[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 248 (Friday, December 27, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Pages 71491-71501]
[FR Doc No: 2019-27870]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-87801; File No. SR-NYSEAMER-2019-55]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE American LLC; Notice of
Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change, as Modified
by Partial Amendment No. 1, To Amend the Fees for NYSE American BBO and
NYSE American Trades

December 19, 2019.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given
that, on December 4, 2019, NYSE American LLC (``NYSE American'' or
``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') a proposed rule change as described in Items I, II,
and III below, which Items have been prepared by the Exchange. On
December 17, 2019, the Exchange filed Partial Amendment No. 1 to the
proposed rule change.\3\ The Commission is publishing this notice to
solicit comments on the proposed rule change, as modified by Partial
Amendment No. 1, from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ In Partial Amendment No. 1, the Exchange provided an
additional example in support of the proposed rule change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange proposes to (1) amend the fees for NYSE American BBO
and NYSE American Trades by modifying the application of the Access
Fee; (2) amend the fees for NYSE American Trades by adopting a credit
applicable to the Redistribution Fee; and (3) adopt a one-month free
trial for all NYSE American market data products. The Exchange also
proposes to remove certain obsolete text. The Exchange proposes to
implement the proposed fee changes on February 3, 2020. The proposed
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
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to decrease the fees for certain NYSE
American market data products, as set forth on the NYSE American
Equities Proprietary Market Data Fee Schedule (``Fee Schedule''). The
purpose of these fee decreases, taken together with fee decreases filed
by the Exchange's affiliated exchanges, New York Stock Exchange LLC
(``NYSE'') and NYSE Arca, Inc. (``NYSE Arca''),\4\ will reduce the fees
associated with the NYSE BQT proprietary data product, which competes
directly with similar products offered by both the Nasdaq and Cboe
families of U.S. equity exchanges. Collectively, the proposed fee
decreases are intended to respond to the competition posed by similar
products offered by the other exchange groups.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See SR-NYSE-2019-70 and SR-NYSEArca-2019-88.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Specifically, the Exchange proposes to (1) reduce the Access Fees
by more than 86% for subscribers of NYSE American BBO and NYSE American
Trades that receive a data feed and use those market data products in a
display-only format; (2) provide for a credit applicable to the
Redistribution Fee for subscribers of NYSE American Trades that use
that market data product for display purposes; and (3) adopt a one-
month free trial for all NYSE American market data products. The
Exchange also proposes non-substantive changes to remove certain
obsolete text from the Fee Schedule. All of the proposed changes would
decrease fees for market data on the Exchange.
    The Exchange proposes to implement these proposed fee changes on
February 3, 2020.
Background
    The Commission has repeatedly expressed its preference for
competition over regulatory intervention in determining prices,
products, and services in the securities markets. In Regulation NMS,
the Commission highlighted the importance of market forces in
determining prices and SRO revenues, and also recognized that current
regulation of the market system ``has been remarkably successful in
promoting market competition in its broader forms that are most
important to investors and listed companies.'' \5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 51808 (June 9,
2005), 70 FR 37495, 37499 (June 29, 2005) (S7-10-04) (Final Rule)
(``Regulation NMS Adopting Release'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As the Commission itself recognized, the market for trading
services in NMS stocks has become ``more fragmented and competitive.''
\6\ Indeed, equity trading is currently dispersed across 13
exchanges,\7\ 31 alternative trading systems,\8\ and numerous broker-
dealer internalizers and wholesalers, all competing for order flow.
Based on

publicly-available information, no single exchange currently has more
than 18% market share (whether including or excluding auction
volume).\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 51808, 84 FR 5202,
5253 (February 20, 2019) (File No. S7-05-18) (Transaction Fee Pilot
for NMS Stocks Final Rule) (``Transaction Fee Pilot'').
    \7\ See Cboe Global Markets, U.S. Equities Market Volume
Summary, available at https://markets.cboe.com/us/equities/market_share/. See generally https://www.sec.gov/fast-answers/divisionsmarketregmrexchangesshtml.html.
    \8\ See FINRA ATS Transparency Data, available at https://otctransparency.finra.org/otctransparency/AtsIssueData. A list of
alternative trading systems registered with the Commission is
available at https://www.sec.gov/foia/docs/atslist.htm.
    \9\ See Cboe Global Markets U.S. Equities Market Volume Summary,
available at https://markets.cboe.com/us/equities/market_share/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With the NYSE BQT market data product, NYSE American and its
affiliates compete head to head with the Nasdaq Basic \10\ and Cboe One
Feed \11\ market data products. Similar to those market data products,
NYSE BQT, which was established in 2014,\12\ consists of certain
elements from NYSE American BBO and NYSE American Trades as well as
from market data products from the Exchange's affiliates, NYSE, NYSE
Arca, NYSE National, Inc. (``NYSE National'') \13\ and NYSE Chicago
(``NYSE Chicago'').\14\ Similar to both Nasdaq Basic and the Cboe One
Feed, NYSE BQT provides investors with a unified view of comprehensive
last sale and BBO data in all Tape A, B, and C securities that trade on
the Exchange, NYSE, NYSE Arca, NYSE National and NYSE Chicago. Also,
similar to Nasdaq Basic and the Cboe One Feed, NYSE BQT is not intended
to be used for purposes of making order-routing or trading decisions,
but rather, provides indicative prices for Tape A, B, and C
securities.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ As described on the Nasdaq website, available here: http://www.nasdaqtrader.com/Trader.aspx?id=nasdaqbasic, Nasdaq Basic is a
``low cost alternative'' that provides ``Best Bid and Offer and Last
Sale information for all U.S. exchange-listed securities based on
liquidity within the Nasdaq market center, as well as trades
reported to the FINRA Trade Reporting Facility (``TRF'').''
    \11\ As described on the Cboe website, available here: https://markets.cboe.com/us/equities/market_data_services/cboe_one/, the
Cboe One Feed is a ``market data product that provides cost-
effective, high-quality reference quotes and trade data for market
participants looking for comprehensive, real-time market data'' and
provides a ``unified view of the market from all four Cboe equity
exchanges: BZX Exchange, BYX Exchange, EDGX Exchange, and EDGY [sic]
Exchange.''
    \12\ See Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 72750 (August 4,
2014), 79 FR 46494 (August 8, 2014) (notice--NYSE BQT); and 73553
(November 6, 2014), 79 FR 67491 (November 13, 2014) (approval
order--NYSE BQT) (SR-NYSE-2014-40) (``NYSE BQT Filing'').
