[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 20 (Monday, February 1, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 5139-5143]
[FR Doc No: 2016-01715]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-76975; File No. SR-NYSEMKT-2016-11]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE MKT LLC; Notice of Filing and
Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change Amending the Fees for
NYSE MKT Integrated Feed

January 26, 2016.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) \1\ of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 (the ``Act'') \2\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\3\ notice is hereby
given that, on January 13, 2016, NYSE MKT LLC (the ``Exchange'' or
``NYSE MKT'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the
``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I, 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\ 15 U.S.C. 78a.
    \3\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange proposes to amend the fees for NYSE MKT Integrated
Feed to establish a multiple data feed fee. The proposed rule change is
available on the Exchange's Web site at www.nyse.com, at the principal
office of the Exchange, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to amend the fees for NYSE MKT Integrated
Feed market data product,\4\ as set forth on the NYSE MKT Equities
Proprietary Market Data Fee Schedule (``Fee Schedule''). The Exchange
proposes to establish the multiple data feed fee. Specifically, the
Exchange proposes to establish a new monthly fee, the ``Multiple Data
Feed Fee,'' that would apply to data recipients that take a data feed
for a market data product in more than two locations. Data recipients
taking NYSE MKT Integrated Feed in more than two locations would be
charged $200 per additional location per product per month.\5\ No new
reporting would be required.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 74127 (Jan. 23,
2015), 80 FR 4856 (Jan. 29, 2015) (SR-NYSEMKT-2015-06) (Notice--NYSE
MKT Integrated Feed) and 76525 (Nov. 25, 2015), 80 FR 75148 (Dec. 1,
2015) (SR-NYSEMKT-2015-95) (establishing fees for NYSE MKT
Integrated Feed).
    \5\ The text of footnote 5 in Exhibit 5 of this proposed rule
change was previously filed under a separate filing. See SR-NYSEMKT-
2016-03 (Proposed Rule Change to Amend the Fees for NYSE MKT
OpenBook).
    \6\ Data vendors currently report a unique Vendor Account Number
for each location at which they provide a data feed to a data
recipient. The Exchange considers each Vendor Account Number a
location. For example, if a data recipient has five Vendor Account
Numbers, representing five locations, for the receipt of the NYSE
MKT Integrated Feed product, that data recipient will pay the
Multiple Data Feed fee with respect to three of the five locations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Additionally, the various fees applicable to NYSE MKT Integrated
Feed, other than the Multiple Data Feed Fee, became operative on
January 1,

2016.\7\ Accordingly, the Exchange proposes to remove text from the Fee
Schedule noting that through December 31, 2015, there would be no
charge for the fees for NYSE MKT Integrated Feed and text noting that
the fees would be applicable from January 1, 2016. The proposed change
would provide clarity to subscribers of NYSE MKT Integrated Feed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 76525 (November 25,
2015), 80 FR 75148 (December 1, 2015) (SR-NYSEMKT-2015-95).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with the provisions of Section 6 of the Act,\8\ in general, and
Sections 6(b)(4) and 6(b)(5) of the Act,\9\ in particular, in that it
provides an equitable allocation of reasonable fees among users and
recipients of the data and is not designed to permit unfair
discrimination among customers, issuers, and brokers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4), (5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The fees are also equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because
they will apply to all data recipients that choose to subscribe to NYSE
MKT Integrated Feed.
    The Exchange believes that it is reasonable to require data
recipients to pay a modest additional fee taking a data feed for a
market data product in more than two locations, because such data
recipients can derive substantial value from being able to consume the
product in as many locations as they want. In addition, there are
administrative burdens associated with tracking each location at which
a data recipient receives the product. The Multiple Data Feed Fee is
designed to encourage data recipients to better manage their requests
for additional data feeds and to monitor their usage of data feeds. The
proposed fee is designed to apply to data feeds received in more than
two locations so that each data recipient can have one primary and one
backup data location before having to pay a multiple data feed fee. The
Exchange notes that this pricing is consistent with similar pricing
adopted in 2013 by the Consolidated Tape Association (``CTA'').\10\ The
Exchange also notes that the OPRA Plan imposes a similar charge of $100
per connection for circuit connections in addition to the primary and
backup connections.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 70010 (July 19,
2013), 78 FR 44984 (July 25, 2013) (SR-CTA/CQ-2013-04).
    \11\ See ``Direct Access Fee,'' Options Price Reporting
Authority Fee Schedule Fee Schedule PRA Plan [sic] at http://www.opradata.com/pdf/fee_schedule.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange notes that NYSE MKT Integrated Feed is entirely
optional. The Exchange is not required to make NYSE MKT Integrated Feed
available or to offer any specific pricing alternatives to any
customers, nor is any firm required to purchase NYSE MKT Integrated
Feed. Firms that do purchase NYSE MKT Integrated Feed do so for the
primary goals of using it to increase revenues, reduce expenses, and in
some instances compete directly with the Exchange (including for order
flow); those firms are able to determine for themselves whether NYSE
MKT Integrated Feed or any other similar products are attractively
priced or not.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ See, e.g., Proposing Release on Regulation of NMS Stock
Alternative Trading Systems, Securities Exchange Act Release No.
76474 (Nov. 18, 2015) (File No. S7-23-15). See also, ``Brokers
Warned Not to Steer Clients' Stock Trades Into Slow Lane,''
Bloomberg Business, December 14, 2015 (Sigma X dark pool to use
direct exchange feeds as the primary source of price data).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Firms that do not wish to purchase NYSE MKT Integrated Feed have a
variety of alternative market data products from which to choose,\13\
or if NYSE MKT Integrated Feed does not provide sufficient value to
firms as offered based on the uses those firms have or planned to make
of it, such firms may simply choose to conduct their business
operations in ways that do not use NYSE MKT Integrated Feed or use it
at different levels or in different configurations. The Exchange notes
that broker-dealers are not required to purchase proprietary market
data to comply with their best execution obligations.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ See NYSE Arca Integrated Feed, http://www.nyxdata.com/Data-Products/NYSEArca-Integrated-History (last visited December 23,
2015) (data feed that provides a unified view of events, in sequence
as they appear on the NYSE Arca matching engine, including depth of
book, trades, order) and NASDAQ TotalView-ITCH, http://www.nasdaqtrader.com/Trader.aspx?id=Totalview2 (last visited
December 23, 2015) (displays the full order book depth for NASDAQ
market participants and also disseminates the Net Order Imbalance
Indicator (NOII) for the NASDAQ Opening and Closing Crosses and
NASDAQ IPO/Halt Cross).
    \14\ See FINRA Regulatory Notice 15-46, ``Best Execution,''
November 2015.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the District
of Columbia Circuit in NetCoalition v. SEC, 615 F.3d 525 (D.C. Cir.
2010), upheld reliance by the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') upon the existence of competitive market mechanisms to
set reasonable and equitably allocated fees for proprietary market
data:

    In fact, the legislative history indicates that the Congress
intended that the market system `evolve through the interplay of
competitive forces as unnecessary regulatory restrictions are
removed' and that the SEC wield its regulatory power `in those
situations where competition may not be sufficient,' such as in the
creation of a `consolidated transactional reporting system.'

