[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 10 (Tuesday, January 17, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 4941-4947]
[FR Doc No: 2017-00782]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-79769; File No. SR-BatsEDGX-2017-01]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Bats EDGX Exchange, Inc.; Notice
of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To
Modify the Fee Schedule of the Exchange's Options Platform To Adopt
Fees for its Recently Adopted Bats Auction Mechanism

January 10, 2017.
    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 January 3, 2017, Bats EDGX Exchange, Inc. (``EDGX'' or the
``Exchange'') 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

    The Exchange filed a proposal to modify the Fee Schedule applicable
to the Exchange's options platform (``EDGX Options'') to adopt fees for
its recently adopted Bats Auction Mechanism (``BAM'', ``BAM Auction'',
or ``Auction'').\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 79718 (January 3,
2017) (SR-BatsEDGX-2016-41), available at: https://www.sec.gov/rules/sro/batsedgx.shtml.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The text of the proposed rule change is available at the Exchange's
Web site at www.bats.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
Background
    The Exchange proposes to modify the Fee Schedule applicable to the
Exchange's options platform (``EDGX Options'') to adopt fees for its
recently adopted Bats Auction Mechanism (``BAM'', ``BAM Auction'', or
``Auction''). BAM includes functionality in which a Member (an
``Initiating Member'') may electronically submit for execution an order
it represents as agent on behalf of a Priority Customer,\4\ broker
dealer, or any other person or entity (``Agency Order'') against
principal interest or against any other order it represents as agent
(an ``Initiating Order'') provided it submits the Agency Order for
electronic execution into the BAM Auction pursuant Rule 21.19. All
options traded on EDGX Options are eligible for BAM.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ The term ``Priority Customer'' means any person or entity
that is not: (A) A broker or dealer in securities; or (B) a
Professional. The term ``Priority Customer Order'' means an order
for the account of a Priority Customer. See Rule 16.1(a)(45). A
``Professional'' is any person or entity that: (A) Is not a broker
or dealer in securities; and (B) places more than 390 orders in
listed options per day on average during a calendar month for its
own beneficial account(s). All Professional orders shall be
appropriately marked by Options Members. See Rule 16.1(a)(46).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As additional background for the fees described below, the Exchange
notes that any person or entity other than the Initiating Member may
submit responses to an Auction. A BAM Auction takes into account
responses to the Auction as well as interest resting on the Exchange's
order book at the conclusion of the auction (``unrelated orders''),
regardless of whether such unrelated orders were already present on the
Exchange's order book when the Agency Order was received by the
Exchange or were received after the Exchange commenced the applicable
Auction. If contracts remain from one or more unrelated orders at the
time the Auction ends, they will be considered for participation in the
BAM order allocation process.
Definitions
    In connection with the fee proposal, the Exchange proposes to adopt
definitions necessary for BAM pricing. First, the Exchange proposes to
adopt defined terms of ``BAM'' and ``BAM Auction'' to refer to Auctions
on the Fee Schedule. Second, the Exchange proposes to adopt the defined
term ``BAM Agency Order'', which would be

defined as an order represented as agent by a Member on behalf of
another party, and submitted to BAM for potential price improvement
pursuant to Rule 21.19. Third, the Exchange proposes to adopt the
defined term ``BAM Contra Order'' or ``Initiating Order'',\5\ which
would be defined as an order submitted by a Member entering a BAM
Agency Order for execution within BAM, that will potentially execute
against the BAM Agency Order pursuant to Rule 21.19. Fourth, the
Exchange proposes to adopt the defined term ``BAM Customer-to-Customer
Immediate Cross'', which would provide a cross-reference to the process
defined in Rule 21.19(c).\6\ Finally, the Exchange proposes to adopt
the defined term ``BAM Responder Order'', which would be defined to
include any order submitted in response to and specifically designated
to participate in a BAM Auction as well as unrelated orders that are
received by the Exchange after a BAM Auction has begun.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ The Exchange notes that it has proposed to include the term
Initiating Order on the Fee Schedule even though it is not currently
used elsewhere on the Fee Schedule because this is the term used for
a BAM Contra Order within Rule 21.19.
    \6\ As set forth in Rule 21.19(c), in lieu of the procedures set
forth in paragraphs (a) and (b) of Rule 21.10 [sic], an Initiating
Member may enter an Agency Order for the account of a Priority
Customer paired with an order for the account of a Priority Customer
and such paired orders will be automatically executed without an
Auction, subject to the conditions set forth in Rule 21.19(c)(1)-
(3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

BAM Pricing
    The Exchange proposes to adopt six new fee codes in connection with
BAM, which would be added to the Fee Codes and Associated Fees table of
the Fee Schedule. These fee codes represent the fees applicable to BAM,
as described below. In addition, the Exchange proposes to adopt new
footnote 6, which would again summarize BAM fees and rebates in a table
form, would provide additional details regarding the applicability of
such fees and rebates, and would include a provision regarding BAM
Break-Up Credits.
    The Exchange proposes to adopt two fee codes for BAM Agency Orders,
fee code BA and fee code BC, which would be applicable to Non-Customer
\7\ and Customer \8\ orders, respectively. As proposed, the Exchange
would apply fee code BA to Non-Customer BAM Agency Orders that are
executed in an Auction and would charge such orders a fee of $0.20 per
contract. The Exchange would apply fee code BC to Customer BAM Agency
Orders that are executed in an Auction and would provide such orders a
rebate of $0.14 per contract.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ As defined in the Exchange's Fee Schedule, available at:
http://www.bats.com/us/options/membership/fee_schedule/edgx/.
    \8\ As defined in the Exchange's Fee Schedule, available at:
http://www.bats.com/us/options/membership/fee_schedule/edgx/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Next, the Exchange proposes to adopt fee code BB, which would apply
to a BAM Contra Order executed in an Auction and would be charged a fee
of $0.04 per contract.
    The Exchange also proposes to adopt fee codes BD and BE, which
would apply to BAM Responder Orders in Penny Pilot Securities \9\ and
Non-Penny Pilot Securities,\10\ respectively. As proposed, the Exchange
would apply fee code BD or BE to a BAM Responder Order that is executed
in an Auction. The Exchange proposes to charge a fee of $0.50 per
contract for executions yielding fee code BD and to charge a fee of
$1.05 per contract for executions yielding fee code BE.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ The term ``Penny Pilot Security'' applies to those issues
that are quoted pursuant to Exchange Rule 21.5, Interpretation and
Policy .01.
    \10\ The term ``Non-Penny Pilot Security'' applies to those
issues that are not Penny Pilot Securities quoted pursuant to
Exchange Rule 21.5, Interpretation and Policy .01.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, the Exchange proposes to adopt fee code CC for all
executions in a BAM Customer-to-Customer Immediate Cross. As proposed,
all executions yielding fee code CC would be provided free of charge.
    As discussed above, in addition to setting forth the proposed fees
and rebates in the Fee Codes and Associated Fees table, the Exchange
proposes to adopt footnote 6 to again summarize BAM fees and rebates in
a table form that is organized differently in order to provide clarity
to Users.\11\ Footnote 6 would be organized similar to existing
footnotes on the Fee Schedule and would first make clear that the
footnote is applicable to the following six fee codes: BA, BB, BC, BD,
BE and CC. The footnote would then re-state the fees applicable to BAM,
including a lead-in to the table that would state that the fees and
rates are applicable when a BAM Agency Order trades in a BAM Auction
against either a BAM Contra Order or a BAM Responder Order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ The term ``Users'' applies to any Member or Sponsored
Participant who is authorized to obtain access to the System
pursuant to Rule 11.3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed table would horizontally categorize the types of
orders that could be executed within BAM, namely ``Agency'' (i.e., BAM
Agency Orders), ``Contra'' (i.e., BAM Contra Orders) and ``Responder''
(i.e., BAM Responder Orders). Further, within the Responder category,
the Exchange would differentiate between Penny Pilot Securities and
Non-Penny Pilot Securities (whereas it would not for the other two
categories because there is no applicable distinction). Vertically, the
table would be organized by Customer, Non-Customer and Customer-to-
Customer Immediate Cross.
    The Exchange also proposes to make clear with respect to BAM Agency
Orders that when a BAM Agency Order executes against one or more
resting orders that were already on the Exchange's order book when the
BAM Agency Order was received by the Exchange, the BAM Agency Order and
the resting order(s) would receive the Standard Fee Rates.
Specifically, and as described above, it is possible for unrelated
interest that is already present on the Exchange's order book when a
BAM Agency Order is received to be included in an Auction. As proposed,
footnote 6 will make clear that this will not alter the fee structure
for such execution and instead the Exchange will charge a fee or
provide a rebate to each side of the transaction as if it were a
transaction occurring on the Exchange's order book pursuant to the
Exchange's normal order handling methodology and not in BAM. This
stands in contrast to BAM Responder Orders, which, as defined, include
unrelated orders that are received by the Exchange after a BAM Auction
has begun and which would be charged or provided rebates based
specifically on BAM pricing.
    The Exchange also proposes to make clear with respect to Customer
orders that such orders will be charged or provided rebates based on
the proposed pricing for BAM (e.g., will yield fee code BC if submitted
as a BAM Agency Order, will yield fee code BB if submitted as a BAM
Contra Order, etc.) but that fee code CC would be assigned when both
the BAM Agency Order and the BAM Contra Order are Customer orders.
    In addition, the Exchange proposes to adopt under footnote 6 BAM
Break-Up Credits. As proposed, the Exchange will apply a BAM Break-Up
Credit to the Member that submitted a BAM Agency Order, including a
Member who routed an order to the Exchange with a Designated Give Up
(as described in further detail below), when the BAM Agency Order
trades with a BAM Responder Order. As proposed, the BAM Break-Up Credit
provided with respect to a BAM Auction in a Penny Pilot Security would
be $0.25 per contract and the BAM Break-Up Credit provided with respect
to a BAM Auction in a Non-Penny Pilot Security would be $0.60 per
contract.

