionally, the ability to hedge with SPX
options against the stocks underlying the S&P 500 is limited to the
shares outstanding for those stocks--the same limit that applies to
hedging with SPY options. Accordingly, the Exchange believes that the
risk of distortions to the market resulting from the elimination of
position limits in SPY options is no greater than the risk presented by
SPX options not being subject to position limits.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ See SPDR[supreg] S&P 500[supreg] ETF Trust, Annual Report
(September 30, 2011), available at https://www.spdrs.com/library-content/public/SPY%20Annual%20Report%2009.30.11.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As a physically-settled option, SPY options can be easily hedged
via long or short positions in SPY ETF shares, which, as noted above,
can be easily

created or redeemed as needed. With a physically-settled contract such
as SPY options, once a hedge in the form of a long or short position is
obtained, that hedge can only be lost if the underlying security
becomes hard to borrow and the short position is bought in.\29\ The
Exchange believes that this ability to hedge with shares of the SPY ETF
is very important, and reduces the likelihood of market on close
volatility in the component securities underlying the S&P 500 Index
(i.e., a market participant can remain fully hedged through expiration
via shares of the SPY ETF), which should also be the case if position
limits for SPY options are eliminated. At the same time, the Exchange
believes that the elimination of position limits for SPY options would
not increase market volatility or facilitate the ability to manipulate
the market. The Exchange believes that any potential concern regarding
volatility at the closing that could result from an elimination in the
position limits for SPY options is further alleviated by the current
trading environment, including that there are markets for individual
securities on more than one exchange, via unlisted trading privileges,
that there is wide dispersion of trading across multiple exchanges, and
that exchange procedures and systems are designed to facilitate orderly
closings, even when there is volatility.\30\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ As noted, the in-kind creation and redemption process
allows for short term imbalances in supply and demand to be resolved
readily, which in turn reduces the likelihood of getting ``bought
in'' on a short position in SPY. Since the implementation of
Regulation SHO, SPY has never been on the threshold security list,
which further evidences the efficacy of the in-kind creation and
redemption process in resolving imbalances in supply and demand.
    \30\ See, e.g., Rule 123C--NYSE AMEX Equities (The Closing
Procedures).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Implementation

    In addition to Commission approval, the implementation of this
proposed rule change will be contingent on other factors, including the
completion of any changes that may be necessary to the Exchange's
regulatory and surveillance program. The Exchange will announce the
implementation of the elimination of position limits on SPY options
through a notice to ATP holders after any Commission approval of this
proposed rule change.
2. Statutory Basis
    The proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b) \31\ of
the Act, in general, and furthers the objectives of Section
6(b)(5),\32\ 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. The Exchange believes that the
proposed rule change would be beneficial to market participants,
including market makers, institutional investors and retail investors,
by permitting them to establish greater positions when pursuing their
investment goals and needs. The Exchange also believes that
economically equivalent products should be treated in an equivalent
manner so as to avoid regulatory arbitrage, especially with respect to
position limits. Treating SPY and SPX options differently by virtue of
imposing different position limits is inconsistent with the notion of
promoting just and equitable principles of trade and removing
impediments to perfect the mechanisms of a free and open market. At the
same time, the Exchange believes that the elimination of position
limits for SPY options would not increase market volatility or
facilitate the ability to manipulate the market.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \31\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \32\ 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

    Within 45 days of the date of publication of this notice in the
Federal Register or within such longer period (i) as the Commission may
designate up to 90 days of such date if it finds such longer period to
be appropriate and publishes its reasons for so finding or (ii) as to
which the self-regulatory organization consents, the Commission will:
    (A) by order approve or disapprove the proposed rule change, or
    (B) institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule
change should be 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-NYSEAmex-2012-29 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-NYSEAmex-2012-29. 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-NYSEAmex-2012-29 and should
be submitted on or before June 8, 2012.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\33\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \33\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-12035 Filed 5-17-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 147 (Wednesday, August 2, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 36054-36056]
[FR Doc No: 2017-16207]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-81226; File No. SR-NYSE-2017-08]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; New York Stock Exchange LLC;
Notice of Filing of Amendment No. 1 and Order Granting Accelerated
Approval of Proposed Rule Change, as Modified by Amendment No. 1, To
Amend Its Listing Standards for Closed-End Funds

July 27, 2017.