    \13\ In 2018, NYSE BQT was amended to include NYSE National BBO
and NYSE National Trades. See Securities Exchange Act Release No.
83359 (June 1, 2018), 83 FR 26507 (June 7, 2018) (SR-NYSE-2018-22).
    \14\ In 2019, NYSE BQT was amended to include NYSE Chicago BBO
and NYSE Chicago Trades. See Securities Exchange Act Release No.
87511 (November 12, 2019), 84 FR 63689 (November 18, 2019) (SR-NYSE-
2019-60).
    \15\ See NYSE BQT Filing, supra note 12.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Currently, to subscribe to NYSE BQT, subscribers are charged an
access fee of $250 per month.\16\ Additionally, subscribers must also
subscribe to, and pay applicable fees for NYSE American BBO, NYSE
American Trades, NYSE BBO, NYSE Trades, NYSE Arca BBO, NYSE Arca
Trades, NYSE National BBO, NYSE National Trades, NYSE Chicago BBO and
NYSE Chicago Trades. Thus, the charges for NYSE BQT are the $250 Access
Fee for NYSE BQT, plus a $1,500 access fee for each of NYSE BBO and
NYSE Trades,\17\ plus a $750 access fee for each of NYSE Arca BBO and
NYSE Arca Trades,\18\ plus a $750 access fee for each of NYSE American
BBO and NYSE American Trades,\19\ for a total of $6,250 ($250 + $3,000
+ $1,500 + $1,500).\18\ In addition, an NYSE BQT subscriber would need
to pay for the applicable Professional or Non-Professional User Fees
for the underlying market data products, as applicable.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ See NYSE Proprietary Market Data Fees, available here:
https://www.nyse.com/publicdocs/nyse/data/NYSE_Market_Data_Fee_Schedule.pdf.
    \17\ See id.
    \18\ See NYSE Arca Equities Proprietary Market Data Fees,
available here: https://www.nyse.com/publicdocs/nyse/data/NYSE_Arca_Equities_Fee_Schedule.pdf.
    \19\ See Fee Schedule, available here: https://www.nyse.com/publicdocs/nyse/data/NYSE_American_Equities_Market_Data_Fee_Schedule.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Because NYSE BQT is priced based on the fees associated with the
underlying ten market data feeds, the Exchange and its affiliates
propose to compete with the Cboe One Feed and Nasdaq basic by reducing
fees for the underlying market data products that comprise NYSE BQT.
Together with NYSE and NYSE Arca, the Exchange similarly proposes to
compete for subscribers to NYSE BQT by designing its fee decreases to
be attractive to subscribers of NYSE American BBO and NYSE American
Trades that use such products for display-only purposes, which are more
likely to be subscribers that service retail investors.
Access Fee--NYSE American BBO and NYSE American Trades
    NYSE American BBO is a NYSE American-only market data product that
allows a vendor to redistribute on a real-time basis the same best-bid-
and-offer information that NYSE American reports under the Consolidated
Quotation Plan (``CQ Plan'') for inclusion in the CQ Plan's
consolidated quotation information data stream (``NYSE American BBO
Information'').\20\ NYSE American BBO Information includes the best
bids and offers for all securities that are traded on the Exchange and
for which NYSE American reports quotes under the CQ Plan. NYSE American
BBO is available over a single data feed, regardless of the markets on
which the securities are listed. NYSE American BBO is made available to
its subscribers no earlier than the information it contains is made
available to the processor under the CQ Plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ See Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 61936 (April 16,
2010), 75 FR 21088 (April 22, 2010) (SR-NYSEAmex-2010-35) (notice--
NYSE American BBO); and 62187 (May 27, 2010), 75 FR 31500 (June 3,
2010) (SR-NYSEAmex-2010-35) (approval order--NYSE American BBO).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NYSE American Trades is a NYSE American-only market data product
that allows a vendor to redistribute on a real-time basis the same last
sale information that NYSE American reports to the Consolidated Tape
Association (``CTA'') for inclusion in the CTA's consolidated data
stream and certain other related data elements (``NYSE American Last
Sale Information'').\21\ NYSE American Last Sale Information includes
last sale information for all securities that are traded on the
Exchange. NYSE American Trades is made available to its subscribers at
the same time as the information it contains is made available to the
processor under the CTA Plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ See Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 61936 (April 16,
2010), 75 FR 21088 (April 22, 2010) (SR-NYSEAmex-2010-35) (notice--
NYSE American Trades); and 62187 (May 27, 2010), 75 FR 31500 (June
3, 2010) (SR-NYSEAmex-2010-35) (approval order--NYSE American
Trades).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Currently, subscribers of each of the NYSE American BBO and NYSE
American Trades products that receive a data feed pay an Access Fee of
$750 per month. The Exchange proposes to reduce the Access Fees for
subscribers of NYSE American BBO and NYSE American Trades that receive
a data feed and use those products in a display-only format, including
for internal use for Professional Users and external distribution to
both Professional and Non-Professional Users in a display-only format,
from $750 per month (per product) to $100 per month (per product). The
Exchange proposes to designate this access fee as a ``Per User Access
Fee.'' A subscriber that receives a data feed and uses the market data
product for any other purpose (such as a non-display use), including if
combined with Per User use, would continue to pay the $750 per month
Access Fee.\22\ A subscriber will be charged only one access fee for
each of the NYSE American BBO and NYSE American Trades products,
depending on the use of that product.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ With the proposed adoption of the Per User Access Fee, the
Exchange proposes to rename the Access Fee as the General Access
Fee.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed rule change would result in lower fees for subscribers
of each of NYSE American BBO and NYSE American Trades products that
receive

a data feed and use such products for display-only purposes. The
proposed Per User Access Fee of $100 per month, lowered from $750 per
month, would result in a reduction of more than 86% for subscribers
that receive a data feed and use the product in a display-only format.
Additionally, the proposed rule change, together with the proposed rule
changes by NYSE and NYSE Arca to similarly reduce the access fees to
their BBO and trades products, would also significantly lower access
fees for display-only subscribers of NYSE BQT, from $6,250 per month to
$850 per month ($250 + $200 + $200 + $200), a reduction of more than
86%.
    The proposed rule change is intended to encourage greater use of
NYSE BQT by making it more affordable for data recipients that receive
a data feed of NYSE American Trades and NYSE American BBO and use the
products in a display-only format and thereby, allow the Exchange to
compete more effectively with Cboe One Feed and Nasdaq Basic. The
Exchange believes the proposed rule change would allow the Exchange to
offer retail investors a competitively priced alternative to other top-
of-book data products available in the marketplace.