Tiered Pricing Incentives
    In order to encourage the use of BAM, the Exchange proposes to
adopt new tiers under footnotes 1 and 2 of the Fee Schedule, which are
similar to existing tiers but with an enhanced rebated to incentivize
the submission of BAM Agency Orders.
    Fee codes PC and NC are currently appended to all Customer orders
in Penny Pilot Securities and Non-Penny Pilot Securities, respectively,
and result in a standard rebate of $0.05 per contract. Instead of the
standard rebate provided to Customer orders, Members are able to
receive enhanced rebates for Customer orders to the extent they satisfy
monthly volume criteria. The Exchange currently offers five Customer
Volume Tiers pursuant to footnote 1. For instance, pursuant to Customer
Volume Tier 5, a Member will receive an enhanced rebate of $0.21 per
contract where the Member has an ADV \12\ in: (i) Customer orders equal
to or greater than 0.05% of average OCV; \13\ and (ii) Customer or
Market Maker \14\ orders equal to or greater than 0.35% of average OCV.
To encourage the entry of BAM Agency Orders to the Exchange, the
Exchange proposes to adopt Customer Volume Tier 6, which would be
identical to Tier 5 but would instead provide an enhanced rebate of
$0.25 per contract for Customer orders to the extent a Member also has
an ADV in BAM Agency Orders equal to or greater than 1 contract (in
addition to the volume criteria described above with respect to Tier
5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ As defined in the Exchange's Fee Schedule, available at:
http://www.bats.com/us/options/membership/fee_schedule/edgx/.
    \13\ As defined in the Exchange's Fee Schedule, available at:
http://www.bats.com/us/options/membership/fee_schedule/edgx/.
    \14\ As defined in the Exchange's Fee Schedule, available at:
http://www.bats.com/us/options/membership/fee_schedule/edgx/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Fee codes PM and NM are currently appended to all Market Maker
orders in Penny Pilot Securities and Non-Penny Pilot Securities,
respectively, and result in a standard fee of $0.19 per contract. The
Market Maker Volume Tiers in footnote 2 consist of seven separate
tiers, each providing a reduced fee or rebate to a Member's Market
Maker orders that yield fee codes PM or NM upon satisfying the monthly
volume criteria required by the respective tier. For instance, pursuant
to Market Maker Volume Tier 7, a Member will be charged a reduced fee
of $0.03 per contract where the Member has: (i) Customer orders equal
to or greater than 0.05% of average OCV; and (ii) Customer or Market
Maker orders equal to or greater than 0.35% of average OCV. To
encourage the entry of BAM Agency Orders to the Exchange, the Exchange
proposes to adopt Market Maker Volume Tier 8, which would be identical
to Tier 7 but would instead provide a reduced fee of $0.02 per contract
for Market Maker orders to the extent a Member also has an ADV in BAM
Agency Orders equal to or greater than 1 contract (in addition to the
volume criteria described above with respect to Tier 7).
Designated Give Up Footnote
    Footnote 5 of the Fee Schedule currently specifies that when order
is submitted with a Designated Give Up, as defined in Rule 21.12(b)(1),
the applicable rebates for such orders when executed on the Exchange
(yielding fee code NC or PC) \15\ are provided to the Member who routed
the order to the Exchange. Pursuant to Rule 21.12, which specifies the
process to submit an order with a Designated Give Up, a Member acting
as an options routing firm on behalf of one or more other Exchange
Members (a ``Routing Firm'') is able to route orders to the Exchange
and to immediately give up the party (a party other than the Routing
Firm itself or the Routing Firm's own clearing firm) who will accept
and clear any resulting transaction. Because the Routing Firm is
responsible for the decision to route the order to the Exchange, the
Exchange provides such Member with the rebate when orders that yield
fee code NC or PC are executed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ Fee codes NC and PC are appended to Customer orders in Non-
Penny Pilot and Penny Pilot Securities, respectively. Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In connection with the adoption of fees applicable to BAM, the
Exchange proposes to add new fee code BC to the lead-in sentence of
footnote 5 and to append footnote 5 to fee code BC in the Fee Codes and
Associated Fees table of the Fee Schedule. In addition, the Exchange
proposes to include reference to Routing Firms (i.e., a Member who
routed an order to the Exchange with a Designated Give up) in the
proposed BAM Break-Up Credit section of footnote 6, to make clear that
a Routing Firm will be provided any applicable BAM Break-Up Credits.
Similar to the provision of a rebate to a Routing Firm who routed an
order to the Exchange to execute directly on the Exchange's order book,
the Exchange believes that a Routing Firm that routed a BAM Agency
Order to the Exchange should be provided applicable rebates, including
any BAM Break-Up Credits, based on the Routing Firm's decision to route
the order to the Exchange.
Implementation Date
    The Exchange proposes to implement the proposed changes
immediately.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ The Exchange notes that it previously adopted fee changes
effective January 3, 2017, and thus, has not proposed to modify the
date of the Fee Schedule. See SR-BatsEDGX-2016-75, available at:
http://www.bats.com/us/options/regulation/rule_filings/edgx/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with the requirements of the Act and the rules and regulations
thereunder that are applicable to a national securities exchange, and,
in particular, with the requirements of Section 6 of the Act.\17\
Specifically, the Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is
consistent with Section 6(b)(4) of the Act,\18\ in that it provides for
the equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees and other charges
among Members and other persons using any facility or system which the
Exchange operates or controls.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ 15 U.S.C. 78f.
    \18\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange's proposal establishes fees and rebates regarding BAM,
which promotes price improvement to the benefit of market participants.
The Exchange believes that BAM will encourage market participants, and
in particular liquidity providers on the Exchange, to compete
vigorously to provide opportunities for price improvement in a
competitive auction process. The Exchange believes that its proposal
will allow the Exchange to recoup the costs associated with BAM while
also incentivizing its use.
    The Exchange is adopting the proposed fees and rebates at this time
because it believes that the associated revenue will allow it to
promote and maintain BAM, which is beneficial to market participants.
    In sum, the Exchange believes that the proposed fee and rebate
structure is designed to promote BAM and, in particular, to attract
Customer liquidity, which benefits all market participants by providing
additional trading opportunities. This attracts liquidity providers and
an increase in the activity of these market participants in turn
facilitates tighter spreads, which may cause an additional
corresponding increase in order flow originating from other market
participants.
    Moreover, the Exchange believes that charging market participants,
other than Customers, a higher effective rate for certain BAM
transactions is reasonable, equitable, and not unfairly discriminatory
because these types of market participants are more