    Id. at 535 (quoting H.R. Rep. No. 94-229 at 92 (1975), as reprinted
in 1975 U.S.C.C.A.N. 323). The court agreed with the Commission's
conclusion that ``Congress intended that `competitive forces should
dictate the services and practices that constitute the U.S. national
market system for trading equity securities.' '' \15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ NetCoalition, 615 F.3d at 535.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As explained below in the Exchange's Statement on Burden on
Competition, the Exchange believes that there is substantial evidence
of competition in the marketplace for proprietary market data and that
the Commission can rely upon such evidence in concluding that the fees
established in this filing are the product of competition and therefore
satisfy the relevant statutory standards. In addition, the existence of
alternatives to these data products, such as consolidated data and
proprietary data from other sources, as described below, further
ensures that the Exchange cannot set unreasonable fees, or fees that
are unreasonably discriminatory, when vendors and subscribers can
select such alternatives.
    As the NetCoalition decision noted, the Commission is not required
to undertake a cost-of-service or ratemaking approach. The Exchange
believes that, even if it were possible as a matter of economic theory,
cost-based pricing for proprietary market data would be so complicated
that it could not be done practically or offer any significant
benefits.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ The Exchange believes that cost-based pricing would be
impractical because it would create enormous administrative burdens
for all parties and the Commission to cost-regulate a large number
of participants and standardize and analyze extraordinary amounts of
information, accounts, and reports. In addition, and as described
below, it is impossible to regulate market data prices in isolation
from prices charged by markets for other services that are joint
products. Cost-based rate regulation would also lead to litigation
and may distort incentives, including those to minimize costs and to
innovate, leading to further waste. Under cost-based pricing, the
Commission would be burdened with determining a fair rate of return,
and the industry could experience frequent rate increases based on
escalating expense levels. Even in industries historically subject
to utility regulation, cost-based ratemaking has been discredited.
As such, the Exchange believes that cost-based ratemaking would be
inappropriate for proprietary market data and inconsistent with
Congress's direction that the Commission use its authority to foster
the development of the national market system, and that market
forces will continue to provide appropriate pricing discipline. See
Appendix C to NYSE's comments to the Commission's 2000 Concept
Release on the Regulation of Market Information Fees and Revenues,
which can be found on the Commission's Web site at http://www.sec.gov/rules/concept/s72899/buck1.htm.

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

    For these reasons, the Exchange believes that the proposed fees are
reasonable, equitable, and not unfairly discriminatory.

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. An exchange's ability to
price its proprietary market data feed products is constrained by
actual competition for the sale of proprietary market data products,
the joint product nature of exchange platforms, and the existence of
alternatives to the Exchange's proprietary data.
The Existence of Actual Competition
    The market for proprietary data products is currently competitive
and inherently contestable because there is fierce competition for the
inputs necessary for the creation of proprietary data and strict
pricing discipline for the proprietary products themselves. Numerous
exchanges compete with one another for listings and order flow and
sales of market data itself, providing ample opportunities for
entrepreneurs who wish to compete in any or all of those areas,
including producing and distributing their own market data. Proprietary
data products are produced and distributed by each individual exchange,
as well as other entities, in a vigorously competitive market. Indeed,
the U.S. Department of Justice (``DOJ'') (the primary antitrust
regulator) has expressly acknowledged the aggressive actual competition
among exchanges, including for the sale of proprietary market data. In
2011, the DOJ stated that exchanges ``compete head to head to offer
real-time equity data products. These data products include the best
bid and offer of every exchange and information on each equity trade,
including the last sale.'' \17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ Press Release, U.S. Department of Justice, Assistant
Attorney General Christine Varney Holds Conference Call Regarding
NASDAQ OMX Group Inc. and IntercontinentalExchange Inc. Abandoning
Their Bid for NYSE Euronext (May 16, 2011), available at http://www.justice.gov/iso/opa/atr/speeches/2011/at-speech-110516.html; see
also Complaint in U.S. v. Deutsche Borse AG and NYSE Euronext, Case
No. 11-cv-2280 (DC Dist.) ] 24 (``NYSE and Direct Edge compete head-
to-head . . . in the provision of real-time proprietary equity data
products.'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Moreover, competitive markets for listings, order flow, executions,
and transaction reports provide pricing discipline for the inputs of
proprietary data products and therefore constrain markets from
overpricing proprietary market data. Broker-dealers send their order
flow and transaction reports to multiple venues, rather than providing
them all to a single venue, which in turn reinforces this competitive
constraint. As a 2010 Commission Concept Release noted, the ``current
market structure can be described as dispersed and complex'' with
``trading volume . . . dispersed among many highly automated trading
centers that compete for order flow in the same stocks'' and ``trading
centers offer[ing] a wide range of services that are designed to
attract different types of market participants with varying trading
needs.'' \18\ More recently, SEC Chair Mary Jo White has noted that
competition for order flow in exchange-listed equities is ``intense''
and divided among many trading venues, including exchanges, more than
40 alternative trading systems, and more than 250 broker-dealers.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ Concept Release on Equity Market Structure, Securities
Exchange Act Release No. 61358 (Jan. 14, 2010), 75 FR 3594 (Jan. 21,
2010) (File No. S7-02-10). This Concept Release included data from
the third quarter of 2009 showing that no market center traded more
than 20% of the volume of listed stocks, further evidencing the
dispersal of and competition for trading activity. Id. at 3598. Data
available on ArcaVision show that from June 30, 2013 to June 30,
2014, no exchange traded more than 12% of the volume of listed
stocks by either trade or dollar volume, further evidencing the
continued dispersal of and fierce competition for trading activity.
See https://www.arcavision.com/Arcavision/arcalogin.jsp.
    \19\ Mary Jo White, Enhancing Our Equity Market Structure,
Sandler O'Neill & Partners, L.P. Global Exchange and Brokerage
Conference (June 5, 2014) (available on the Commission Web site),
citing Tuttle, Laura, 2014, ``OTC Trading: Description of Non-ATS
OTC Trading in National Market System Stocks,'' at 7-8.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    If an exchange succeeds in competing for quotations, order flow,
and trade executions, then it earns trading revenues and increases the
value of its proprietary market data products because they will contain
greater quote and trade information. Conversely, if an exchange is less
successful in attracting quotes, order flow, and trade executions, then
its market data products may be less desirable to customers in light of
the diminished content and data products offered by competing venues
may become more attractive. Thus, competition for quotations, order
flow, and trade executions puts significant pressure on an exchange to
maintain both execution and data fees at reasonable levels.
    In addition, in the case of products that are also redistributed
through market data vendors, such as Bloomberg and Thompson Reuters,
the vendors themselves provide additional price discipline for
proprietary data products because they control the primary means of
access to certain end users. These vendors impose price discipline
based upon their business models. For example, vendors that assess a
surcharge on data they sell are able to refuse to offer proprietary
products that their end users do not or will not purchase in sufficient
numbers. Vendors will not elect to make available NYSE MKT Integrated
Feed unless their customers request it, and customers will not elect to
pay the proposed fees unless NYSE MKT Integrated Feed can provide value
by sufficiently increasing revenues or reducing costs in the customer's
business in a manner that will offset the fees. All of these factors
operate as constraints on pricing proprietary data products.
Joint Product Nature of Exchange Platform
    Transaction execution and proprietary data products are
complementary in that market data is both an input and a byproduct of
the execution service. In fact, proprietary market data and trade
executions are a paradigmatic example of joint products with joint
costs. The decision of whether and on which platform to post an order
will depend on the attributes of the platforms where the order can be
posted, including the execution fees, data availability and quality,
and price and distribution of data products. Without a platform to post
quotations, receive orders, and execute trades, exchange data products
would not exist.
    The costs of producing market data include not only the costs of
the data distribution infrastructure, but also the costs of designing,
maintaining, and operating the exchange's platform for posting quotes,
accepting orders, and executing transactions and the cost of regulating
the exchange to ensure its fair operation and maintain investor
confidence. The total return that a trading platform earns reflects the
revenues it receives from both products and the joint costs it incurs.
    Moreover, an exchange's broker-dealer customers generally view the
costs of transaction executions and market data as a unified cost of
doing business with the exchange. A broker-dealer will only choose to
direct orders to an exchange if the revenue from the transaction
exceeds its cost, including the cost of any market data that the
broker-dealer chooses to buy in support of its order routing and
trading decisions. If the costs of the transaction are not offset by
its value, then the broker-dealer may choose instead not to purchase
the product and trade away from that exchange. There is substantial