Redistribution Fee--NYSE American Trades
    The Exchange currently charges a Redistribution Fee of $750 per
month for NYSE American Trades. A Redistributor is a vendor or any
other person that provides a NYSE American data product to a data
recipient or to any system that a data recipient uses, irrespective of
the means of transmission or access. A Redistributor is required to
report to the Exchange each month the number of Professional and Non-
Professional Users and data feed recipients that receive NYSE American
Trades. As noted above, for display use of NYSE American Trades, the
Exchange currently charges a Per User Fee of $1 per month for each
Professional User and a Per User Fee of $0.05 per month for each Non-
Professional User. These user fees apply to each display device that
has access to NYSE American Trades.
    The Exchange proposes to adopt a credit that would be applicable to
Redistributors that provide external distribution of NYSE American
Trades to Professional and Non-Professional Users in a display-only
format. As proposed, such Redistributors would receive a credit equal
to the amount of the monthly Professional User and Non-Professional
User Fees for such external distribution, up to a maximum of the
Redistribution Fee for NYSE American Trades. For example, a
Redistributor that reports external Professional Users and Non-
Professional Users in a month totaling $750 or more would receive a
maximum credit of $750 for that month, which could effectively reduce
its Redistribution Fee to zero. If that same Redistributor were to
report external User quantities in a month totaling $500 of monthly
usage, that Redistributor would receive a credit of $500.
Redistributors would have an incentive to increase their redistribution
of NYSE American Trades because the credit they would be eligible to
receive would increase if they report additional external User
quantities.
    By targeting this proposed credit to Redistributors that provide
external distribution of NYSE American Trades in a display-only
product, the Exchange believes that this proposed fee decrease would
provide an incentive for Redistributors to make the NYSE BQT market
data product available to its customers. Specifically, if a data
recipient is interested in subscribing to NYSE BQT and relies on a
Redistributor to obtain market data products from the Exchange, that
data recipient would need its Redistributor to redistribute NYSE BQT.
Currently, Redistributors that redistribute NYSE American market data
products do not necessarily also make NYSE BQT available. Because data
recipients that use NYSE BQT do so for display-only use, and therefore
would use the NYSE American Trades market data product for display-only
use, the Exchange believes that this proposed fee decrease for
Redistributors of NYSE American Trades would provide an incentive for
Redistributors to make NYSE BQT available to its customers, which will
increase the availability of NYSE BQT to a larger potential population
of data recipients.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ NYSE American does not charge a Redistribution Fee for NYSE
American BBO.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

One-Month Free Trial--All NYSE American Market Data Products
    The Exchange proposes a one-month free trial for any firm that
subscribes to a particular NYSE American market data product for the
first time. As proposed, a first-time subscriber would be any firm that
has not previously subscribed to a particular NYSE American market data
product listed on the Fee Schedule. As proposed, a first-time
subscriber of a particular NYSE American market data produce [sic]
would not be charged the Access Fee, Non-Display Fee, any applicable
Professional and Non-Professional User Fee, and Redistribution Fee for
that product for one calendar month. For example, a firm that currently
subscribes to NYSE American BBO would be eligible to receive a free
one-month trial of NYSE American Trades, whether in a display-only
format or for non-display use. On the other hand, a firm that currently
pays an Access Fee and receives NYSE American BBO for non-display use
would not be eligible to receive a free one-month trial of NYSE
American BBO in a display-only format. The proposed free trial would be
for the first full calendar month following the date a subscriber is
approved to receive trial access to the particular NYSE American market
data product. The Exchange would provide the one-month free trial for
each particular product to each subscriber once.
    The Exchange believes that providing a one-month free trial to NYSE
American market data products listed on the Fee Schedule would enable
potential subscribers to determine whether a particular NYSE American
market data product provides value to their business models before
fully committing to expend development and implementation costs related
to the receipt of that product and is intended to encourage increased
use of the Exchange's market data products by defraying some of the
development and implementation costs subscribers would ordinarily have
to expend before using a product.
Non-Substantive Changes
    In March 2016, the Exchange amended the Fee Schedule to adopt
footnote 3 regarding a Decommission Extension Fee for receipt of the
NYSE American BBO and NYSE American Trades market data products.\24\
And in October 2016, the Exchange amended the Fee Schedule to adopt
footnote 6 regarding a Decommission Extension Fee for receipt of the
NYSE American Order Imbalances market data product.\25\ The
Decommission Extension Fee for NYSE American BBO, NYSE American Trades,
and NYSE American Order Imbalances was adopted to allow existing
subscribers at the time to receive these market data products in their
legacy format as the Exchange was transitioning to a newer distribution
protocol. The Decommission Extension Fee for NYSE American BBO and NYSE
Trades expired on September 1, 2016, and the Decommission Extension Fee
for NYSE

American Order Imbalances expired on April 28, 2017. The Exchange
proposes to remove rule text regarding the Decommission Extension Fee
for NYSE American BBO and NYSE American Trades from footnote 3 of the
Fee Schedule, and for NYSE American Order Imbalances from footnote 6 of
the Fee Schedule, as that rule text is now obsolete because the period
of time during which the Decommission Extension Fee for NYSE American
BBO and NYSE American Trades and for NYSE American Order Imbalances was
applicable has passed. The Exchange proposes to replace the text in
footnote 3 with rule text regarding the proposed fee change related to
the Access Fee for NYSE American BBO and NYSE American Trades described
above, and replace the text in footnote 6 with rule text regarding the
proposed fee change related to the Redistribution Fee for NYSE American
Trades described above.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 77389 (March 17,
2016), 81 FR 15375 (March 22, 2016) (SR-NYSEMKT-2016-37).
    \25\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 79287 (November 10,
2016), 81 FR 81216 (November 17, 2016) (SR-NYSEMKT-2016-100).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange also proposes a non-substantive amendment to move the
text describing the Enterprise Fee on the Fee Schedule to appear below
the Non-Professional User Fee. The Exchange is not making any
substantive changes to this fee. The Exchange believes that this
proposed non-substantive change will make the Fee Schedule easier to
navigate, as the Enterprise Fee is related to Per User fees.