sophisticated and have higher levels of order flow activity and system
usage. Facilitating this level of trading activity requires a greater
amount of system resources than that of Customers, and thus, generates
greater ongoing operational costs for the Exchange. The proposed fees
and rebates, which are further discussed below, will allow the Exchange
to promote and maintain BAM, which is beneficial to market
participants.
BAM Agency Orders and BAM Contra Orders
    With respect to the proposal to adopt a rebate for Customer BAM
Agency Orders ($0.14 per contract) and adopt fees for both Non-Customer
BAM Agency Orders ($0.20 per contract) and all BAM Contra Orders ($0.04
per contract), the Exchange believes this is reasonable because it
encourages participation in BAM by offering rates that are equivalent
to or better than most other price improvement auctions offered by
other options exchanges.\19\ The rebate for Customer BAM Agency Orders
is designed to encourage Customer orders entered into BAM, which is
reasonable for the reasons further discussed below. The proposed fees
for Non-Customer BAM Agency Orders and BAM Contra Orders are also
reasonable because the associated revenue will allow the Exchange to
promote and maintain BAM, and continue to enhance its services.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ See Miami International Securities Exchange, LLC (``MIAX'')
Fee Schedule; and Securities Exchange Act Release No. 72943 (August
28, 2014), 80 [sic] FR 52785 (September 4, 2014) (SR-MIAX-2015-45
[sic]) (notice of filing and immediate effectiveness regarding MIAX
PRIME). See also, e.g., NYSE MKT LLC (``NYSE Amex Options'') Fee
Schedule and NASDAQ OMX BX, Inc. (``BX Options'') Fee Schedule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Providing Customers a rebate for BAM Agency Orders, while assessing
Non-Customers a fee for BAM Agency Orders, is reasonable because of the
desirability of Customer activity. The proposed new fees and rebates
for BAM are generally intended to encourage greater Customer trade
volume to the Exchange. Customer activity enhances liquidity on the
Exchange for the benefit of all market participants and benefits all
market participants by providing more trading opportunities, which
attracts market makers and other liquidity providers. An increase in
the activity of these market participants in turn facilitates tighter
spreads, which may cause an additional corresponding increase in order
flow from other market participants. The practice of incentivizing
increased Customer order flow through a fee and rebate schedule in
order to attract professional liquidity providers is, and has been,
commonly practiced in the options markets, and the Exchange.\20\ The
proposed fee and rebate schedule similarly attracts Customer order
flow.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ See Exchanges Fee Schedule, available at: http://www.bats.com/us/options/membership/fee_schedule/edgx/; see also,
e.g., MIAX Fee Schedule, NYSE Amex Options Fee Schedule, Nasdaq
Options Market (``NOM'') Fee Schedule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed fee and rebate schedule is reasonably designed because
it is within the range of fees and rebates assessed by other exchanges
employing similar fee structures for price improvement mechanisms.\21\
Other competing exchanges offer different fees and rebates for agency
orders, contra-side orders, and responder orders to the auction in a
manner similar to the proposal.\22\ Other competing exchanges also
charge different rates for transactions in their price improvement
mechanisms for customers versus their non-customers in a manner similar
to the proposal.\23\ As proposed, all applicable fees and rebates are
within the range of fees and rebates for executions in price
improvement mechanisms assessed by other exchanges that are currently
employing similar fee structures for price improvement mechanisms.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ See MIAX Fee Schedule; and Securities Exchange Act Release
No. 72943 (August 28, 2014), 80 [sic] FR 52785 (September 4, 2014)
(SR-MIAX-2015-45 [sic]) (notice of filing and immediate
effectiveness regarding MIAX PRIME). See also, e.g., NYSE Amex
Options Fee Schedule and BX Options Fee Schedule.
    \22\ Id.
    \23\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The fee and rebate schedule as proposed continues to reflect
differentiation among different market participants typically found in
options fee and rebate schedules.\24\ The Exchange believes that the
differentiation is reasonable and notes that unlike others (e.g.,
Customers) some market participants like EDGX Options Market Makers
commit to various obligations. For example, transactions of an EDGX
Options Market Maker must constitute a course of dealings reasonably
calculated to contribute to the maintenance of a fair and orderly
market, and Market Makers should not make bids or offers or enter into
transactions that are inconsistent with such course of dealings.\25\
Further, all Market Makers are designated as specialists on EDGX
Options for all purposes under the Act or rules thereunder.\26\ For BAM
Agency Orders, establishing a rebate for Customer orders and a fee for
Non-Customer Orders is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory. This
is because the Exchange's proposal to provide rebates and assess fees
will apply the same to all similarly situated participants. Moreover,
all similarly situated BAM Agency Orders are subject to the same
proposed fee schedule, and access to the Exchange is offered on terms
that are not unfairly discriminatory. In addition, the proposed fee for
BAM Agency Orders is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because,
while other market participants (Non-Customers) will be assessed a fee,
Customers will receive a rebate because an increase in Customer order
flow will bring greater volume and liquidity, which benefits all market
participants by providing more trading opportunities and tighter
spreads.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ See Exchange's Fee Schedule, available at: http://www.bats.com/us/options/membership/fee_schedule/edgx/; see also,
e.g., MIAX Fee Schedule, NYSE Amex Options Fee Schedule, BX Options
Fee Schedule and NOM Fee Schedule.
    \25\ See Exchange Rule 22.5, entitled ``Obligations of Market
Makers''.
    \26\ See Exchange Rule 22.2, entitled ``Options Market Maker
Registration and Appointment''.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Customer-to-Customer Immediate Cross
    With respect to the Customer-to-Customer Immediate Cross,
establishing no Customer fee or rebate for either side of the
transaction, is also reasonable, equitably allocated and not
unreasonably discriminatory because it still encourages the entry of
Customer orders to the Exchange while treating, from the Exchange's
perspective, each side of the order neutrally rather than providing one
Customer a rebate but charging another Customer a fee.
BAM Responder Orders and Other Unrelated Orders
    For BAM Responder Orders, establishing that there will be a $0.50
fee per contract for orders in Penny Pilot Securities and a $1.05 fee
per contract for orders in Non-Penny Pilot Securities, is reasonable
because the associated revenue will allow the Exchange to maintain and
enhance its services. The proposed fee and rebate schedule is also
reasonably designed because it is within the range of fees and rebates
assessed by other exchanges employing similar fee structures for price
improvement mechanisms.\27\ Other competing exchanges offer different
fees and rebates for agency orders, contra-side order, and responders
to the auction in a manner similar to the proposal.\28\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ See NYSE Amex Options Fee Schedule; see also, e.g., MIAX
Fee Schedule and BX Options Fee Schedule.
    \28\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For BAM Responder Orders, establishing a fee for such orders is
equitable and not unfairly