I. Introduction

    On May 24, 2017, New York Stock Exchange LLC (``NYSE'' or the
``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission''), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ a
proposed rule change to amend its listing standards for closed-end
funds. The proposed rule change was published for comment in the

Federal Register on June 12, 2017.\3\ On June 29, 2017, NYSE filed
Amendment No. 1 to the proposal.\4\ The Commission received no comments
on the proposed rule change. The Commission is publishing this notice
to solicit comment on Amendment No. 1 to the proposed rule change from
interested persons, and is approving the proposed rule change, as
modified by Amendment No. 1, on an accelerated basis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 80867 (June 6,
2017), 82 FR 26964 (``Notice'').
    \4\ Amendment No. 1 revised the proposal to insert additional
rule text to clarify the definition of public stockholders for
purposes of determining adherence to the continued listing
requirements for closed-end funds and to make conforming changes.
Amendment No. 1 is available at: https://www.sec.gov/comments/sr-nyse-2017-08/nyse201708-1832561-154372.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Description of the Proposed Rule Change, as Modified by Amendment
No. 1

    The Exchange has proposed to modify its listing standards
applicable to a closed-end management investment company registered
under the Investment Company Act of 1940 (a ``Fund''). In its filing,
the Exchange explained that this proposal would conform its initial and
continued listing standards for Funds to the listing standards for
Funds utilized by NYSE MKT LLC (``NYSE MKT'').\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See Notice, supra note 3, at 26964.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Currently, the Exchange will generally authorize the listing of a
Fund that meets the distribution and publicly held shares requirements
contained in Sections 102.01A and 102.01B of the NYSE Listed Company
Manual, respectively, if the Fund's market value of publicly held
shares is $60,000,000, regardless of whether the listing concerns an
initial public offering or an existing Fund.\6\ Notwithstanding the
requirement for market value of publicly held shares of $60,000,000,
the Exchange will generally authorize the listing of all of the Funds
in a group of Funds listed concurrently with a common investment
adviser or investment advisers who are ``affiliated persons,'' as
defined in Section 2(a)(3) of the Investment Company Act of 1940, as
amended, if: (i) Total group market value of publicly held shares
equals in the aggregate at least $200,000,000; (ii) the group market
value of publicly held shares averages at least $45,000,000 per Fund;
and (iii) no one Fund in the group has a market value of publicly held
shares of less than $30,000,000.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See NYSE Listed Company Manual, Section 102.04A.
    \7\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Under the proposal, the Exchange would generally authorize the
listing of a Fund that has a market value of publicly held shares or
net assets of $20,000,000.\8\ Alternatively, the Exchange would
generally authorize the listing of a group of Funds if: (i) Total group
market value of publicly held shares or net assets equals in the
aggregate at least $75,000,000; (ii) the group market value of publicly
held shares or net assets averages at least $15,000,000 per Fund; and
(iii) each Fund in the group has a market value of publicly held shares
or net assets of at least $10,000,000.\9\ With respect to the
introduction of requirements concerning a Fund's net asset value
(``NAV''),\10\ the Exchange explained that Funds disclose NAV on at
least a quarterly basis, and often more frequently, and that a Fund's
share price typically trades at a premium or discount to NAV, with
share price and NAV generally maintaining a close relationship.\11\
According to the Exchange, this relationship between share price and
NAV makes the market price of a Fund less reliant on the price
discovery mechanism of a liquid trading market than is the case with
operating companies, and therefore the Exchange believes that NAV is an
appropriate additional or alternative measure of suitability for