evidence of the strong correlation between order flow and market data
purchases. For example, in September 2015, more than 80% of the
transaction volume on each of NYSE MKT and NYSE MKT's affiliates New
York Stock Exchange LLC (``NYSE'') and NYSE Arca, Inc. (``NYSE Arca'')
was executed by market participants that purchased one or more
proprietary market data products (the 20 firms were not the same for
each market). A supra-competitive increase in the fees for either
executions or market data would create a risk of reducing an exchange's
revenues from both products.
    Other market participants have noted that proprietary market data
and trade executions are joint products of a joint platform and have
common costs.\20\ The Exchange agrees with and adopts those discussions
and the arguments therein. The Exchange also notes that the economics
literature confirms that there is no way to allocate common costs
between joint products that would shed any light on competitive or
efficient pricing.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 72153 (May 12,
2014), 79 FR 28575, 28578 n.15 (May 16, 2014) (SR-NASDAQ-2014-045)
(``[A]ll of the exchange's costs are incurred for the unified
purposes of attracting order flow, executing and/or routing orders,
and generating and selling data about market activity. The total
return that an exchange earns reflects the revenues it receives from
the joint products and the total costs of the joint products.'').
See also Securities Exchange Act Release No. 62907 (Sept. 14, 2010),
75 FR 57314, 57317 (Sept. 20, 2010) (SR-NASDAQ-2010-110), and
Securities Exchange Act Release No. 62908 (Sept. 14, 2010), 75 FR
57321, 57324 (Sept. 20, 2010) (SR-NASDAQ-2010-111).
    \21\ See generally Mark Hirschey, Fundamentals of Managerial
Economics, at 600 (2009) (``It is important to note, however, that
although it is possible to determine the separate marginal costs of
goods produced in variable proportions, it is impossible to
determine their individual average costs. This is because common
costs are expenses necessary for manufacture of a joint product.
Common costs of production--raw material and equipment costs,
management expenses, and other overhead--cannot be allocated to each
individual by-product on any economically sound basis. . . . Any
allocation of common costs is wrong and arbitrary.''). This is not
new economic theory. See, e.g., F. W. Taussig, ``A Contribution to
the Theory of Railway Rates,'' Quarterly Journal of Economics V(4)
438, 465 (July 1891) (``Yet, surely, the division is purely
arbitrary. These items of cost, in fact, are jointly incurred for
both sorts of traffic; and I cannot share the hope entertained by
the statistician of the Commission, Professor Henry C. Adams, that
we shall ever reach a mode of apportionment that will lead to
trustworthy results.'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Analyzing the cost of market data product production and
distribution in isolation from the cost of all of the inputs supporting
the creation of market data and market data products will inevitably
underestimate the cost of the data and data products because it is
impossible to obtain the data inputs to create market data products
without a fast, technologically robust, and well-regulated execution
system, and system and regulatory costs affect the price of both
obtaining the market data itself and creating and distributing market
data products. It would be equally misleading, however, to attribute
all of an exchange's costs to the market data portion of an exchange's
joint products. Rather, all of an exchange's costs are incurred for the
unified purposes of attracting order flow, executing and/or routing
orders, and generating and selling data about market activity. The
total return that an exchange earns reflects the revenues it receives
from the joint products and the total costs of the joint products.
    As noted above, the level of competition and contestability in the
market is evident in the numerous alternative venues that compete for
order flow, including 11 equities self-regulatory organization
(``SRO'') markets, as well as various forms of alternative trading
systems (``ATSs''), including dark pools and electronic communication
networks (``ECNs''), and internalizing broker-dealers. SRO markets
compete to attract order flow and produce transaction reports via trade
executions, and two FINRA-regulated Trade Reporting Facilities compete
to attract transaction reports from the non-SRO venues.
    Competition among trading platforms can be expected to constrain
the aggregate return that each platform earns from the sale of its
joint products, but different trading platforms may choose from a range
of possible, and equally reasonable, pricing strategies as the means of
recovering total costs. For example, some platforms may choose to pay
rebates to attract orders, charge relatively low prices for market data
products (or provide market data products free of charge), and charge
relatively high prices for accessing posted liquidity. Other platforms
may choose a strategy of paying lower rebates (or no rebates) to
attract orders, setting relatively high prices for market data
products, and setting relatively low prices for accessing posted
liquidity. For example, BATS Global Markets (``BATS'') and Direct Edge,
which previously operated as ATSs and obtained exchange status in 2008
and 2010, respectively, provided certain market data at no charge on
their Web sites in order to attract more order flow, and used revenue
rebates from resulting additional executions to maintain low execution
charges for their users.\22\ In this environment, there is no economic
basis for regulating maximum prices for one of the joint products in an
industry in which suppliers face competitive constraints with regard to
the joint offering.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ This is simply a securities market-specific example of the
well-established principle that in certain circumstances more sales
at lower margins can be more profitable than fewer sales at higher
margins; this example is additional evidence that market data is an
inherent part of a market's joint platform.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Existence of Alternatives
    The large number of SROs, ATSs, and internalizing broker-dealers
that currently produce proprietary data or are currently capable of
producing it provides further pricing discipline for proprietary data
products. Each SRO, ATS, and broker-dealer is currently permitted to
produce and sell proprietary data products, and many currently do,
including but not limited to the Exchange, NYSE, NYSE Arca, NASDAQ OMX,
BATS, and Direct Edge.
    The fact that proprietary data from ATSs, internalizing broker-
dealers, and vendors can bypass SROs is significant in two respects.
First, non-SROs can compete directly with SROs for the production and
sale of proprietary data products. By way of example, BATS and NYSE
Arca both published proprietary data on the Internet before registering
as exchanges. Second, because a single order or transaction report can
appear in an SRO proprietary product, a non-SRO proprietary product, or
both, the amount of data available via proprietary products is greater
in size than the actual number of orders and transaction reports that
exist in the marketplace. With respect to NYSE MKT Integrated Feed,
competitors offer close substitute products.\23\ Because market data
users can find suitable substitutes for most proprietary market data
products, a market that overprices its market data products stands a
high risk that users may substitute another source of market data
information for its own.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ See note 13, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Those competitive pressures imposed by available alternatives are
evident in the Exchange's proposed pricing.
    In addition to the competition and price discipline described
above, the market for proprietary data products is also highly
contestable because market entry is rapid and inexpensive. The history
of electronic trading is replete with examples of entrants that swiftly
grew into some of the largest electronic trading platforms and
proprietary data producers: Archipelago, Bloomberg Tradebook, Island,
RediBook, Attain, TrackECN, BATS Trading and Direct Edge. As noted
above, BATS launched as an ATS in 2006 and became an exchange in 2008,
while Direct Edge