discriminatory. This is because the Exchange's proposal to assess such
fee will apply the same to all participants and will vary only based on
whether the security is a Penny Pilot Security or a Non-Penny Pilot
Security. Moreover, all BAM Responder Orders are subject to the same
proposed fee schedule, and access to the Exchange is offered on terms
that are not unfairly discriminatory.
    The Exchange further believes its proposal represents a reasonable
and equitable allocation of dues and fees in that the proposal would
treat an unrelated order as well as a BAM Agency Order that executes
against such order differently depending on whether the unrelated order
was already resting on the Exchange's order book at the time the BAM
Agency Order was received or was received after the BAM Auction had
begun.
    As proposed, an unrelated order would be considered a BAM Responder
Order if received after the BAM Auction had commenced. As a result,
both the BAM Agency Order executing against such order and such order
itself would be assessed fees and provided rebates according to the
proposed BAM pricing. The Exchange believes this is a reasonable and
equitable allocation of dues and fees, and is not unreasonably
discriminatory, because it ensures that market participants are treated
similarly with respect to their executions against BAM Agency Orders.
To do otherwise, to the extent fees are higher pursuant to BAM pricing
than under the Exchange's Standard Fee Rates, would incentivize a
market participant that wishes to participate in an Auction to
nonetheless avoid sending orders to the Exchange that are not targeted
towards the Auction and instead send orders to the Exchange's order
book generally, knowing that such orders would be considered in the
Auction anyway.
    In contrast, as proposed, to the extent an unrelated order was
already present on the Exchange's order book when a BAM Agency Order is
received, such unrelated order, if executed in an Auction, as well as
the BAM Agency Order against which it trades will be charged a fee or
provided a rebate as if the transaction occurred on the Exchange's
order book pursuant to the Exchange's normal order handling methodology
and not in BAM. The Exchange similarly believes this is a reasonable
and equitable allocation of dues and fees, and is not unreasonably
discriminatory, because it will ensure that the participant that had
established position on the Exchange's order book first, the unrelated
order, is not impacted with respect to applicable fees or rebates
despite the later arrival of a BAM Agency Order that commences an
Auction.
BAM Break-Up Credits
    With respect to the proposal to adopt BAM Break-Up Credits, the
Exchange believes this is reasonable because it encourages use of BAM
by offering pricing that is equivalent to pricing provided pursuant to
other price improvement auctions offered by other options exchanges.
The proposal to offer BAM Break-Up Credits is reasonably designed
because it is within the range of fees and rebates assessed by other
exchanges employing similar fee structures for price improvement
mechanisms.\29\ Further, the proposed BAM Break-Up Credits are
reasonable and equitably allocated because such credits are different
based on whether the Auction is for a Penny Pilot Security or a Non-
Penny Pilot Security, which is the same differentiation applicable to
BAM Responder Orders. Thus, the Exchange has based the amount of the
Break-Up Credit, in part, on the amount of the fee it will receive with
respect to each BAM Responder Order. Finally, the proposed BAM Break-Up
Credits are not unreasonably discriminatory because such credits are
equally available to all Members submitting BAM Agency Orders to the
Exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ See MIAX Fee Schedule; and Securities Exchange Act Release
No. 72943 (August 28, 2014), 80 FR 52785 (September 4, 2014) (SR-
MIAX-2015-45) (notice of filing and immediate effectiveness
regarding MIAX PRIME). See also, e.g., NYSE Amex Options Fee
Schedule and NASDAQ BX Options Fee Schedule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Tiers
    Volume-based rebates such as those currently maintained on the
Exchange have been widely adopted by options exchanges and are
equitable because they are open to all Members on an equal basis and
provide additional benefits or discounts that are reasonably related to
the value of an exchange's market quality associated with higher levels
of market activity, such as higher levels of liquidity provision and/or
growth patterns, and introduction of higher volumes of orders into the
price and volume discovery processes. The proposed adoption of Customer
Volume Tier 6 and Market Maker Volume Tier 8, are each intended to
incentivize Members to send additional Customer and Market Maker orders
to the Exchange as well as to participate in the Exchange's new BAM
process in an effort to qualify for the enhanced rebate or lower fee
made available by the tiers.
    The Exchange believes that the proposed tiers are reasonable, fair
and equitable, and non-discriminatory, for the reasons set forth above
with respect to volume-based pricing generally and because such changes
will incentivize participants to further contribute to market quality.
The proposed tiers will provide an additional way for market
participants to qualify for enhanced rebates or reduced fees. Further,
BAM is fully available to all Members, and the proposed threshold is
intentionally low to encourage Members to do the development work
necessary to participate in BAM and send BAM Agency Orders.
Designated Give Up
    In connection with the adoption of fees applicable to BAM, the
Exchange proposes to add new fee code BC to the lead-in sentence of
footnote 5 and to append footnote 5 to fee code BC in the Fee Codes and
Associated Fees table of the Fee Schedule. In addition, the Exchange
proposes to include reference to Routing Firms (i.e., a Member who
routed an order to the Exchange with a Designated Give up) in the
proposed BAM Break-Up Credit section of footnote 6, to make clear that
a Routing Firm too will be provided any applicable BAM Break-Up
Credits. The Exchange believes this proposal is a reasonable and
equitable allocation of fees and dues and is not unreasonably
discriminatory because, as is currently the case pursuant to footnote
5, the proposal simply will make clear that a firm acting as a Routing
Firm that routes BAM Agency Orders to the Exchange will be provided
applicable rebates, including any BAM Break-Up Credits, based on the
Routing Firm's decision to route the order to the Exchange.

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

    The Exchange believes the proposed rebate would not impose any
burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The Exchange does not believe
that the proposed rebate represents a significant departure from
previous pricing offered by the Exchange or pricing offered by the
Exchange's competitors. Rather, the Exchange believes the proposal will
enhance competition as it is a competitive proposal that seeks to
further the growth of the Exchange by encouraging Members to enter BAM
Agency Orders, orders in response to BAM Agency Orders, and orders to
the Exchange generally.
    The Exchange's proposal to adopt BAM was a competitive response to
similar price improvement auctions operated by other options exchanges.