listing.\12\ The Exchange explained that these revisions to the initial
listing standards for Funds are based on the rules of NYSE MKT.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See proposed NYSE Listed Company Manual, Section 102.04A.
    \9\ See id.
    \10\ The Exchange explained that the NAV of a Fund is the value
of all Fund assets less liabilities, divided by the number of shares
outstanding. See Notice, supra note 3, at 26964.
    \11\ See id. The Commission notes that most closed-end funds
calculate NAV on a daily basis.
    \12\ See id.
    \13\ See id. (citing NYSE MKT Company Guide, Section 101(g)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Under current continued listing standards, the Exchange will
promptly initiate suspension and delisting procedures with respect to a
Fund if the average market capitalization of the entity over 30
consecutive trading days is below $15,000,000 or the Fund ceases to
maintain its closed-end status.\14\ The Exchange has proposed to
replace the existing average market capitalization continued listing
standard with a requirement that Funds not fall below $5,000,000 in
both total market value of publicly held shares and net assets over any
60 consecutive calendar day period.\15\ Shares held by directors,
officers, or their immediate families and other concentrated holdings
of 10 percent or more would be excluded in calculating the number of
publicly held shares.\16\ The Exchange explained that these changes to
the continued listing standards for Funds are based on the rules of
NYSE MKT.\17\ According to the Exchange, it would monitor compliance
with the publicly held shares requirement on an ongoing basis and ask
any Fund whose total market value of publicly held shares fell below
$5,000,000 over 60 calendar days to provide evidence that its net
assets had exceeded $5,000,000 over the required period.\18\ The
Exchange explained that it would promptly initiate suspension and
delisting procedures with respect to any Fund that could not
demonstrate compliance with the net asset requirement at such time.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ See NYSE Listed Company Manual, Section 802.01B.
    \15\ See proposed NYSE Listed Company Manual, Section 802.01B.
The Exchange also has proposed to fix a typographical error in
Section 802.01B of the NYSE Listed Company Manual. See Notice, supra
note 3, at 26965.
    \16\ See proposed NYSE Listed Company Manual, Section 802.01B;
Amendment No. 1, supra note 4, at 7. Similarly, for purposes of the
public stockholder requirement, as discussed below, ``public
stockholders'' would exclude holders that are directors, officers,
or their immediate families and holders of other concentrated
holdings of 10 percent or more. See proposed NYSE Listed Company
Manual, Section 802.01B; Amendment No. 1, supra note 4, at 7. The
Exchange represented that it relies primarily on the beneficial
ownership disclosure included in the issuers' registration
statements and annual meeting proxy statements in calculating
publicly held shares and public stockholders, but also refers to
other Commission filings where appropriate and its determinations
are made in accordance with Rule 13d-3 under the Act. The Exchange
stated that this is its practice under all of its rules where these
calculations must be made. The Exchange also stated that this is the
practice of NYSE MKT and the Exchange believes that its approach is
generally consistent with that of the NASDAQ Stock Market. See
Amendment No. 1, supra note 4, at 3.
    \17\ See Notice, supra note 3, at 26964-65 (citing NYSE MKT
Company Guide, Section 1003(b)(v)).
    \18\ See Notice, supra note 3, at 26965 n. 4.
    \19\ See id. According to the Exchange, no listed Fund is
currently below compliance with the Exchange's continued listing
standards. See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, current Exchange rules provide that the Exchange will
notify the Fund if the average market capitalization falls below
$25,000,000 and will advise the Fund of the delisting standard.\20\ The
Exchange has proposed to update this notification requirement,
according to the Exchange, to reflect the reduced market capitalization
component of the delisting standard and thus provide that the Exchange
will notify a Fund if the total market value of publicly held shares
over a 60