began operations in 2007 and obtained exchange status in 2010.
    In determining the proposed changes to the fees for NYSE MKT
Integrated Feed, the Exchange considered the competitiveness of the
market for proprietary data and all of the implications of that
competition. The Exchange believes that it has considered all relevant
factors and has not considered irrelevant factors in order to establish
fair, reasonable, and not unreasonably discriminatory fees and an
equitable allocation of fees among all users. The existence of numerous
alternatives to the Exchange's products, including proprietary data
from other sources, ensures that the Exchange cannot set unreasonable
fees, or fees that are unreasonably discriminatory, when vendors and
subscribers can elect these alternatives or choose not to purchase a
specific proprietary data product if the attendant fees are not
justified by the returns that any particular vendor or data recipient
would achieve through the purchase.
    Finally, the Exchange believes that the proposed rule change, with
respect to the removal of text from the Fee Schedule, is consistent
with the provisions of Section 6 of the Act,\24\ in general, and with
Section 6(b)(5) of the Act \25\ in particular, in that the proposal 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 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. Specifically,
NYSE MKT believes that the change will promote these goals by providing
clarity and consistency to the Fee Schedule and will benefit
participants as they would be informed to the pricing applicable for
NYSE MKT Integrated Feed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ 15 U.S.C. 78f.
    \25\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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) \26\ of the Act and subparagraph (f)(2) of Rule
19b-4 \27\ thereunder, because it establishes a due, fee, or other
charge imposed by the Exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \27\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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. If the Commission
takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings under
Section 19(b)(2)(B) \28\ of the Act to determine whether the proposed
rule change should be approved or disapproved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2)(B).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-NYSEMKT-2016-11 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-NYSEMKT-2016-11. This
file number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549 on official business days between the hours of
10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available
for inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All
comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does
not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should
submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All
submissions should refer to File Number SR-NYSEMKT-2016-11 and should
be submitted on or before February 22, 2016.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\29\
Robert W. Errett,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2016-01715 Filed 1-29-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 33 (Thursday, February 17, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 9344-9345]
[FR Doc No: 2011-3578]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings 1

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

    Docket Numbers: EC11-42-000.
    Applicants: Millennium Power Partners, L.P., New Harquahala
Generating Company, LLC, MACH Gen, LLC, New Athens Generating Company,
LLC, SOLA LTD, Solus Alternative Asset Management LP.
    Description: Application of MACH Gen, LLC et al. for Order
Authorizing Disposition of Jurisdictional Facilities under Section 203
of the Federal Power and Request for Waivers and Expedited Action.
    Filed Date: 02/09/2011.
    Accession Number: 20110209-5082.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, March 02, 2011.

    Take notice that the Commission received the following exempt
wholesale generator filings:

    Docket Numbers: EG11-56-000.
    Applicants: Coyote Canyon Energy LLC.
    Description: Self-Certification of EG of Coyote Canyon Energy LLC.
    Filed Date: 02/09/2011.
    Accession Number: 20110209-5109.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, March 02, 2011.

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

    Docket Numbers: ER10-1988-001.
    Applicants: Sagebrush, a California partnership.
    Description: Sagebrush, a California Partnership submits tariff
filing per 35: Sagebrush Compliance Filing to the OATT FINAL to be
effective 12/31/2011.
    Filed Date: 11/15/2010.
    Accession Number: 20101115-5158.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, February 16, 2011.

    Docket Numbers: ER10-2801-002.
    Applicants: Dunkirk Power LLC.
    Description: Dunkirk Power LLC submits tariff filing per 35:
Dunkirk--Amendment to MBR Tariff 01272011 to be effective 10/8/2010.
    Filed Date: 01/27/2011.
    Accession Number: 20110127-5137.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, February 17, 2011.

    Docket Numbers: ER10-3298-001.
    Applicants: Powerex Corporation.
    Description: Powerex Corporation submits tariff filing per 35:
Amendment to Powerex Rate Schedule No. 5 to be effective 9/30/2010.
    Filed Date: 02/09/2011.
    Accession Number: 20110209-5081.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, March 02, 2011.

    Docket Numbers: ER10-1518-001; ER10-2765-002; ER10-2766-002; ER10-
2767-002; ER10-2768-002; ER10-2769-002; ER10-2770-002.
    Applicants: Milford Power Company, LLC, MASSPOWER, Lake Road
Generating Company, L.P., Empire Generating Co, LLC, ECP Energy I, LLC,
EquiPower Resources Management, LLC, Dighton Power, LLC.
    Description: Notification of Change in Status of Dighton Power,
LLC, et al.
    Filed Date: 02/09/2011.
    Accession Number: 20110209-5100.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, March 02, 2011.

    Docket Numbers: ER11-2424-001.
    Applicants: Pinetree Power-Tamworth, Inc.
    Description: Pinetree Power-Tamworth, Inc. submits tariff filing
per 35.17(b): Pinetree Power--Tamworth, Inc.--Supplement to Filing of
Initial Tariff to be effective 1/1/2011.
    Filed Date: 02/09/2011.
    Accession Number: 20110209-5135.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, March 02, 2011.

    Docket Numbers: ER11-2693-001.
    Applicants: Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator, Inc.
    Description: Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator, Inc.
submits tariff filing per 35.17(b): 02-09-2011 to J102 to be effective
1/19/2011.
    Filed Date: 02/09/2011.
    Accession Number: 20110209-5147.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, March 02, 2011.