The Exchange believes this proposed rule change is necessary to permit
fair competition among the options exchanges. The Exchange anticipates
that BAM will create new opportunities for EDGX to attract new business
and compete on equal footing with those options exchanges with
auctions. While the proposed fees and rebates are intentionally
aggressive in order to attract participation on the Exchange,
particularly in BAM, the Exchange does not believe that its proposed
pricing significantly departs from pricing in place on other options
exchanges that operate price improvement auctions. Accordingly, the
Exchange does not believe that the proposal creates an undue burden on
inter-market competition.
    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act. Specifically, the Exchange does
not believe that its proposal to establish fees and rebates for BAM
will impose any burden on competition, as discussed below.
    The Exchange operates in a highly competitive market in which many
sophisticated and knowledgeable market participants can readily and do
send order flow to competing exchanges if they deem fee levels or
rebate incentives at a particular exchange to be excessive or
inadequate. Additionally, new competitors have entered the market and
still others are reportedly entering the market shortly. These market
forces ensure that the Exchange's fees and rebates remain competitive
with the fee structures at other trading platforms. In that sense, the
Exchange's proposal is actually pro-competitive because the Exchange is
simply establishing rebates and fees in order to remain competitive in
the current environment.
    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act. In terms of inter-market
competition, the Exchange notes that it operates in a highly
competitive market in which market participants can readily favor
competing venues if they deem fee levels at a particular venue to be
excessive, or rebate opportunities available at other venues to be more
favorable. In such an environment, the Exchange must continually adjust
its fees to remain competitive with other exchanges. Because
competitors are free to modify their own fees in response, and because
market participants may readily adjust their order routing practices,
the Exchange believes that the degree to which fee changes in this
market may impose any burden on competition is extremely limited.
    In this instance, the proposed charges assessed and credits
available to member firms in respect of BAM do not impose a burden on
competition because the Exchange's execution and routing services are
completely voluntary and subject to extensive competition. If the
changes proposed herein are unattractive to market participants, it is
likely that the Exchange will lose market share as a result and/or will
be unable to attract participants to BAM. Accordingly, the Exchange
does not believe that the proposed changes will impair the ability of
members or competing order execution venues to maintain their
competitive standing in the financial markets. Additionally, the
changes proposed herein are pro-competitive to the extent that they
allow the Exchange to promote and maintain BAM, which has the potential
to result in more efficient, price improved executions to the benefit
of market participants.
    The Exchange believes that the proposed change would increase both
inter-market and intra-market competition by incentivizing members to
direct their orders, and particularly Customer orders, to the Exchange,
which benefits all market participants by providing more trading
opportunities, which attracts market makers. To the extent that there
is a differentiation between proposed fees assessed and rebates offered
to Customers as opposed to other market participants, the Exchange
believes that this is appropriate because the fees and rebates should
incentivize members to direct additional order flow to the Exchange and
thus provide additional liquidity that enhances the quality of its
markets and increases the volume of contracts traded on the Exchange.
    To the extent that this purpose is achieved, all the Exchange's
market participants should benefit from the improved market liquidity.
Enhanced market quality and increased transaction volume that results
from the anticipated increase in order flow directed to the Exchange
will benefit all market participants and improve competition on the
Exchange. The Exchange notes that it operates in a highly competitive
market in which market participants can readily favor competing venues
if they deem fee levels at a particular venue to be excessive.
    The Exchange believes that the proposed fees and rebates for
participation in the BAM Auction are not going to have an impact on
intra-market competition based on the total cost for participants to
transact as respondents to the Auction as compared to the cost for
participants to engage in non-Auction electronic transactions on the
Exchange.
    As noted above, the Exchange believes that the proposed pricing for
the BAM Auction is comparable to that of other exchanges offering
similar electronic price improvement mechanisms, and the Exchange
believes that, based on general industry experience, market
participants understand that the price-improving benefits offered by an
Auction justify and offset the transaction costs associated with such
Auction. To the extent that there is a difference between non-BAM
transactions and BAM transactions, the Exchange does not believe this
difference will cause participants to refrain from responding to BAM or
submitting orders to the Exchange when a BAM Auction is underway.
    In addition, the Exchange does not believe that the proposed
transaction fees and credits burden competition by creating a disparity
of transaction fees between the BAM Contra Order and the transaction
fees a Responder pays would result in certain participants being unable
to compete with the contra side order.
    The Exchange expects to see robust competition within the BAM
Auction. As discussed, the Exchange notes that it operates in a highly
competitive market in which market participants can readily favor
competing venues if they deem fee levels at a particular venue to be
excessive. In such an environment, the Exchange must continually adjust
its fees to remain competitive with other exchanges and to attract
order flow to the Exchange. The Exchange believes that the proposed
rule change reflects this competitive environment because it
establishes a fee structure in a manner that encourages market
participants to direct their order flow, to provide liquidity, and to
attract additional transaction volume to the Exchange.

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

    The Exchange has not solicited, and does not intend to solicit,
comments on this proposed rule change. The Exchange has not received
any written comments from members or other interested parties.

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 \30\ and paragraph (f) of Rule 19b-4
thereunder.\31\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \30\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \31\ 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_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-BatsEDGX-2017-01 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-BatsEDGX-2017-01. 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
10:00 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-BatsEDGX-2017-01, and should
be submitted on or before February 7, 2017.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\32\
Eduardo A. Aleman,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2017-00782 Filed 1-13-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 244 (Monday, December 21, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 79345-79346]
[FR Doc No: 2015-31894]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2015-N-0001]

Allergenic Products Advisory Committee; Notice of Meeting

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

    This notice announces a forthcoming meeting of a public advisory
committee of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). The meeting will
be open to the public.
    Name of Committee: Allergenic Products Advisory Committee.
    General Function of the Committee: To provide advice and
recommendations to the Agency on FDA's regulatory issues.
    Date and Time: The meeting will be held on January 21, 2016, from
8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m.
    Location: FDA White Oak Campus, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 31
Conference Center, the Great Room (rm. 1503), Silver Spring, MD 20993-
0002. Answers to commonly asked questions including information
regarding special accommodations due to a disability, visitor parking,
and transportation may be accessed at: http://www.fda.gov/AdvisoryCommittees/AboutAdvisoryCommittees/ucm408555.htm.
    Contact Person: Janie Kim or Denise Royster, Center for Biologics
Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New
Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 71, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002,<PHONE_NUMBER> or
240-402-8158, email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or FDA Advisory Committee Information Line,
1-800-741-8138<PHONE_NUMBER> in the Washington, DC area). A notice in
the Federal Register about last minute modifications that impact a
previously announced advisory committee meeting