calendar day period falls below $10,000,000.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ See NYSE Listed Company Manual, Section 802.01B. Funds are
not eligible to utilize the follow-up procedures in Sections 802.02
and 802.03 of the NYSE Listed Company Manual that can be used by
companies that are below the Exchange's continued listing criteria.
See id.
    \21\ See proposed NYSE Listed Company Manual, Section 802.01B;
see also Notice, supra note 3, at 26965.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Further, the Exchange would specify that the distribution standards
for common stocks of operating companies set forth in Section 802.01A
of the NYSE Listed Company Manual do not apply to Funds.\22\ The
Exchange is proposing new continued listing standards that apply only
to Funds. Under the proposal, the Exchange would normally give
consideration to the prompt initiation of suspension and delisting
procedures with respect to the common stock of a Fund if: (i) The
number of shares publicly held is less than 200,000; (ii) the total
number of public stockholders is less than 300; \23\ or (iii) the total
market value of shares publicly held is less than $1,000,000 for more
than 90 consecutive calendar days.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ See proposed NYSE Listed Company Manual, Section 802.01B.
    \23\ The current distribution standards require 400 total
stockholders, which calculation does not exclude public
stockholders. See NYSE Listed Company Manual, Section 802.01A.
    \24\ See proposed NYSE Listed Company Manual, Section 802.01B;
Amendment No. 1, supra note 4, at 7; supra note 16 and accompanying
text. In Amendment No. 1, the Exchange amended the rule language to
make clear that the definitions of publicly held shares and public
stockholders, as described above, apply to these sections as
appropriate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Discussion and Commission Findings

    After careful review, the Commission finds that the proposed rule
change, as modified by Amendment No. 1, is consistent with the
requirements of the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder
applicable to a national securities exchange.\25\ In particular, the
Commission finds that the proposed rule change is consistent with
Section 6(b)(5) of the Act,\26\ which requires, among other things,
that the rules of a national securities 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. Section 6(b)(5) of the Act
\27\ also requires that the rules of an exchange not be designed to
permit unfair discrimination between customers, issuers, brokers, or
dealers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ In approving this proposed rule change, the Commission has
considered the proposed rule's impact on efficiency, competition,
and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).
    \26\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
    \27\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission notes that the proposed initial and continued
listing standards are consistent with those listing standards currently
utilized by NYSE MKT \28\ and that the Commission received no comments
on the Exchange's proposed rule change. The Commission believes that
the adjustment of the threshold for total market value of publicly held
shares below which the Exchange will notify a Fund of the delisting
standard is consistent with the adjustment to the continued listing
standards in this proposed rule change. Based on the foregoing, the
Commission believes that the proposed rule change presents no novel
regulatory issues and therefore finds the proposed rule change to be
consistent with the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ See supra notes 13 and 17 and accompanying text.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Solicitation of Comments on Amendment No. 1

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and
arguments concerning whether Amendment No. 1 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-NYSE-2017-08 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NYSE-2017-08. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549 on official business days between the hours of
10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of such filing also will be available
for inspection and copying at the principal 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-NYSE-2017-08, and should be
submitted on or before August 23, 2017.

V. Accelerated Approval of Proposed Rule Change, as Modified by
Amendment No. 1

    The Commission finds good cause to approve the proposed rule
change, as modified by Amendment No. 1, prior to the thirtieth day
after the date of publication of the notice of Amendment No. 1 in the
Federal Register. The Commission believes that the proposed changes to
the description of the Exchange's method of calculating publicly held
shares and public stockholders add clarity to the process. Accordingly,
for the reasons noted above, the Commission finds good cause for
approving the proposed rule change, as modified by Amendment No. 1, on
an accelerated basis, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act.\29\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

VI. Conclusion

    It is therefore ordered, pursuant to Section 19b(2) of the Act,\30\
that the proposed rule change (SR-NYSE-2017-08), as modified by
Amendment No. 1 thereto, be, and hereby is, approved on an accelerated
basis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \30\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\31\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \31\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Eduardo A. Aleman,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2017-16207 Filed 8-1-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