    The Exchange also proposes a non-substantive, clarifying amendment
to footnote 4 to delete the term ``clients'' and replace it with the
term ``Professional Users and Non-Professional Users.'' This proposed
change is consistent with the operation of the Enterprise Fee, which
relates only to the Professional User and Non-Professional Per User
fees. The Exchange believes that this proposed change would promote
clarity and transparency of the Fee Schedule, without making any
substantive changes.
Applicability of Proposed Rule Change
    As noted above, the proposed rule change is designed to reduce the
overall cost of NYSE BQT by reducing specified fees applicable to the
underlying market data products that comprise NYSE BQT. There is
currently only one subscriber to NYSE BQT (a vendor) and the Exchange
believes that the proposed rule change would provide an incentive both
for data subscribers to subscribe to NYSE BQT and for Redistributors to
subscribe to the product for purposes of providing external
distribution of NYSE BQT.
    Because the proposed rule change is targeted to potential customers
of NYSE BQT, which is designed to be a product for display-only data
subscribers, the proposed changes to the NYSE American BBO and NYSE
American Trades Access Fees, together with the proposed changes on NYSE
and NYSE Arca, are narrowly construed with that purpose in mind.
Accordingly, these proposed fee changes are not designed for data
subscribers that use NYSE American BBO or NYSE American Trades for non-
display use, or for Redistributors that redistribute NYSE American
Trades to data subscribers that use that market data product for non-
display uses. This proposed rule change would not result in any changes
to the market data fees for NYSE American BBO and NYSE American Trades
for such data subscribers.
    There are currently no subscribers to NYSE American BBO and NYSE
American Trades that would meet the qualifications to be eligible for
these proposed fee changes. The Exchange believes that this proposed
rule change has the potential to attract new Redistributors for NYSE
BQT and new NYSE BQT subscribers that would be subscribing to NYSE
American BBO and NYSE American Trades for the first time.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with the provisions of Section 6 of the Act,\26\ in general, and
Sections 6(b)(4) and 6(b)(5) of the Act,\27\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \27\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4), (5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Proposed Rule Change Is Reasonable
    In adopting Regulation NMS, the Commission granted SROs and broker-
dealers increased authority and flexibility to offer new and unique
market data to the public. The Commission has repeatedly expressed its
preference for competition over regulatory intervention in determining
prices, products, and services in the securities markets. Specifically,
in Regulation NMS, the Commission highlighted the importance of market
forces in determining prices and SRO revenues, and also recognized that
current regulation of the market system ``has been remarkably
successful in promoting market competition in its broader forms that
are most important to investors and listed companies.'' \28\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ See Regulation NMS Adopting Release, 70 FR 37495, at 37499.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With respect to market data, the decision of the United States
Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in NetCoalition
v. SEC upheld the Commission's reliance on the existence of competitive
market mechanisms to evaluate the reasonableness and fairness of 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.'' \29\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ NetCoalition v. SEC, 615 F.3d 525, 535 (D.C. Cir. 2010)
(``NetCoalition I'') (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.' ''\30\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \30\ Id. at 535.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. The Proposed Fees Are Constrained by Significant Competitive Forces
a. Exchange Market Data Is Sold in a Competitive Market
    In 2018, Charles M. Jones, the Robert W. Lear of Professor of
Finance and Economics of the Columbia University School of Business,
conducted an analysis of the market for equity market data in the
United States. He canvassed the demand for both consolidated and
exchange proprietary market data products and the uses to which those
products were put by market participants, and reported his conclusions
in a paper annexed hereto.\31\ Among other things, Professor Jones
concluded that:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \31\ See Exhibit 3A, Charles M. Jones, Understanding the Market
for U.S. Equity Market Data, August 31, 2018 (hereinafter ``Jones
Paper'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     ``The market [for exchange market data] is characterized
by robust competition: exchanges compete with each other in selling
proprietary market data products. They also compete with consolidated
data feeds and with data provided by alternative trading systems
(`ATSs'). Barriers to entry are very low, so existing exchanges must
also take into account competition from new entrants, who generally try
to build market share by offering their

proprietary market data products for free for some period of time.''
\32\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \32\ Jones Paper at 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     ``Although there are regulatory requirements for some
market participants to use consolidated data products, there is no
requirement for market participants to purchase any proprietary market
data product for regulatory purposes.'' \33\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \33\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     ``There are a variety of data products, and consumers of
equity market data choose among them based on their needs. Like most
producers, exchanges offer a variety of market data products at
different price levels. Advanced proprietary market data products
provide greater value to those who subscribe. As in any other market,
each potential subscriber takes the features and prices of available
products into account in choosing what market data products to buy
based on its business model.'' \34\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \34\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     ``Exchange equity market data fees are a small cost for
the industry overall: The data demonstrates that total exchange market
data revenues are orders of magnitude smaller than (i) broker-dealer
commissions, (ii) investment bank earnings from equity trading, and
(iii) revenues earned by third-party vendors.'' \35\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \35\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     ``For proprietary exchange data feeds, the main question
is whether there is a competitive market for proprietary market data.
More than 40 active exchanges and alternative trading systems compete
vigorously in both the market for order flow and in the market for
market data. The two are closely linked: an exchange needs to consider
the negative impact on its order flow if it raises the price of its
market data. Furthermore, new entrants have been frequent over the past
10 years or so, and these venues often give market data away for free,
serving as a check on pricing by more established exchanges. These are
all the standard hallmarks of a competitive market.'' \36\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \36\ Id. at 39-40.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Professor Jones' conclusions are consistent with the demonstration
of the competitive constraints on the pricing of market data
demonstrated by analysis of exchanges as platforms for market data and
trading services, as shown below.
b. Exchanges That Offer Market Data and Trading Services Function as
Two-Sided Platforms
    An exchange may demonstrate that its fees are constrained by
competitive forces by showing that the platform theory of competition
applies.
    As the United States Supreme Court recognized in Ohio v. American
Express, platforms are firms that act as intermediaries between two or
more sets of agents, and typically the choices made on one side of the
platform affect the results on the other side of the platform via
externalities, or ``indirect network effects.'' \37\ Externalities are
linkages between the different ``sides'' of a platform such that one
cannot understand pricing and competition for goods or services on one
side of the platform in isolation; one must also account for the
influence of the other side. As the Supreme Court explained:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \37\ Ohio v. American Express, 138 S. Ct. 2274, 2280-81 (2018).

    To ensure sufficient participation, two-sided platforms must be
sensitive to the prices that they charge each side. . . . Raising
the price on side A risks losing participation on that side, which
decreases the value of the platform to side B. If the participants
on side B leave due to this loss in value, then the platform has
even less value to side A--risking a feedback loop of declining
demand. . . . Two-sided platforms therefore must take these indirect
network effects into account before making a change in price on
either side.\38\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \38\ Id. at 2281.