cannot always be published quickly enough to provide timely notice.
Therefore, you should always check the Agency's Web site at http://www.fda.gov/AdvisoryCommittees/default.htm and scroll down to the
appropriate advisory committee meeting link, or call the advisory
committee information line to learn about possible modifications before
coming to the meeting.
    Agenda: On January 21, 2016, the Committee will meet in an open
session to discuss safety and effectiveness data, including challenge
study endpoints, for licensure of food allergy immunotherapy products,
and the clinical development of aeroallergen immunotherapy products for
the prevention of respiratory allergic disease.
    FDA intends to make background material available to the public no
later than 2 business days before the meeting. If FDA is unable to post
the background material on its Web site prior to the meeting, the
background material will be made publicly available at the location of
the advisory committee meeting, and the background material will be
posted on FDA's Web site after the meeting. Background material is
available at http://www.fda.gov/AdvisoryCommittees/Calendar/default.htm. Scroll down to the appropriate advisory committee meeting
link.
    Procedure: Interested persons may present data, information, or
views, orally or in writing, on issues pending before the committee.
Written submissions may be made to the contact person on or before
January 6, 2016. Oral presentations from the public will be scheduled
between approximately 1 p.m. and 2 p.m. Those individuals interested in
making formal oral presentations should notify the contact person and
submit a brief statement of the general nature of the evidence or
arguments they wish to present, the names and addresses of proposed
participants, and an indication of the approximate time requested to
make their presentation on or before December 29, 2015. Time allotted
for each presentation may be limited. If the number of registrants
requesting to speak is greater than can be reasonably accommodated
during the scheduled open public hearing session, FDA may conduct a
lottery to determine the speakers for the scheduled open public hearing
session. The contact person will notify interested persons regarding
their request to speak by December 31, 2015.
    Persons attending FDA's advisory committee meetings are advised
that the Agency is not responsible for providing access to electrical
outlets.
    FDA welcomes the attendance of the public at its advisory committee
meetings and will make every effort to accommodate persons with
disabilities. If you require accommodations due to a disability, please
contact Janie Kim at least 7 days in advance of the meeting.
    FDA is committed to the orderly conduct of its advisory committee
meetings. Please visit our Web site at http://www.fda.gov/AdvisoryCommittees/AboutAdvisoryCommittees/ucm111462.htm for procedures
on public conduct during advisory committee meetings.
    Notice of this meeting is given under the Federal Advisory
Committee Act (5 U.S.C. app. 2).

    Dated: December 15, 2015.
Jill Hartzler Warner,
Associate Commissioner for Special Medical Programs.
[FR Doc. 2015-31894 Filed 12-18-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4164-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 153 (Friday, August 8, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 46429-46430]
[FR Doc No: 2014-18813]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings 1

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

    Docket Numbers: ER10-2137-009; ER12-161-008; ER12-164-007; ER12-
645-009; ER10-2130-008; ER10-2131-009; ER10-2138-009; ER10-2139-009;
ER10-2140-009; ER10-2141-009; ER11-4044-009; ER11-4046-008; ER10-2127-
007; ER10-2125-009; ER14-25-005; ER10-2133-009; ER10-2124-008; ER11-
3872-010; ER10-2132-008; ER10-2128-008; ER10-2764-008.
    Applicants: Beech Ridge Energy LLC, Bishop Hill Energy LLC, Bishop
Hill Energy III LLC, California Ridge Wind Energy LLC, Forward Energy
LLC, Grand Ridge Energy LLC, Grand Ridge Energy II LLC, Grand Ridge
Energy III LLC, Grand Ridge Energy IV LLC, Grand Ridge Energy V LLC,
Gratiot County Wind LLC, Gratiot County Wind II LLC, Invenergy TN LLC,
Judith Gap Energy LLC, Prairie Breeze Wind Energy LLC, Sheldon Energy
LLC, Spring Canyon Energy LLC, Stony Creek Energy LLC, Willow Creek
Energy LLC, Wolverine Creek Energy LLC, Vantage Wind Energy LLC.
    Description: Notification of Change in Facts of Beech Ridge Energy
LLC, et al.
    Filed Date: 8/1/14.
    Accession Number: 20140801-5051.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/22/14.

    Docket Numbers: ER12-1643-004.
    Applicants: ISO New England Inc.
    Description: Ext. Of Regulation Market Eff. Date to be effective 3/
31/2015.
    Filed Date: 8/1/14.
    Accession Number: 20140801-5052.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/22/14.

    Docket Numbers: ER14-2557-000.
    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
    Description: Amendment to the 2013 Annual RTEP Allocation Filing in
Docket No. ER14-909-000 to be effective 1/1/2014.
    Filed Date: 7/31/14.
    Accession Number: 20140731-5204.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/21/14.

    Docket Numbers: ER14-2558-000.
    Applicants: Puget Sound Energy, Inc.
    Description: Bellingham Cold Storage--Orchard TX SA No. 708, 709 &
710 to be effective 5/1/2014.
    Filed Date: 8/1/14.
    Accession Number: 20140801-5011.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/22/14.

    Docket Numbers: ER14-2559-000.

    Applicants: Puget Sound Energy, Inc.
    Description: Bellingham Cold Storage-Roeder TX Agreements 705, 706
& 707 to be effective 5/1/2014.
    Filed Date: 8/1/14.
    Accession Number: 20140801-5012.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/22/14.

    Docket Numbers: ER14-2560-000.
    Applicants: Puget Sound Energy, Inc.
    Description: Tesoro TX Agreements 702, 703 & 704 to be effective 5/
1/2014.
    Filed Date: 8/1/14.
    Accession Number: 20140801-5013.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/22/14.

    Docket Numbers: ER14-2561-000.
    Applicants: Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation, New York Independent
System Operator, Inc.
    Description: NiMo cancellation: Cost Reimbursement Agreement No.
1953 w/Erie Blvd. Hydro to be effective 10/1/2014.
    Filed Date: 8/1/14.
    Accession Number: 20140801-5025.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/22/14.

    Docket Numbers: ER14-2562-000.
    Applicants: Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc.
    Description: 2014-08-01 SGIP Order 792 Filing to be effective 10/1/
2014.
    Filed Date: 8/1/14.
    Accession Number: 20140801-5053.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/22/14.

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

    Dated: August 1, 2014.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2014-18813 Filed 8-7-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 123 (Wednesday, June 30, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 34765-34767]
[FR Doc No: 2021-13953]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2020-N-1207]

Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission for Office
of Management and Budget Review; Comment Request; New Plant Varieties
Intended for Food Use

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA, Agency, or we) is
announcing that a proposed collection of information has been submitted
to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and clearance
under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.

DATES: Submit written comments (including recommendations) on the
collection of information by July 30, 2021.

ADDRESSES: To ensure that comments on the information collection are
received, OMB recommends that written comments be submitted to https://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain. Find this particular information
collection by selecting ``Currently under Review--Open for Public
Comments'' or by using the search function. The OMB control number for
this information collection is 0910-0583. Also include the FDA docket
number found in brackets in the heading of this document.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Domini Bean, Office of Operations,
Food and Drug Administration, Three White Flint North, 10A-12M, 11601
Landsdown St., North Bethesda, MD 20852,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In compliance with 44 U.S.C. 3507, FDA has
submitted the following proposed collection of information to OMB for
review and clearance.

New Plant Varieties Intended for Food Use

OMB Control Number 0910-0583--Revision

    This information collection supports recommendations found in
Agency guidance pertaining to new plant varieties intended for food
use. Respondents to the collection of information are developers of new
plant varieties intended for food use.

I. Consultation Procedures: Foods Derived From New Plant Varieties;
Form FDA 3665

    The Agency guidance document entitled ``Guidance on Consultation
Procedures: Foods Derived From New Plant Varieties,'' which is
available on our website at https://www.fda.gov/FoodGuidances,
describes our consultation process for the evaluation of information on
new plant varieties provided by developers. We believe this
consultation process will help ensure that human and animal food safety
issues or other regulatory issues (e.g., labeling) are resolved prior
to commercial distribution. Additionally, such communication will help
to ensure that any potential food safety issues regarding a new plant
variety are resolved during development and will help to ensure that
all market entry decisions by the industry are made consistently and in
full compliance with the standards of the Federal Food, Drug, and
Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act).
    Since 1992, when FDA issued its ``Statement of Policy: Foods
Derived From New Plant Varieties'' (the 1992 policy) (57 FR 22984, May
29, 1992), we have encouraged developers of new plant varieties,
including those varieties that are developed through biotechnology, to
consult with FDA during the plant development process to discuss
possible scientific and regulatory issues that might arise. In the 1992
policy, we explained that under the FD&C Act developers of new foods
(in this document food refers to both human and animal food) have a
responsibility to ensure that the foods they offer to consumers are
safe and in compliance with all requirements of the FD&C Act (57 FR
22984 at 22985). Respondents may use Form FDA 3665, submitted via the
Electronic Submissions Gateway (https://www.fda.gov/industry/electronic-submissions-gateway), to request consultation.