Page 1 of 3 FIFRA SCIENTIFIC ADVISORY PANEL ( SAP) OPEN MEETING JULY 17 AND 18, 2003 FIFRA SAP WEB SITE http:// www. epa. gov/ scipoly/ sap/ OPP Docket Telephone: ( 703) 305 5805 SHERATON CRYSTAL CITY HOTEL 1800 JEFFERSON DAVIS HIGHWAY ARLINGTON, VIRGINIA 22202 703 486 1111 Characterization of Epidemiology Data Relating to Prostate Cancer and Exposure to Atrazine List of Panel Members Session Chairperson Christopher J. Portier, Ph. D. Director, Environmental Toxicology Program National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences 111 T. W. Alexander Drive, Bldg. 101, Room A330 Research Triangle Park, NC 27709 12233 Designated Federal Official Mr. Steven M. Knott FIFRA Scientific Advisory Panel Office of Science Coordination and Policy Environmental Protection Agency 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, N. W. ( 7202M) Washington, DC 20460 ( 202) 564 8450 FAX: ( 202) 546 8382 knott. steven@ epa.. gov FIFRA Scientific Advisory Panel Members Stephen M. Roberts, Ph. D. ( FIFRA SAP Chair) Professor & Program Director University of Florida Center for Environmental & Human Toxicology Building 471, Mowry Road Gainesville, FL 32611 JULY 17 AND 18, 2003 FIFRA SAP PANEL MEMBER LIST Page 2 of 3 Stuart Handwerger, M. D. Director, Division of Endocrinology Cincinnati Children's Hospital Medical Center University of Cincinnati 3333 Burnet Avenue Cincinnati, OH 45229 Steven G. Heeringa, Ph. D. Director, Division of Surveys & Technology University of Michigan Institute for Social Research P. O. Box 1248 Ann Arbor, MI 48106 1248 Gary E. Isom, Ph. D. Professor of Toxicology School of Pharmacy and Pharmacal Sciences Purdue University 575 Stadium Mall Drive West Lafayette, IN 47907 2091 FQPA Science Review Board Members Frank Bove, Sc. D. Senior Epidemiologist Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry Epidemiology & Surveillance Branch Division of Health Studies Atlanta, GA 30329 Ellen Gold, Ph. D. Professor Department of Epidemiology and Preventive Medicine University of California Davis Davis, CA 95616 Claudia Hopenhayn, Ph. D. Research Associate Professor University of Kentucky Cancer Control Program Lexington, KY 40504 3381 JULY 17 AND 18, 2003 FIFRA SAP PANEL MEMBER LIST Page 3 of 3 Lynda Knobeloch, Ph. D. Research Scientist Supervisor Research and Toxicology Unit Bureau of Environmental Health Wisconsin Department of Health and Family Services Madison WI 53702 Ray M. Merrill, Ph. D. Tenured Associate Professor Department of Health Science Brigham Young University Provo, Utah 84602.

John Reif, D. V. M. Professor of Epidemiology Department of Environmental Health Colorado State University Fort Collins, CO 80523 Martha Sandy, Ph. D. Senior Toxicologist and Chief Cancer Toxicology and Epidemiology Unit Reproductive and Cancer Hazard Assessment Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment California Environmental Protection Agency Oakland, CA 94612 1404 Elaine Symanski, Ph. D. Assistant Professor of Environmental Sciences University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston School of Public Health University of Texas Houston, Texas 77030 Heather Young, Ph. D. Assistant Research Professor George Washington University Washington, DC 20037


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 241 (Thursday, December 15, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 78062-78063]
[FR Doc No: 2011-32166]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-65933; File No. SR-NYSEAmex-2011-96]

 Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE Amex LLC; Notice of Filing
and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Amending the NYSE
Amex Options Fee Schedule

December 9, 2011.
    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 December 1, 2011, NYSE Amex LLC (the ``Exchange'' or ``NYSE Amex'')
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'') the
proposed rule change as described in Items I, II, and III below, which
Items have been prepared by the self-regulatory organization. The
Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the
proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 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 proposes to [sic] amend the NYSE Amex
Options Fee Schedule (``Fee Schedule'') to permit the Exchange to
exclude data from the calculation of Excessive Bandwidth Utilization
Fees and Cancellation Fees if one or more ATP Firms or the Exchange
experiences a bona fide systems problem and make other technical
changes. The proposed change will be operative on December 1, 2011. The
text of the proposed rule change is available at the Exchange, the
Commission's Public Reference Room, and http://www.nyse.com.