    The Exchange and its affiliated exchanges have long maintained that
they function as platforms between consumers of market data and
consumers of trading services. Proving the existence of linkages
between the two sides of this platform requires an in-depth economic
analysis of both public data and confidential Exchange data about
particular customers' trading activities and market data purchases.
Exchanges, however, are prohibited from sharing details about these
specific customer activities and purchases. For example, pursuant to
Exchange Rule 7.41, transactions executed on the Exchange are processed
anonymously.
    The Exchange and its affiliated exchanges have retained a third
party expert, Marc Rysman, Professor of Economics Boston University, to
analyze how platform economics applies to stock exchanges' sale of
market data products and trading services, and to explain how this
affects the assessment of competitive forces affecting the exchanges'
data fees.\39\ Professor Rysman was able to analyze exchange data that
is not otherwise publicly available in a manner that is consistent with
the exchanges' confidentiality obligations to customers. As shown in
his paper, Professor Rysman surveyed the existing economic literature
analyzing stock exchanges as platforms between market data and trading
activities, and explained the types of linkages between market data
access and trading activities that must be present for an exchange to
function as a platform. In addition, Professor Rysman undertook an
empirical analysis of customers' trading activities within the NYSE
group of exchanges in reaction to NYSE's introduction in 2015 of the
NYSE Integrated Feed, a full order-by-order depth of book data
product.\40\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \39\ See Exhibit 3B, Marc Rysman, Stock Exchanges as Platforms
for Data and Trading, December 2, 2019 (hereinafter ``Rysman
Paper''), ] 7.
    \40\ See Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 74128 (January 23,
2015), 80 FR 4951 (January 29, 2015) (SR-NYSE-2015-03) (Notice of
filing and immediate effectiveness of proposed rule change to
establish NYSE Integrated Feed) and 76485 (November 20, 2015), 80 FR
74158 (November 27, 2015) (SR-NYSE-2015-57) (Notice of filing and
immediate effectiveness of proposed rule change to establish fees
for the NYSE Integrated Feed).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Professor Rysman's analysis of this confidential firm-level data
shows that firms that purchased the NYSE Integrated Feed market data
product after its introduction were more likely to route orders to NYSE
as opposed to one of the other NYSE-affiliated exchanges, such as NYSE
Arca or NYSE American.\41\ Moreover, Professor Rysman shows that the
same is true for firms that did not subscribe to the NYSE Integrated
Feed: the introduction of the NYSE Integrated Feed led to more trading
on NYSE (as opposed to other NYSE-affiliated exchanges) by firms that
did not subscribe to the NYSE Integrated Feed.\42\ This is the sort of
externality that is a key characteristic of a platform market.\43\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \41\ Rysman Paper ]] 79-89.
    \42\ Id. ]] 90-91.
    \43\ Id. ] 90.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    From this empirical evidence, Professor Rysman concludes:
     ``[D]ata is more valuable when it reflects more trading
activity and more liquidity-providing orders. These linkages alone are
enough to make platform economics necessary for understanding the
pricing of market data.'' \44\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \44\ Id. ] 95.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     ``[L]inkages running in the opposite direction, from data
to trading, are also very likely to exist. This is because market data
from an exchange reduces uncertainty about the likelihood, price, or
timing of execution for an order on that exchange. This reduction in
uncertainty makes trading on that exchange more attractive for traders
that subscribe to that exchange's market data. Increased trading by
data subscribers, in turn, makes trading on the exchange in question
more attractive

for traders that do not subscribe to the exchange's market data.'' \45\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \45\ Id. ] 96.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     The ``mechanisms by which market data makes trading on an
exchange more attractive for subscribers to market data . . . apply to
a wide assortment of market data products, including BBO, order book,
and full order-by-order depth of book data products at all exchanges.''
\46\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \46\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     ``[E]mpirical evidence confirms that stock exchanges are
platforms for data and trading.'' \47\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \47\ Id. ] 97.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     ``The platform nature of stock exchanges means that data
fees cannot be analyzed in isolation, without accounting for the
competitive dynamics in trading services.'' \48\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \48\ Id. ] 98.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     ``Competition is properly understood as being between
platforms (i.e., stock exchanges) that balance the needs of consumers
of data and traders.'' \49\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \49\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     ``Data fees, data use, trading fees, and order flow are
all interrelated.'' \50\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \50\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     ``Competition for order flow can discipline the pricing of
market data, and vice-versa.'' \51\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \51\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     ``As with platforms generally, overall competition between
exchanges will limit their overall profitability, not margins on any
particular side of the platform.'' \52\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \52\ Id. ] 100.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

c. Exchange Market Data Fees Are Constrained by the Availability of
Substitute Platforms
    Professor Rysman's conclusions that exchanges function as platforms
for market data and transaction services mean that exchanges do not set
fees for market data products without considering, and being
constrained by, the effect the fees will have on the order-flow side of
the platform. And as the D.C. Circuit recognized in NetCoalition I,
``[n]o one disputes that competition for order flow is fierce.'' \53\
The court further noted that ``no exchange possesses a monopoly,
regulatory or otherwise, in the execution of order flow from broker
dealers,'' and that an exchange ``must compete vigorously for order
flow to maintain its share of trading volume.'' \54\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \53\ NetCoalition I, 615 F.3d at 544 (internal quotation
omitted).
    \54\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Similarly, the Commission itself has recognized that the market for
trading services in NMS stocks has become ``more fragmented and
competitive.'' \55\ The Commission's Division of Trading and Markets
has also recognized that with so many ``operating equities exchanges
and dozens of ATSs, there is vigorous price competition among the U.S.
equity markets and, as a result, [transaction] fees are tailored and
frequently modified to attract particular types of order flow, some of
which is highly fluid and price sensitive.'' \56\ Indeed, today, equity
trading is currently dispersed across 13 exchanges,\57\ 31 alternative
trading systems,\58\ and numerous broker-dealer internalizers and
wholesalers, all competing for order flow. Based on publicly-available
information, no single exchange currently has more than 18% market
share.\59\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \55\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 51808, 84 FR 5202,
5253 (February 20, 2019) (File No. S7-05-18).
    \56\ Commission Division of Trading and Markets, Memorandum to
EMSAC, dated October 20, 2015, available here: https://www.sec.gov/spotlight/emsac/memo-maker-taker-fees-on-equities-exchanges.pdf.