II. Early Food Safety Evaluation of New Non-Pesticidal Proteins
Produced by New Plant Varieties Intended for Food Use; Form FDA 3666

    Since May 29, 1992, when we issued a policy statement on foods
derived from new plant varieties, including those varieties that are
developed through biotechnology, we have encouraged developers of new
plant varieties to consult with us early in the development process to
discuss possible scientific and regulatory issues that might arise (57
FR 22984). The guidance entitled ``Recommendations for the Early Food
Safety Evaluation of New Non-Pesticidal Proteins Produced by New Plant
Varieties Intended for Food Use'' (https://www.fda.gov/regulatory-information/search-fda-guidance-documents/guidance-industry-recommendations-early-food-safety-evaluation-new-non-pesticidal-proteins-produced) continues to foster early communication by
encouraging developers to submit to us their evaluation of the food
safety of their new proteins. Such communication helps to ensure that
any potential food safety issues regarding a new protein in a new plant
variety are resolved early in development, prior to any possible
inadvertent introduction into the food supply of the new protein.
    We believe that any food safety concern related to such material
entering the food supply would be limited to the potential that a new
protein in food from the plant variety could cause an allergic reaction
in susceptible individuals or could be a toxin. The guidance describes
the procedures for early food safety evaluation of new proteins
produced by new plant varieties, including bioengineered food plants,
and the procedures for communicating with us about the safety
evaluation.
    Interested persons may use Form FDA 3666 to transmit their
submission to the Office of Food Additive Safety in the Center for Food
Safety and Applied Nutrition (CFSAN). Form FDA 3666 is entitled ``Early
Food Safety Evaluation of a New Non-Pesticidal Protein Produced by a
New Plant Variety (New Protein Consultation)'' and may be used in lieu
of a cover letter for a New Protein Consultation (NPC). The form may be
accessed at FDA's web page for forms (https://www.fda.gov/about-fda/reports-manuals-forms/forms) using the search term ``3666.'' To enable
field-fillable functionality of FDA forms, they must be downloaded.
Form FDA 3666 prompts a submitter to include certain elements of an NPC
in a standard format and helps the respondent organize their submission
to focus on the information needed for our safety review. The form, and
elements prepared as attachments to the form, may be prepared using the
CFSAN Online Submission Module (https://www.fda.gov/food/registration-food-facilities-and-other-submissions/cfsan-online-submission-module-cosm). Once the submission is prepared, it may be submitted in
electronic format via the Electronic Submissions Gateway (https://www.fda.gov/industry/electronic-submissions-gateway), paper format, or
as electronic files on physical media with paper signature page.
    In the Federal Register of November 23, 2020 (85 FR 74734), we
published a 60-day notice requesting public comment on information
collection associated with the guidance document ``Recommendations for
the Early Food Safety Evaluation of New Non-Pesticidal Proteins
Produced by New Plant Varieties Intended for Food Use.'' No comments
were received.
    In the Federal Register of March 4, 2021 (86 FR 12688), we
published a 60-day notice requesting public comment on information
collection associated with the guidance document ``Early Food Safety
Evaluation of New Non-Pesticidal Proteins Produced by New Plant
Varieties Intended for Food Use.'' No comments were received.
    We estimate the burden of the information collection as follows:

                                                      Table 1--Estimated Annual Reporting Burden 1
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Number of
 Agency guidance recommendations; information collection   Form FDA No.      Number of     responses per   Total annual   Average burden    Total hours
                                                                             responses      respondent       responses     per response
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                             Consultation Procedures: Foods Derived From New Plant Varieties
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Initial consultation....................................            None              20               2              40               4             160
Final consultation......................................            3665              12               1              12             150           1,800
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                    Early Food Safety Evaluation of New Non-Pesticidal Proteins Produced by New Plant Varieties Intended for Food Use
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
First four data components..............................            3666               6               1               6               4              24
Two other data components...............................            3666               6               1               6              16              96
                                                         -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Total...............................................  ..............  ..............  ..............              64  ..............           2,080
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1There are no capital costs or operating and maintenance costs associated with this collection of information.

    For efficiency of Agency operations, we are consolidating these
related information collections. We retain our estimate of burden
associated with the individual collection activities but have increased
burden in OMB control number 0910-0583 by 52 responses and 1,960 hours
annually to reflect the reorganization of the information collection.
Upon OMB approval of our request, we intend to discontinue OMB control
number 0910-0704.

    Dated: June 24, 2021.
Lauren K. Roth,
Acting Principal Associate Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2021-13953 Filed 6-29-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4164-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 85 (Thursday, May 2, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Pages 18895-18897]
[FR Doc No: 2019-08922]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-85738; File No. SR-NYSECHX-2019-06]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE Chicago, Inc.; Notice of
Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Relating to
Fingerprint-Based Background Checks of Directors, Officers, Employees
and Others