    Docket Numbers: ER11-2854-000.
    Applicants: Mirant Potomac River, LLC.
    Description: Mirant Potomac River, LLC submits tariff filing per
35.13(a)(2)(iii): Notice of Succession to be effective 1/20/2011.
    Filed Date: 02/08/2011.
    Accession Number: 20110208-5164.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, March 01, 2011.

    Docket Numbers: ER11-2855-000.
    Applicants: Avenal Park LLC.
    Description: Avenal Park LLC submits tariff filing per 35.12:
Application for Market-Based Rate Authority to be effective 3/7/2011.
    Filed Date: 02/09/2011.
    Accession Number: 20110209-5000.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, March 02, 2011.

    Docket Numbers: ER11-2856-000.
    Applicants: Sand Drag LLC.
    Description: Sand Drag LLC submits tariff filing per 35.12:
Application for Market-Based Rate Authority to be effective 3/7/2011.
    Filed Date: 02/09/2011.
    Accession Number: 20110209-5001.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, March 02, 2011.

    Docket Numbers: ER11-2857-000.
    Applicants: Sun City Project LLC.
    Description: Sun City Project LLC submits tariff filing per 35.12:
Application for Market-Based Rates to be effective 3/7/2011.
    Filed Date: 02/09/2011.
    Accession Number: 20110209-5002.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, March 02, 2011.

    Docket Numbers: ER11-2858-000.
    Applicants: Public Service Company of New Mexico.
    Description: Public Service Company of New Mexico submits tariff
filing per 35.12: OATT Service Agreement No. 368 to be effective 1/12/
2011.
    Filed Date: 02/09/2011.
    Accession Number: 20110209-5004.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, March 02, 2011.

    Docket Numbers: ER11-2859-000.
    Applicants: Southern California Edison Company.
    Description: Southern California Edison Company Cancellation of Ltr
Agreement with City of Pasadena for CB Replacement.
    Filed Date: 02/09/2011.
    Accession Number: 20110209-5091.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, March 02, 2011.

    Docket Numbers: ER11-2860-000.
    Applicants: Coyote Canyon Energy LLC.
    Description: Coyote Canyon Energy LLC submits tariff filing per
35.12: FERC Electric Tariff Volume No.1 to be effective 4/11/2011.
    Filed Date: 02/09/2011.
    Accession Number: 20110209-5092.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, March 02, 2011.

    Docket Numbers: ER11-2861-000.
    Applicants: Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
    Description: Southwest Power Pool, Inc. submits tariff filing per

35.13(a)(2)(iii): Revision to Attachment AD to Temporarily Extend
Tariff Administration Agreement to be effective 2/1/2011.
    Filed Date: 02/09/2011.
    Accession Number: 20110209-5132.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, March 02, 2011.

    Docket Numbers: ER11-2862-000.
    Applicants: Entergy Arkansas, Inc.
    Description: Entergy Arkansas, Inc. submits tariff filing per
35.13(a)(2)(iii): Plum Point Amended IOA to be effective 4/10/2011.
    Filed Date: 02/09/2011.
    Accession Number: 20110209-5166.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, March 02, 2011.

    Docket Numbers: ER11-2863-000.
    Applicants: Mirant Mid-Atlantic, LLC.
    Description: Mirant Mid-Atlantic, LLC submits tariff filing per
35.13(a)(2)(iii): Notice of Succession to be effective 1/20/2011.
    Filed Date: 02/09/2011.
    Accession Number: 20110209-5167.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, March 02, 2011.

    Docket Numbers: ER11-2864-000.
    Applicants: GenOn Chalk Point, LLC.
    Description: GenOn Chalk Point, LLC submits tariff filing per
35.13(a)(2)(iii): Notice of Succession to be effective 1/20/2011.
    Filed Date: 02/09/2011.
    Accession Number: 20110209-5183.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, March 02, 2011.

    Docket Numbers: ER11-2865-000.
    Applicants: AEP Texas Central Company.
    Description: AEP Texas Central Company submits tariff filing per
35.13(a)(2)(iii): 20110209 TCC-ETT IA Amend 1 to be effective 1/21/
2011.
    Filed Date: 02/09/2011.
    Accession Number: 20110209-5184.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, March 02, 2011.

    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest in any of the above
proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and
385.214) on or before 5 p.m. Eastern Time on the specified comment
date. It is not necessary to separately intervene again in a subdocket
related to a compliance filing if you have previously intervened in the
same docket. Protests will be considered by the Commission in
determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to
make protestants parties to the proceeding. Anyone filing a motion to
intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the
Applicant. In reference to filings initiating a new proceeding,
interventions or protests submitted on or before the comment deadline
need not be served on persons other than the Applicant.
    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
14 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First St. NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    The filings in the above proceedings are accessible in the
Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in the
above list. They are also available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link
on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail notification
when a document is added to a subscribed dockets(s). For assistance
with any FERC Online service, please e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: February 9, 2011.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2011-3578 Filed 2-16-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