    \57\ See Cboe Global Markets, U.S. Equities Market Volume
Summary, available at http://markets.cboe.com/us/equities/market_share/. See generally https://www.sec.gov/fast-answers/divisionsmarketregmrexchangesshtml.html.
    \58\ See FINRA ATS Transparency Data, available at https://otctransparency.finra.org/otctransparency/AtsIssueData. A list of
alternative trading systems registered with the Commission is
available at https://www.sec.gov/foia/docs/atslist.htm.
    \59\ See Cboe Global Markets U.S. Equities Market Volume
Summary, available at http://markets.cboe.com/us/equities/market_share/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Further, low barriers to entry mean that new exchanges may rapidly
and inexpensively enter the market and offer additional substitute
platforms to compete with the Exchange.\60\ In addition to the 13
presently-existing exchanges, three new ones are expected to enter the
market in 2020: Long Term Stock Exchange (LTSE), which has been
approved as an equities exchange but is not yet operational; \61\
Members Exchange (MEMX), which has recently filed its application to be
approved as a registered equities exchange; \62\ and Miami
International Holdings (MIAX), which has announced its plan to
introduce equities trading on an existing registered options
exchange.\63\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \60\ See Jones Paper at 10-11.
    \61\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 85828 (May 10,
2019) (File No. 10-234) (Findings, Opinion, and Order of the
Commission in the Matter of the Application of Long Term Stock
Exchange, Inc. for Registration as a National Securities Exchange).
    \62\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 87436 (October 31,
2019) (File No. 10-237) (Notice of filing of application of MEMX LLC
for registration as a national securities exchange under Section 6
of the Act).
    \63\ See Press Release of Miami International Holdings Inc.,
dated May 17, 2019, available here: https://www.miaxoptions.com/sites/default/files/press_release-files/MIAX_Press_Release_05172019.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Given Professor Rysman's conclusion that exchanges are platforms
for market data and trading, this fierce competition for order flow on
the trading side of the platform acts to constrain, or ``discipline,''
the pricing of market data on the other side of the platform.\64\ And
due to the ready availability of substitutes and the low cost to move
order flow to those substitute trading venues, an exchange setting
market data fees that are not at competitive levels would expect to
quickly lose business to alternative platforms with more attractive
pricing.\65\ Although the various exchanges may differ in their
strategies for pricing their market data products and their transaction
fees for trades--with some offering market data for free along with
higher trading costs, and others charging more for market data and
comparatively less for trading--the fact that exchanges are platforms
ensures that no exchange makes pricing decisions for one side of its
platform without considering, and being constrained by, the effects
that price will have on the other side of the platform.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \64\ Rysman Paper ] 98.
    \65\ See Jones Paper at 11.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In sum, the fierce competition for order flow thus constrains any
exchange from pricing its market data at a supracompetitive price, and
constrains the Exchange in setting its fees at issue here.
    The proposed fees are therefore reasonable because in setting them,
the Exchange is constrained by the availability of numerous substitute
platforms offering market data products and trading. Such substitutes
need not be identical, but only substantially similar to the product at
hand.
    More specifically, in reducing specified fees for the NYSE American
BBO and NYSE American Trades market data products, the Exchange is
constrained by the fact that, if its pricing across the platform is
unattractive to customers, customers have their pick of an increasing
number of alternative platforms to use instead of the Exchange. The
Exchange believes that it has considered all relevant factors and has
not considered irrelevant factors in order to establish reasonable
fees. The existence of numerous alternative platforms to the Exchange's
platform ensures that the Exchange cannot set unreasonable market data
fees without suffering the negative effects of that decision in the
fiercely competitive market for trading order flow.

d. The Availability of Substitute Market Data Products Constrains Fees
for NYSE American BBO, NYSE American Trades, and NYSE BQT
    Even putting aside the facts that exchanges are platforms and that
pricing decisions on the two sides of the platform are intertwined, the
Exchange is constrained in setting the proposed market data fees by the
availability of numerous substitute market data products.
    The NYSE BQT market data product is subject to significant
competitive forces that constrain its pricing. Specifically, as
described above, NYSE BQT competes head-to-head with the Nasdaq Basic
product and the Cboe One Feed. These products each serve as reasonable
substitutes for one another as they are each designed to provide
investors with a unified view of real-time quotes and last-sale prices
in all Tape A, B, and C securities. Each product provides subscribers
with consolidated top-of-book quotes and trades from multiple U.S.
equities markets. In the case of NYSE BQT, this product provides top-
of-book quotes and trades data from five NYSE-affiliated U.S. equities
exchanges, which together account for approximately 24% of consolidated
U.S. equities trading volume as of October 2019.\66\ Cboe One Feed
similarly provides top-of-book quotes and trades data from Cboe's four
U.S. equities exchanges. NYSE BQT, Nasdaq Basic, and Cboe One Feed are
all intended to provide indicative pricing and are not intended to be
used for order routing or trading decisions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \66\ See Cboe Global Markets, U.S. Equities Market Volume
Summary, available at https://markets.cboe.com/us/equities/market_share/market/2019-10-31/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition to competing with proprietary data products from Nasdaq
and Cboe, NYSE BQT also competes with the consolidated data feed.
However, the Exchange does not claim that NYSE BQT is a substitute for
consolidated data with respect to requirements under the Vendor Display
Rule, which is Regulation NMS Rule 603(c).
    The fact that this filing is proposing reductions in certain fees,
fee credits, and free trial periods is itself confirmation of the
inherently competitive nature of the market for the sale of proprietary
market data. For example, Cboe recently filed proposed rule changes to
reduce certain of its Cboe One Feed fees and noted that it attracted
two additional customers because of the reduced fees.\67\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \67\ See Securities Exchange Act Release Nos.86667 (August 14,
2019) (SR-CboeBZX-2019-069); 86670 (August 14, 2019) (SR-CboeBYX-
2019-012); 86676 (August 14, 2019) (SR-CboeEDGA-2019-013); and 86678
(August 14, 2019) (SR-CboeEDGX-2019-048) (Notices of filing and
Immediate effectiveness of proposed rule change to reduce fees for
the Cboe One Feed) (collectively ``Cboe One Fee Filings''). The Cboe
One Fee Filings were in effect from August 1, 2019 until September
30, 2019, when the Commission suspended them and instituted
proceedings to determine whether to approve or disapprove those
proposals. See, e.g., Securities Exchange Act Release No. 87164
(September 30, 2019), 84 FR 53208 (October 4, 2019) (SR-CboeBZX-
2019-069). On October 1, 2019, the Cboe equities exchanges refiled
the Cboe One Fee Filings on the basis that they had new customers
subscribe as a result of the Cboe One Fee Filings, and therefore its
fee proposal had increased competition for top-of-book market data.
See Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 87312 (October 15, 2019),
84 FR 56235 (October 21, 2019) (SR-CboeBZX-2019-086); 87305 (October
14, 2019), 84 FR 56210 (October 21, 2019) (SR-CboeBYX-2019-015);
87295 (October 11, 2019), 84 FR 55624 (October 17, 2019) (SR-
CboeEDGX-2019-059); and 87294 (October 11, 2019), 84 FR 55638
(October 17, 2019) (SR-CboeEDGZ-2019-015) (Notices of filing and
immediate effectiveness of proposed rule changes to re-file the
Small Retail Broker Distribution Program) (``Cboe One Fee Re-
Filings''). On November 26, 2019, the Commission suspended the Cboe
One Fee Re-Filings and instituted proceedings to determine whether
to approve or disapprove those proposals. See, e.g., Securities
Exchange Act Release No. 87629 (November 26, 2019) (SR-CboeBZX-2019-
086) (Federal Register publication pending).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange notes that NYSE American BBO, NYSE American Trades,
and NYSE BQT are entirely optional. The Exchange and its affiliates are
not required to make the proprietary data products that are the subject
of this proposed rule change available or to offer any specific pricing
alternatives to any customers, nor is any firm or investor required to
purchase these data products. Unlike some other data products (e.g.,
the consolidated quotation and last-sale information feeds) that firms
are required to purchase in order to fulfil regulatory obligations,\68\
a customer's decision whether to purchase any of the Exchange's
proprietary market data feeds is entirely discretionary. Most firms
that choose to subscribe to the proprietary market data products from
the Exchange and its affiliates do so for the primary goals of using
them to increase their revenues, reduce their expenses, and in some
instances compete directly with the Exchange's trading services. Such
firms are able to determine for themselves whether or not the products
in question or any other similar products are attractively priced. If
market data products from the Exchange and its affiliates do not
provide sufficient value to firms based on the uses those firms may
have for it, such firms may simply choose to conduct their business
operations in ways that do not use the products.\69\ A clear
illustration of this point is the fact that today, NYSE BQT has just
one subscriber.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \68\ The Exchange notes that broker-dealers are not required to
purchase proprietary market data to comply with their best execution
obligations. See In the Matter of the Application of Securities
Industry and Financial Markets Association for Review of Actions
Taken by Self-Regulatory Organizations, Release Nos. 34-72182; AP-3-
15350; AP-3-15351 (May 16, 2014). Similarly, there is no requirement
in Regulation NMS or any other rule that proprietary data be
utilized for order routing decisions, and some broker-dealers and
ATSs have chosen not to do so.
    \69\ See generally Jones Paper at 8, 10-11.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, in the case of products that are also redistributed
through market data vendors, such as Bloomberg and Refinitiv, 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.
Currently, only one vendor subscribes to NYSE BQT, and that vendor has
limited redistribution of NYSE BQT. No other vendors currently
subscribe to NYSE BQT and likely will not unless their customers
request it, and customers will not elect to pay the proposed fees
unless such product 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.
    Because of the availability of substitutes, an exchange that
overprices its market data products stands a high risk that users may
substitute another source of market data information for its own. Those
competitive pressures imposed by available alternatives are evident in
the Exchange's proposed pricing.
    In setting the proposed fees, 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 reasonable fees. The existence of
numerous alternatives to the Exchange's platform and, more
specifically, alternatives to the market data products, including
proprietary data from other sources, ensures that the Exchange cannot
set unreasonable fees 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.
2. The Proposed Fees Are Reasonable
    The specific fees that the Exchange proposes for NYSE American
Trades and NYSE American BBO are reasonable, for the following
additional reasons.
    Overall. This proposed fee change is a result of the competitive
environment, as the Exchange seeks to decrease certain of its fees to
attract subscribers that do not currently use the NYSE BQT market data
product. The Exchange is proposing the fee reductions at issue to make
the Exchange's fees more competitive for a specific segment of market
participants, thereby increasing the availability of the Exchange's
data products, and expanding the options available to firms making data
purchasing decisions based on their business needs. The Exchange
believes that this is consistent with the principles contained in
Regulation NMS to ``promote the wide availability of market data and to
allocate revenues to SROs that produce the most useful data for
investors.'' \70\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \70\ See Regulation NMS Adopting Release, 70 FR 37495, at 37503.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Access Fee. By adopting a reduced access fee to access U.S. equity
market data that is used in display-only format and that serves as the
foundation of NYSE BQT, the Exchange believes that more data recipients
may choose to subscribe to these products, thereby expanding the
distribution of this market data for the benefit of investors that
participate in the national market system and increasing competition
generally. In addition, the proposed reduced access fee is reasonable
when compared to similar fees for comparable products offered by other
markets. For example, NYSE American Trades provides investors with
alternative market data and is similar to the Nasdaq Last Sale Data
Feed; Nasdaq charges redistributors a monthly fee of $1,500 per month,
which is higher than the current access fee for NYSE American Trades,
and higher than the proposed access fee for display-only users.\71\ The
Exchange also believes that offering a reduced access fee for display-
only use expands the range of options for offering the Exchange's
market data products and would allow data recipients greater choice in
selecting the most appropriate level of data and fees for the
Professional and Non-Professional Users they service.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \71\ See Section 139(d) of the Nasdaq Equity 7 Pricing Schedule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange determined to charge the $100 access fee for its
proposed Per User Access Fee because it constitutes a substantial
reduction of the current fee, with the intended purpose of increasing
use of NYSE BQT. NYSE BQT has been in place since 2014 but has only one
subscriber, which itself has limited distribution of the product. The
Exchange believes that in order to compete with other indicative
pricing products such as Nasdaq Basic and Cboe One Feed, it needs to
provide a meaningful financial incentive for data recipients to
subscribe to NYSE BQT. Accordingly, the proposed reduction to the
Access Fees for NYSE American Trades and NYSE American BBO, together
with the proposed reduction to the Access Fees for NYSE BBO, NYSE
Trades, NYSE Arca BBO, and NYSE Arca Trades, is reasonable because the
reductions will make NYSE BQT a more attractive offering for data
recipients and make it more competitive with Nasdaq Basic and Cboe One
Feed. For example, the External Distribution Fee for Cboe One Feed is
currently $5,000 (which is the sum of the External Distribution fees
for the four exchange data products that are included in Cboe One Feed)
plus a Data Consolidation Fee of $1,000, for a total of $6,000.