April 26, 2019.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) \1\ of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 (``Act'') \2\ and Rule 19B-4 thereunder,\3\ notice is hereby given
that, on April 17, 2019, the NYSE Chicago, Inc. (``NYSE Chicago'' or
the ``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``SEC'' or ``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in
Items I and II below, which Items have been prepared by the self-
regulatory organization. The Commission is publishing this notice to
solicit comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange proposes a rule relating to fingerprint-based
background checks of directors, officers, employees and others. The
proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's website at
www.nyse.com, at the principal office of the Exchange, and at the
Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes a new Rule 3.11 codifying the current
practice of conducting fingerprint-based background checks of
prospective and current employees, temporary personnel, independent
contractors, service providers and others. The proposed rule is
substantially similar to Rule 3.11 of the Exchange's affiliate NYSE
Arca, Inc.\4\ A number of other securities markets have also adopted a
similar rule, permitting them to obtain fingerprints from certain
enumerated parties.\5\ The proposed rule is also consistent with those
rules.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See NYSE Arca Rule 3.11. There are no substantive
differences between the proposed rule and NYSE Arca Rule 3.11. The
one non-substantive difference between the proposed rule and the
NYSE Arca rule relates to punctuation in proposed Rule 3.11(a),
which has a comma following ``or restricted access to facilities and
records'' and not a semi-colon as in NYSE Arca Rule 3.11(a). The
Exchange's other affiliates New York Stock Exchange LLC (``NYSE'')
and NYSE American LLC (``NYSE American'') have a substantially
similar rule. See NYSE Rule 28; NYSE American Rule 3.11E. The
Exchange notes that it proposes to retain references to ``principal
subsidiaries'' in proposed Rule 3.11 in order to maintain
consistency with its affiliates' rules.
    \5\ See, e.g., International Securities Exchange (``ISE'') Rule
1408; Nasdaq Stock Market (``Nasdaq'') Rule 0140; Chicago Board
Options Exchange (``CBOE'') Rule 15.10.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Background and Proposed Rule Change
    Section 17(f)(2) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the
``Act''), as amended by the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer
Protection Act of 2010 (``Dodd-Frank Act''),\6\ provides that every
member of a national securities exchange, broker, dealer, registered
transfer agent, registered clearing agency, registered securities
information processors, national securities exchanges and national
securities associations shall require each of its partners, directors,
officers and employees of to be fingerprinted and submit those
fingerprints (or cause the fingerprints to be submitted) to the
Attorney General of the United States (``Attorney General'') for
identification. Section 17(f)(2) explicitly directs the Attorney
General to provide self-regulatory organizations (``SROs'') designated
by the Commission with access to criminal history record information.
Further, SEC Rule 17f-2 authorizes SROs to store criminal record
information received from the Federal Bureau of Investigation
(``FBI''), which maintains on behalf of the Attorney General a database
of fingerprint-based criminal history records.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See 15 U.S.C. 78q(f)(2); Dodd-Frank Act Sect. 929S.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Consistent with these requirements, proposed Rule 3.11 would
require the Exchange to obtain fingerprints of prospective and current
employees, temporary personnel, independent contractors and service
providers of the Exchange and its principal subsidiaries; submit those
fingerprints to the Attorney General or his or her designee for
identification and processing; and receive criminal history record
information from the Attorney General for evaluation and use, in
accordance with applicable law, in enhancing the security of the
facilities, systems, data, and/or records of the Exchange and its
principal subsidiaries.
    The Exchange would utilize a Live-Scan \7\ electronic system to
capture and transmit fingerprints directly to the FBI. The capture and
transmittal function, and corresponding receipt of criminal history
information from the FBI, would be handled directly by Exchange
personnel and/or an FBI-approved ``Channel Partner'' \8\ who would
maintain and operate, on behalf of the Exchange, a Live-Scan and/or
other electronic system(s) for the submission of fingerprints to the
FBI; receive and maintain criminal history record information from the
FBI; and disseminate such information, through secure systems, to a
limited set of approved reviewing officials within the Exchange and its
affiliates.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ Live-Scan refers to the process of capturing fingerprints
directly into a digitized format as opposed to traditional ink and
paper methods. Live-Scan technology captures and transfers images to
a central location and/or interface for identification processing.
    \8\ FBI-approved Channel Partners receive the fingerprint
submission and relevant data, collect the associated fee(s),
electronically forward the fingerprint submission with the necessary
information to the FBI Criminal Justice Information Services
Division (``CJIS'') for a national Criminal History Summary check,
and receive the electronic summary check result for dissemination to
the authorized employer entity. See Securities Exchange Act Release
No. 71066 (December 12, 2013), 78 FR 76667 (December 18, 2013) (SR-
ISE-2013-66) (``Release No. 71066''). The Exchange would retain
ultimate legal responsibility for the fulfillment of its statutory
and self-regulatory obligations under the Act, including compliance
with Section 17(f)(2) of the Act as amended by the Dodd-Frank Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Fingerprint-based background checks would enhance the ability to
screen adequately employees and non-employees \9\ to determine better,
in accordance with applicable law, whether there are unacceptable risks
associated with granting such persons access to facilities and records.
Through

access to state-of-the-art information systems administered and
maintained by the FBI, the Exchange would receive centrally-maintained
``criminal history record information,'' which includes arrest-based
data and derivative information, and may include personal descriptive
data; FBI number; conviction status; sentencing, probation and parole
information; and such other information as the FBI may make available.
This information is supplied to the FBI by various local, state,
federal and/or international criminal justice agencies. The information
obtained through fingerprint-based background checks would thus provide
a more exhaustive and reliable profile of a candidate's criminal
record, and thereby better facilitate risk assessment, than a physical
review of court records based on information provided by the candidate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ Under the proposed rule, the Exchange would also obtain
fingerprints from service providers, including employees of
affiliates of the Exchange. See CBOE Rule 15.10; Securities Exchange
Act Release No. 69496 (May 2, 2013), 78 FR 26671, 26671 (May 7,
2013) (SR-CBOE-2013-044) (CBOE conducts fingerprint-based criminal
record checks of directors, officers and employees as well as,
without limitation, ``temporary personnel, independent contractors,
consultants, vendors and service providers . . . who have or are
anticipated to have access to facilities and records.'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed access to criminal history information is consistent
with federal law. As noted, Section 17(f)(2) was amended by the Dodd-
Frank Act to also require partners, directors, officers and employees
of registered securities information processors, national securities
exchanges and national securities associations to be fingerprinted.
Although Section 17(f)(2) does not require the fingerprinting of
contractors, the statute specifically permits SROs designated by the
SEC to have access to ``all criminal history record information.''
    The Exchange accordingly believes that fingerprint-based background
checks of employees and non-employees would promote the objectives of
investor protection, business continuity and workplace safety by
providing the Exchange with an effective tool for identifying and
excluding persons with felony or misdemeanor conviction records that
may pose a threat to the safety of Exchange personnel or the security
of facilities and records.
    The Exchange will comply with all applicable laws relating to the
use and dissemination of criminal history record information obtained
from the FBI.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with Section 6(b) of the Act \10\ in general, and furthers the
objectives of Section 6(b)(5) of the Act,\11\ in particular, because it
is designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices,
promote just and equitable principles of trade, remove impediments to
and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national
market system, and protect investors and the public interest. In
particular, the Exchange believes fingerprint-based background checks
of directors, officers, employees and contractors is consistent with
the Section 6(b)(5) 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 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 in that they would help identify and exclude persons with
felony or misdemeanor conviction records that may pose a threat to the
safety of Exchange personnel or the security of facilities and records,
thereby enhancing business continuity, workplace safety and the
security of the Exchange's operations and helping to protect investors
and the public interest. The proposed rule is substantially similar to
the rules of the Exchange's affiliates NYSE Arca, NYSE and NYSE
American and the fingerprinting rules of other SROs.\12\ The proposed
amendment would also conform the Exchange's fingerprinting practices
with Section 17(f)(2) of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \11\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
    \12\ See, e.g., International Securities Exchange Rule 1408. See
generally Release No. 71066, 78 FR at 76668, n. 12 (noting that
``[a]n FBI-approved Channel Partner simply helps expedite the
delivery of Criminal History Summary information on behalf of the
FBI'', and that the ``process for making a request through an FBI-
approved Channel Partner is consistent with FBI submission
procedures'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate
in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The proposed rule change is
not intended to address competitive issues but rather to enhance the
security and continuity of the Exchange's facilities and records by
adopting a fingerprinting rule that codifies the Exchange's current
practice in compliance with Section 17(f)(2) of the Act as amended by
the Dodd-Frank Act.\13\ As discussed below, the Exchange notes that the
proposed rule change is based on the fingerprinting rules of other
SROs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ See Section 929S of the Dodd-Frank Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

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

    Because the 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 \14\ and Rule 19b-
4(f)(6) thereunder.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \15\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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.

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-NYSECHX-2019-06 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-NYSECHX-2019-06. This
file number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's internet website (http://www.sec.gov/

rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments,
all written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that
are filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating
to the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person,
other than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance
with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for website
viewing and printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F
Street NE, Washington, DC 20549 on official business days between the
hours of 10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be
available for inspection and copying at the principal office of the
Exchange. All comments received will be posted without change. Persons
submitting comments are cautioned that we do not redact or edit
personal identifying information from comment submissions. You should
submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All
submissions should refer to File Number SR-NYSECHX-2019-06 and should
be submitted on or before May 23, 2019.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Jill M. Peterson,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2019-08922 Filed 5-1-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P