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 the Fee Schedule to permit the
Exchange to exclude data from the calculation of Excessive Bandwidth
Utilization Fees and Cancellation Fees if one or more ATP Firms or the
Exchange experiences a bona fide systems problem and make other
technical changes.
    The Exchange presently has three fees related to use of systems
capacity: (1) The Cancellation Fee, (2) the Order To Trade Ratio Fee,
and (3) the Messages To Contracts Traded Ratio Fee. The latter two fees
are referred to as Excessive Bandwidth Utilization Fees. Under the
current Fee Schedule, if an ATP Firm is liable for either or both of
the Excessive Bandwidth Utilization Fees and/or for charges pursuant to
the Cancellation Fee in a given month, that firm would only be charged
the largest one of those three fees for the month.\3\ The Exchange may
exclude one or more days of data in calculating the Messages To
Contracts Traded Ratio Fee for an ATP Firm if the Exchange determines,
in its sole discretion, that one or more ATP Firms or the Exchange
experienced a bona fide systems problem. The Exchange proposes to amend
the Fee Schedule to extend its discretion to exclude data in the event
of a bona fide systems problem to the calculation of the Order To Trade
Ratio Fee and the Cancellation Fee as well as the Messages To Contracts
Traded Ratio Fee and to move the relevant text to proposed endnote
12.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See current Fee Schedule at n. 13.
    \4\ An ATP Firm seeking relief as a result of a systems problem
will be required to notify the Exchange via email with a description
of the systems problem and the Exchange will keep a record of all
such requests. The Exchange will keep records of its determinations
as to whether one or more ATP Firms or the Exchange experienced a
bona fide systems problem and any exclusion of that day's activity
from the calculation of an Excessive Bandwidth Utilization Fee or
Cancellation Fee.

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

    The Exchange also proposes to the move the placement of the
Cancellation Fee in the Fee Schedule to a more logical location and
renumber the endnotes accordingly.
    The proposed change will be operative on December 1, 2011.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with the provisions of Section 6(b) \5\ of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934 (the ``Act''), in general, and Section 6(b)(4) \6\ of the Act,
in particular, in that it is designed to provide for the equitable
allocation of reasonable dues, fees, and other charges among its
members and other persons using its facilities. The Exchange believes
that the proposed change is equitable because it will apply to all ATP
Firms equally. The Exchange believes that a bona fide systems problem
is just as likely to cause an unfair result in the calculation of the
Order To Trade Ratio Fee and the Cancellation Fee as it would in the
calculation of the Messages To Contracts Traded Ratio Fee. Extending
the Exchange's discretion to adjust such fees in such an event would
help to prevent the imposition of an unreasonable fee.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

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

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

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

    The foregoing rule change is effective upon filing pursuant to
Section 19(b)(3)(A) \7\ of the Act and subparagraph (f)(2) of Rule 19b-
4 \8\ thereunder, because it establishes a due, fee, or other charge
imposed by the Exchange. At any time within 60 days of the filing of
such proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily
suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such
action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the
protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of
the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \8\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-NYSEAmex-2011-96 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-NYSEAmex-2011-96. 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 NW.,
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 Number SR-NYSEAmex-2011-96 and should
be submitted on or before January 5, 2012.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2011-32166 Filed 12-14-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 66 (Friday, April 5, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Page 13655]
[FR Doc No: 2019-06723]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ER19-1473-000]

AES Alamitos Energy, LLC; Supplemental Notice That Initial
Market-Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204
Authorization

    This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding of
AES Alamitos Energy, LLC's application for market-based rate authority,
with an accompanying rate tariff, noting that such application includes
a request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future
issuances of securities and assumptions of liability.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington,
DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's
Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Anyone
filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that
document on the Applicant.
    Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with
regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18
CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of
liability, is April 22, 2019.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with internet
access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an
intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the
eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the
intervention or protests.
    Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and
5 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426.
    The filings in the above-referenced proceeding are accessible in
the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in
the above list. They are also available for electronic review in the
Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an
eSubscription link on the website that enables subscribers to receive
email notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s).
For assistance with any FERC Online service, please email
[email protected]. or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For
TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: April 1, 2019.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2019-06723 Filed 4-4-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 94 (Thursday, May 15, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 27879-27880]
[FR Doc No: 2014-11172]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2010-E-0132]

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

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has determined the
regulatory review period for PALLADIA and is publishing this notice of
that determination as required by law. FDA has made the determination
because of the submission of an application to the Director of Patents
and Trademarks, Department of Commerce, for the extension of a patent
which claims that animal drug product.