DCTM_ ARP. xls Surface N Leached N Reg Scenari Operation lb/ yr lb/ yr BaselineCattle Baseline Beef BaselinePoultry Baseline Broiler BaselineDairy Baseline Dairy BaselineDairy Baseline Heifer BaselinePoultry Baseline Layers BaselinePoultry ( wet) Baseline Layers ( wet) BaselineSwine Baseline Swine combined BaselineSwine Baseline Swine slaughter BaselinePoultry Baseline Turkey BaselineVeal Baseline Veal BaselineTotal Baseline Total Option 1Cattle Option 1 Beef Option 1Poultry Option 1 Broiler Option 1Dairy Option 1 Dairy Option 1Dairy Option 1 Heifer Option 1Poultry Option 1 Layers Option 1Poultry ( wet) Option 1 Layers ( wet) Option 1Swine Option 1 Swine combined Option 1Swine Option 1 Swine slaughter Option 1Poultry Option 1 Turkey Option 1Veal Option 1 Veal Option 1Total Option 1 Total Option 2Cattle Option 2 Beef Option 2Poultry Option 2 Broiler Option 2Dairy Option 2 Dairy Option 2Dairy Option 2 Heifer Option 2Poultry Option 2 Layers Option 2Poultry ( wet) Option 2 Layers ( wet) Option 2Swine Option 2 Swine combined Option 2Swine Option 2 Swine slaughter Option 2Poultry Option 2 Turkey Option 2Veal Option 2 Veal Option 2Total Option 2 Total Option 3Cattle Option 3 Beef Option 3Poultry Option 3 Broiler Option 3Dairy Option 3 Dairy Option 3Dairy Option 3 Heifer Option 3Poultry Option 3 Layers Option 3Poultry ( wet) Option 3 Layers ( wet) Option 3Swine Option 3 Swine combined Option 3Swine Option 3 Swine slaughter Option 3Poultry Option 3 Turkey Option 3Veal Option 3 Veal Option 3Total Option 3 Total Option 5aCattle Option 5 Beef Option 5aPoultry Option 5 Broiler DCTM_ ARP. xls Option 5aDairy Option 5 Dairy Option 5aDairy Option 5 Heifer Option 5aPoultry Option 5 Layers Option 5Poultry ( wet) Option 5 Layers ( wet) Option 5Swine Option 5 Swine combined Option 5Swine Option 5 Swine slaughter Option 5aPoultry Option 5 Turkey Option 5aVeal Option 5 Veal Option 5Total Option 5 Total Option 6Cattle Option 6 Beef 6,358,935 17,101,285 Option 6Poultry Option 6 Broiler 0 0 Option 6Dairy Option 6 Dairy 2,787,424 12,353,033 Option 6Dairy Option 6 Heifer 394,471 2,788,859 Option 6Poultry Option 6 Layers 0 0 Option 6Poultry ( wet) Option 6 Layers ( wet) 1,678,762 5,777,299 Option 6Swine Option 6 Swine combined 662,501 2,221,505 Option 6Swine Option 6 Swine slaughter 8,890,811 24,096,801 Option 6Poultry Option 6 Turkey 0 0 Option 6Veal Option 6 Veal 0 0 Option 6Total Option 6 Total 20,772,905 64,338,782 Option 7Cattle Option 7 Beef Option 7Poultry Option 7 Broiler Option 7Dairy Option 7 Dairy Option 7Dairy Option 7 Heifer Option 7Poultry Option 7 Layers Option 7Poultry ( wet) Option 7 Layers ( wet) Option 7Swine Option 7 Swine combined Option 7Swine Option 7 Swine slaughter Option 7Poultry Option 7 Turkey Option 7Veal Option 7 Veal Option 7Total Option 7 Total DCTM_ ARP. xls N Surface P Leached P P Sediment Sed BOD lb/ yr lb/ yr tons/ yr lb/ yr DCTM_ ARP. xls 23 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 15 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 33 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 85 0 0 0 0 0 0 DCTM_ ARP. xls BOD FC FC FS FS Zn Cu 10 10 cfu/ yr 10 10 cfu/ yr lb/ yr lb/ yr DCTM_ ARP. xls 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 DCTM_ ARP. xls Cd Ni Pb As Metals lb/ yr lb/ yr lb/ yr lb/ yr DCTM_ ARP. xls 0 0 0 0 0.000 0 0 0 0 0.000 0 0 0 0 0.000 0 0 0 0 0.000 0 0 0 0 0.000 0 0 0 0 0.000 0 0 0 0 0.000 0 0 0 0 0.000 0 0 0 0 0.000 0 0 0 0 0.000 0 0 0 0 0.000


[Federal Register: April 12, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 69)]
[Notices]
[Page 18504-18505]
[DOCID:fr12ap10-59]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2010-D-0166]

International Cooperation on Harmonisation of Technical
Requirements for Registration of Veterinary Medicinal Products; Draft
Guidance for Industry on Studies to Evaluate the Metabolism and Residue
Kinetics of Veterinary Drugs in Food-Producing Animals: Marker Residue
Depletion Studies to Establish Product Withdrawal Periods (VICH GL48);
Availability

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing the
availability of a draft guidance for industry (207) entitled
``Draft Guidance for Industry on Studies to Evaluate the Metabolism and
Residue Kinetics of Veterinary Drugs in Food-Producing Animals: Marker
Residue Depletion Studies to Establish Product Withdrawal Periods,''
(VICH GL48). This draft guidance has been developed for veterinary use
by the International Cooperation on Harmonisation of Technical
Requirements for Registration of Veterinary Medicinal Products (VICH).
This draft VICH guidance document is intended to provide study design
recommendations which will facilitate the universal acceptance of the
generated residue depletion data to fulfill this recommendation.

DATES: Although you can comment on any guidance at any time (see 21 CFR
10.115(g)(5)), to ensure that the agency considers your comment on this
draft guidance before it begins work on the final version of the
guidance, submit written or electronic comments on the draft guidance
by May 12, 2010.

ADDRESSES: Submit written requests for single copies of the draft
guidance to the Communications Staff (HFV-12), Center for Veterinary
Medicine, Food and Drug Administration, 7519 Standish Pl., Rockville,
MD 20855. Send one self-addressed adhesive label to assist that office
in processing your requests.
    Submit written comments on the draft guidance to the Division of
Dockets Management (HFA-305), Food and Drug Administration, 5630
Fishers Lane, rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852. Submit electronic comments
to http://www.regulations.gov. See the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION
section for electronic access to the draft guidance document.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Julia Oriani, Center for Veterinary
Medicine (HFV-151), Food and Drug Administration, 7500 Standish Pl.,
Rockville, MD 20855,<PHONE_NUMBER>, e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    FDA is announcing the availability of a draft guidance for industry
(207) entitled ``Draft Guidance for Industry on Studies to
Evaluate the Metabolism and Residue Kinetics of Veterinary Drugs in
Food-Producing Animals: Marker Residue Depletion Studies to Establish
Product Withdrawal Periods,'' (VICH GL48). In recent years, many
important initiatives have been undertaken by regulatory authorities
and industry associations to promote the international harmonization of
regulatory requirements. FDA has participated in efforts to enhance
harmonization and has expressed its commitment to seek scientifically
based harmonized technical procedures for the development of
pharmaceutical products. One of the goals of harmonization is to
identify and then reduce differences in technical requirements for drug
development among regulatory agencies in different countries.
    FDA has actively participated in the International Conference on
Harmonisation of Technical Requirements for Approval of Pharmaceuticals
for Human Use for several years to develop harmonized technical
requirements for the approval of human pharmaceutical and biological
products among the European Union (EU), Japan, and the United States.
The VICH is a parallel initiative for veterinary medicinal products.
The VICH is concerned with developing harmonized technical requirements
for the approval of veterinary medicinal

products in the EU, Japan, and the United States, and includes input
from both regulatory and industry representatives.
    The VICH Steering Committee is composed of member representatives
from the European Commission, European Medicines Evaluation Agency,
European Federation of Animal Health, Committee on Veterinary Medicinal
Products, the U.S. FDA, the U.S. Department of Agriculture, the Animal
Health Institute, the Japanese Veterinary Pharmaceutical Association,
the Japanese Association of Veterinary Biologics, and the Japanese
Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry, and Fisheries.
    Four observers are eligible to participate in the VICH Steering
Committee: One representative from the government of Australia/New
Zealand, one representative from the industry in Australia/New Zealand,
one representative from the government of Canada, and one
representative from the industry of Canada. The VICH Secretariat, which
coordinates the preparation of documentation, is provided by the
International Federation for Animal Health (IFAH). An IFAH
representative also participates in the VICH Steering Committee
meetings.