ADDRESSES: Submit electronic comments to http://www.regulations.gov.
Submit written petitions (two copies are required) and written comments
to the Division of Dockets Management (HFA-305), Food and Drug
Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.
Submit petitions electronically to http://www.regulations.gov at Docket
No. FDA-2013-S-0610.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Beverly Friedman, Office of
Management, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug
Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 51, Rm. 6257, 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 animal drug products, the
testing phase begins on the earlier date when either a major
environmental effects test was initiated for the drug or when an
exemption under section 512(j) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic
Act (the FD&C Act) (21 U.S.C. 360b(j)) became effective and runs until
the approval phase begins. The approval phase starts with the initial
submission of an application to market the animal 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 an animal drug product will include all of the testing phase
and approval phase as specified in 35 U.S.C. 156(g)(4)(B).
    FDA has approved for marketing the animal drug product PALLADIA
(toceranib phosphate). PALLADIA is indicated for the treatment of
Patnaik grade II or III, recurrent, cutaneous mast cell tumors with or
without regional lymph node involvement in dogs. Subsequent to this
approval, the Patent and Trademark Office received a patent term
restoration application for PALLADIA (U.S. Patent No. 6,573,293) from
Sugen, Inc., and Pharmacia & Upjohn Company LLC, and the Patent and
Trademark Office requested FDA's assistance in determining this
patent's eligibility for patent term restoration. In a letter dated May
3, 2011, FDA advised the Patent and Trademark Office that this animal
drug product had undergone a regulatory review period and that the
approval of PALLADIA represented the first permitted commercial
marketing or use of the product. Thereafter, the Patent and Trademark
Office requested that the FDA determine the product's regulatory review
period.
    FDA has determined that the applicable regulatory review period for
PALLADIA is 2,711 days. Of this time, 2,681 days occurred during the
testing phase of the regulatory review period, while 30 days occurred
during the approval phase. These periods of time were derived from the
following dates:
    1. The date an exemption under section 505(i) of the Federal Food,
Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the FD&C Act) (21 U.S.C. 355(i)) became
effective: December 21, 2001. The applicant claims November 23, 2001,
as the date the investigational new animal drug application (INAD)
became effective. However, Food and Drug Administration (FDA) records
indicate that the INAD effective date was December 21, 2001, which was
the received date of the first submission that includes a study with
substantial data (submission of a major health test) or the first
submission containing a Notice of Claimed Investigational Exemption.
    2. The date the application was initially submitted with respect to
the animal drug product under section 512 of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C.
360b): April 23, 2009. The applicant claims April 22, 2009, as the date
the new animal drug application (NADA) for Palladia (NADA 141-295) was
initially submitted. However, FDA records indicate that NADA 141-295
was submitted on April 23, 2009.
    3. The date the application was approved: May 22, 2009. FDA has
verified the applicant's claim that NADA 141-295 was approved on May
22, 2009.
    This determination of the regulatory review period establishes the
maximum potential length of a patent extension. However, the Patent and
Trademark Office applies several statutory limitations in its
calculations of the actual period for patent extension. In its
application for patent extension, this

applicant seeks 827 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 July 14, 2014. 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 November 12, 2014. 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 or
electronic petitions. It is only necessary to send one set of comments.
Identify comments with the docket number found in brackets in the
heading of this document. If you submit a written petition, two copies
are required. A petition submitted electronically must be submitted to
http://www.regulations.gov, Docket No. FDA-2013-S-0610. Comments and
petitions that have not been made publicly available on http://www.regulations.gov may be viewed in the Division of Dockets Management
between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday.

    Dated: May 9, 2014.
Leslie Kux,
Assistant Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2014-11172 Filed 5-14-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4160-01-P