II. Draft Guidance on Study to Marker Residue Depletion Studies to
Establish Product Withdrawal Periods

    The VICH Steering Committee held a meeting on November 5, 2009, and
agreed that the draft guidance document entitled ``Draft Guidance for
Industry on Studies to Evaluate the Metabolism and Residue Kinetics of
Veterinary Drugs in Food-Producing Animals: Marker Residue Depletion
Studies to Establish Product Withdrawal Periods,'' VICH GL48 should be
made available for public comment. This draft VICH guidance document is
one of a series developed to facilitate the mutual acceptance of
residue chemistry data for veterinary drugs used in food-producing
animals. This guidance was prepared after consideration of the current
requirements for evaluating veterinary drug residues in the EU, Japan,
United States, Australia, New Zealand, and Canada.
    As part of the approval process for veterinary medicinal products
in food-producing animals, regulatory authorities recommend data from
marker residue depletion studies in order to establish appropriate
withdrawal periods in edible products including meat, milk, eggs, and
honey. The objective of this guidance is to provide study design
recommendations which will facilitate the universal acceptance of the
generated residue depletion data to fulfill this recommendation.
    FDA and the VICH Expert Working Group will consider comments about
the draft guidance document.

III. Significance of Guidance

    This draft guidance, developed under the VICH process, has been
revised to conform to FDA's good guidance practices regulation (21 CFR
10.115). For example, the document has been designated ``guidance''
rather than ``guideline.'' In addition, guidance documents must not
include mandatory language such as ``shall,'' ``must,'' ``require,'' or
``requirement,'' unless FDA is using these words to describe a
statutory or regulatory requirement.
    The draft guidance, when finalized, will represent the agency's
current thinking on this topic. It does not create or confer any rights
for or on any person and does not operate to bind FDA or the public. An
alternative approach may be used if such approach satisfies the
requirements of applicable statutes and regulations.

IV. Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995

    This draft guidance refers to previously approved collections of
information found in FDA regulations. These collections of information
are subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520). The
collections of information in sections 1-2 of the guidance have been
approved under OMB control no. 0910-0032.

V. Comments

    Interested persons may submit to the Division of Dockets Management
(see ADDRESSES) written or electronic comments regarding this document.
Submit a single copy of electronic comments or two paper copies of any
mailed comments, except that individuals may submit one paper copy.
Comments are to be identified with the docket number found in brackets
in the heading of this document. Received comments may be seen in the
Division of Dockets Management between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday
through Friday.

VI. Electronic Access

    Persons with access to the Internet may obtain the draft guidance
at either http://www.fda.gov/AnimalVeterinary/default.htm or http://
www.regulations.gov.

    Dated: April 6, 2010.
Leslie Kux,
Acting Assistant Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2010-8231 Filed 4-9-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4160-01-S


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 105 (Monday, June 2, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 31401-31402]
[FR Doc No: 2014-12624]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Railroad Administration

[Docket Number FRA-2014-0035]

Petition for Waiver of Compliance

    In accordance with Part 211 of Title 49 Code of Federal Regulations
(CFR), this document provides the public notice that by a document
dated March 27, 2014, and an amended May 2, 2014, General Electric
Transportation (GE) petitioned the Federal Railroad Administration
(FRA) for a waiver of compliance from certain provisions of the Federal
railroad safety regulations contained at 49 CFR Part 229, Railroad
Locomotive Safety Standards. FRA assigned the petition Docket Number
FRA-2014-0035.
    Specifically, GE petitioned for a waiver of compliance from
requirements of 49 CFR 229.129(b)(1), which requires each locomotive
manufactured after September 18, 2006 (or a sampling of such
locomotives), be tested for compliance with the sound level
requirements for locomotive horns given in 49 CFR 229.129(a). The
required testing method is defined in 49 CFR 229.129(c), which includes
the allowable ambient conditions of temperature, humidity, and wind
velocity given in 49 CFR 229.129(c)(6). GE is manufacturing 78
locomotives with a new horn design that require testing. Twenty
locomotives are scheduled to be completed December 31, 2014, and
additional locomotives soon after. GE is requesting a waiver to delay
completion of horn testing until September 30, 2015, because the
weather conditions in the winter months are not expected to be in the
compliant range for horn testing. The requested waiver would allow
these locomotives to enter service prior to horn testing. Five
prototype locomotives of the same design have already been tested and
found compliant.
    A copy of the petition, as well as any written communications
concerning the petition, is available for review online at
www.regulations.gov and in person at the Department of Transportation's
(DOT) Docket Operations Facility, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., W12-140,
Washington, DC 20590. The Docket Operations Facility is open from 9
a.m. to 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal Holidays.
    Interested parties are invited to participate in these proceedings
by submitting written views, data, or comments. FRA does not anticipate
scheduling a public hearing in connection with these proceedings since
the facts do not appear to warrant a

hearing. If any interested party desires an opportunity for oral
comment, they should notify FRA, in writing, before the end of the
comment period and specify the basis for their request.
    All communications concerning these proceedings should identify the
appropriate docket number and may be submitted by any of the following
methods:
     Web site: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online
instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: Docket Operations Facility, U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., W12-140, Washington, DC
20590.
     Hand Delivery: 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Room W12-140,
Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal Holidays.
    Communications received by July 17, 2014 will be considered by FRA
before final action is taken. Comments received after that date will be
considered as far as practicable.
    Anyone is able to search the electronic form of any written
communications and comments received into any of our dockets by the
name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the document,
if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.).
See http://www.regulations.gov/#!privacyNotice for the privacy notice
of regulations.gov or interested parties may review DOT's complete
Privacy Act Statement in the Federal Register published on April 11,
2000 (65 FR 19477).

    Issued in Washington, DC, on May 27, 2014.
Robert C. Lauby,
Associate Administrator for Railroad Safety, Chief Safety Officer.
[FR Doc. 2014-12624 Filed 5-30-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-06-P


[Federal Register: October 29, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 208)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 61057-61058]
[DOCID:fr29oc07-6]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 117

[CGD01-07-130]
RIN 1625-AA09

Drawbridge Operation Regulations; Gowanus Canal, Brooklyn, NY

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Temporary rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard has temporarily changed the drawbridge
operating regulations governing the operation of the Hamilton Avenue
Bridge, mile 1.2, across the Gowanus Canal at Brooklyn, New York. This
final rule allows the bridge owner to require a four-hour notice for
bridge openings from November 5, 2007 to January 15, 2009. This rule is
necessary to facilitate rehabilitation construction at the bridge.

DATES: This temporary rule suspending Sec.  117.787 and adding Sec.
117.788 is effective from November 5, 2007 to January 15, 2009.

ADDRESSES: Comments and material received from the public, as well as
documents indicated in this preamble as being available in the docket,
are part of docket (CGD01-07-130) and are available for inspection or
copying at the First Coast Guard District, Bridge Branch Office, 408
Atlantic Avenue, Boston, Massachusetts 02110, between 7 a.m. and 3
p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Judy Leung-Yee, Project Officer,
First Coast Guard District,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Regulatory Information

    On September 18, 2007, we published a notice of proposed rulemaking
(NPRM) entitled ``Drawbridge Operation Regulations''; Gowanus Canal,
New York, in the Federal Register (72 FR 53202). We received no
comments in response to the notice of proposed rulemaking. No public
hearing was requested and none was held.
    Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause
exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after
publication in the Federal Register.
    The bridge repairs scheduled to begin on November 5, 2007, are
necessary repairs that must be performed with all due speed to assure
the continued safe and reliable operation of the bridge. Any delay in
making this rule effective would not be in the best interest of public
safety and the marine interests that use the Gowanus Canal. We received
no comments on the published NPRM, which included the effective period
for comment, indicating a need to delay the effective date of this
temporary final rule.

Background and Purpose

    The Hamilton Avenue Bridge has a vertical clearance of 19 feet at
mean high water, and 23 feet at mean low water in the closed position.
The existing drawbridge operating regulations listed at 33 CFR 117.5,
require the bridge to open on signal at all times.
    The bridge owner, New York City Department of Transportation
(NYCDOT), has requested a temporary rule to facilitate structural,
electrical and mechanical rehabilitation at the Hamilton Avenue Bridge.
    Under this temporary rule the Hamilton Avenue Bridge would open on
signal after at least a four-hour advance notice is given by calling
(201) 400-5243.
    Major rehabilitation bridge repairs have been ongoing at the
Hamilton Avenue Bridge since March 2007. The bridge owner NYCDOT,
requested a temporary deviation from the drawbridge operation
regulations to help facilitate bridge rehabilitation repairs at the
Hamilton Avenue Bridge.
    As a result of that request the Coast Guard authorized a temporary
deviation [CGD01-07-026] on March 15, 2007, which required mariners to
provide a four-hour advance notice for bridge openings from April 6,
2007 through September 29, 2007.
    On August 7, 2007, the Coast Guard received a second request from
the bridge owner NYCDOT, to extend the four-hour advance notice
requirement at the Hamilton Avenue Bridge through January 15, 2009, in
order to facilitate the remaining rehabilitation bridge repairs.

Discussion of Comments and Changes

    The Coast Guard received no comments in response to the notice of
proposed rulemaking and as a result, no changes have been made to this
temporary final rule.

Regulatory Evaluation

    This rule is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under section
3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, and does
not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section
6(a)(3), of that Order. The Office of Management and Budget has not
reviewed it under that Order.
    This conclusion is based on the fact that all vessel traffic will
still be able to transit through the bridge at all times after
providing the four-hour advance notice for bridge openings.

Small Entities

    Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we
considered whether this rule would have a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities. The term ``small entities''
comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are
independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields,
and governmental jurisdictions with populations less than 50,000.
    The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b), that this rule
will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of
small entities.
    This conclusion is based on the fact that all vessel traffic will
still be able to transit through the bridge at all times after
providing the four-hour advance notice for bridge openings.

Assistance for Small Entities

    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we offered to assist small
entities in understanding the rule so that they could better evaluate
its effects on them and participate in the rulemaking process.
    No small entities requested Coast Guard assistance and none was
given.
    Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal
employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal
regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory
Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory
Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and
rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to
comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR
(1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against

small entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy
or action of the Coast Guard.

Collection of Information

    This rule calls for no new collection of information under the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).

Federalism

    A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132,
Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on State or local
governments and would either preempt State law or impose a substantial
direct cost of compliance on them. We have analyzed this rule under
that Order and have determined that it does not have implications for
federalism.

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538)
requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary
regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may
result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in
the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 or more in any
one year. Though this rule will not result in such an expenditure, we
do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble.

Taking of Private Property

    This rule will not affect a taking of private property or otherwise
have taking implications under Executive Order 12630, Governmental
Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property
Rights.

Civil Justice Reform

    This rule meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2)
of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize litigation,
eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden.

Protection of Children

    We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13045, Protection
of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks. This rule
is not an economically significant rule and does not concern an
environmental risk to health or risk to safety that may
disproportionately affect children.

Indian Tribal Governments

    This final rule does not have tribal implications under Executive
Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal
Governments, because it does not have substantial direct effect on one
or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal
Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.

Energy Effects

    We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13211, Actions
Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use. We have determined that it is not a ``significant
energy action'' under that order because it is not a ``significant
regulatory action'' under Executive Order 12866 and is not likely to
have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use
of energy. The Administrator of the Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs has not designated it as a significant energy
action. Therefore, it does not require a Statement of Energy Effects
under Executive Order 13211.

Technical Standards

    The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) (15
U.S.C. 272 note) directs agencies to use voluntary consensus standards
in their regulatory activities unless the agency provides Congress,
through the Office of Management and Budget, with an explanation of why
using these standards would be inconsistent with applicable law or
otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical
standards (e.g., specifications of materials, performance, design, or
operation; test methods; sampling procedures; and related management
systems practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus
standards bodies.
    This rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we did not
consider the use of voluntary consensus standards.

Environment

    We have analyzed this rule under Commandant Instruction M16475.1D,
which guides the Coast Guard in complying with the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and
have concluded that there are no factors in this case that would limit
the use of a categorical exclusion under section 2.B.2 of the
Instruction. Therefore, this rule is categorically excluded, under
figure 2-1, paragraph (32)(e), of the Instruction, from further
environmental documentation considering that it relates to the
promulgation of operating regulations or procedures for drawbridges.
Under figure 2-1, paragraph (32)(e), of the instruction, an
``Environmental Analysis Check List'' and a ``Categorical Exclusion
Determination'' are not required for this rule.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 117

    Bridges.

0
For the reasons set out in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 CFR
part 117 as follows:

PART 117--DRAWBRIDGE OPERATION REGULATIONS

0
1. The authority citation for part 117 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 33 U.S.C. 499; 33 CFR 1.05-1(g); Department of
Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.

0
2. From November 5, 2007 to January 15, 2009, suspend Sec.  117.787 and
add Sec.  117.788 to read as follows:

Sec.  117.788  Gowanus Canal.

    (a) The draws of the Ninth Street Bridge, mile 1.4, the Third
Street Bridge, mile 1.8, the Carroll Street Bridge, mile 2.0, and the
Union Street Bridge, mile 2.1, at Brooklyn, shall open on signal if at
least a two-hour advance notice is given to the New York City
Department of Transportation (NYCDOT), Radio Hotline, or the NYCDOT
Bridge Operations Office.
    (b) The draw of the Hamilton Avenue Bridge, mile 1.2, shall open on
signal after at least a four-hour advance notice is given by calling
(201) 400-5243. This paragraph is effective from November 7, 2007 to
January 15, 2009.

    Dated: October 19, 2007.
Timothy S. Sullivan,
Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander, First Coast Guard District.
 [FR Doc. E7-21237 Filed 10-26-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-15-P