Evidence of the competition among exchange groups for these products
has previously been demonstrated via fee changes. For example,
following the introduction of the Cboe One Feed, Nasdaq responded by
reducing its fees for the Nasdaq Basic product.\72\ With the proposed
changes by the Exchange, NYSE, and NYSE Arca, the Exchange is similarly
seeking to compete by decreasing the total access fees for NYSE BQT
from $6,250 to $850. This proposed rule change therefore demonstrates
the existence of an effective, competitive market because this proposal
resulted from a need to generate innovative approaches in response to
competition from other exchanges that offer market data for a specific
segment of market participants.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \72\ See e.g. Securities Exchange Act Release No. 83751 (July
31, 2018), 83 FR 38428 (August 6, 2018) (SR-NASDAQ-2018-058) (Notice
of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To
Lower Fees and Administrative Costs for Distributors of Nasdaq
Basic, Nasdaq Last Sale, NLS Plus and the Nasdaq Depth-of-Book
Products Through a Consolidated Enterprise License). Nasdaq filed
the proposed fee change to lower the Enterprise Fee for Nasdaq Basic
and other market data products in response to the Enterprise Fee for
the Cboe One Feed adopted by Cboe family of exchanges.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Redistribution Fees. Similarly, the proposed reduction to the NYSE
American Trades Redistribution Fee is reasonable because it is designed
to provide an incentive for Redistributors to make NYSE BQT available
so that data recipients can subscribe to NYSE BQT. The Exchange further
believes that the proposed reduction to the NYSE American Trades
Redistribution Fee is reasonable because it is designed to compete with
a similar credit offered by the Cboe family of equity exchanges.\73\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \73\ See, e.g., BZX Price List--U.S. Equities available at
http://www.nasdaqtrader.com/Trader.aspx?id=DPUSdata#db [sic]. BZX
charges $500 per month for internal distribution, and $2,500 per
month for external distribution, of BZX Last Sale. BZX also charges
$500 per month for internal distribution, and $2,500 per month for
external distribution, of BZX Top. Each external distributor is
eligible to receive a credit against its monthly Distributor Fee for
BZX Las [sic] Sale equal to the amount of its monthly User Fees up
to a maximum of the Distributor Fee for BZX Las [sic] Sale. See Cboe
BZX U.S. Equities Exchange Fee Schedule at http://markets.cboe.com/us/equities/membership/fee_schedule/bzx/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    One-Month Free Trial. The Exchange believes that the proposed rule
change to provide the NYSE American market data products to new
customers free-of-charge for their first subscription month is
reasonable because it would allow vendors and subscribers to become
familiar with the feeds and determine whether they suit their needs
without incurring fees. Making a new market data product available for
free for a trial period is consistent with offerings of other
exchanges. For example, Nasdaq offers new subscribers its market data
products a 30-day waiver of user fees.\74\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \74\ See Section 112(b)(1) of Nasdaq's Equity 7 Pricing
Schedule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Deletion of Obsolete Text. The Exchange believes that it is
reasonable to delete references to obsolete rule text and dates from
the Fee Schedule and to make non-substantive clarifying amendments. The
Exchange believes that the proposed changes are reasonable because they
would result in greater specificity and precision within the Fee
Schedule, which would contribute to reasonably ensuring that the fees
described there are clear and accurate. Specifically, the proposed
changes are reasonable because they would remove obsolete rule text and
dates from the Fee Schedule related to a Decommission Extension Fee
that is no longer charged by the Exchange and provide greater
specificity regarding the application of the Enterprise Fee.
    For all of the foregoing reasons, the Exchange believes that the
proposed fees are reasonable.
The Proposed Fees Are Equitably Allocated
    The Exchange believes the proposed fees for NYSE American Trades
and

NYSE American BBO are allocated fairly and equitably among the various
categories of users of the feed, and any differences among categories
of users are justified.
    Overall. As noted above, this proposed fee change is a result of
the competitive environment for market data products that provide
indicative pricing information across a family of exchanges. To respond
to this competitive environment, the Exchange seeks to amend its fees
to access NYSE American Trades and NYSE American BBO in a display-only
format, which the Exchange hopes will attract additional subscribers
for its NYSE BQT market data product. The Exchange is proposing the fee
reductions to make the Exchange's fees more competitive for a specific
segment of market participants, thereby increasing the availability of
the Exchange's data products, expanding the options available to firms
making data purchasing decisions based on their business needs, and
generally increasing competition.
    Access Fee. The Exchange believes that the proposed Per User Access
Fee is equitable as it would apply equally to all data recipients that
choose to subscribe to NYSE American Trades or NYSE American BBO in a
display-only format. Because NYSE American Trades and NYSE American BBO
are optional products, any data recipient could choose to subscribe to
NYSE American Trades or NYSE American BBO for display-only use and be
eligible for the proposed reduced fee. The Exchange does not believe
that it is inequitable that this proposed fee reduction would be
available only to data recipients that use NYSE American Trades or NYSE
American BBO in a display-only format. Non-display data represents a
different set of use cases than display-only usage; non-display data
can be used by data recipients for a wide variety of profit-generating
purposes, including proprietary and agency trading and smart order
routing, as well as by data recipients that operate order matching and
execution platforms that compete directly with the Exchange for order
flow. The data also can be used for a variety of non-trading purposes
that indirectly support trading, such as risk management and
compliance. Although some of these non-trading uses do not directly
generate revenues, they can nonetheless substantially reduce the
recipient's costs by automating such functions so that they can be
carried out in a more efficient and accurate manner and reduce errors
and labor costs, thereby benefiting end users. The Exchange believes
that charging a different access fee for non-display use is equitable
because data recipients can derive substantial value from such uses,
for example, by automating tasks so that can be performed more quickly
and accurately and less expensively than if they were performed
manually.
    Redistribution Fees. The Exchange believes the proposed change to
provide a credit to a Redistributor that externally redistributes NYSE
American Trades to Professional and Non-Professional Users in a
display-only format in an amount equal to the monthly Professional User
and Non-Professional User fees for such external distribution, up to a
maximum of the Redistribution Fee, is equitably allocated. The proposed
change would apply equally to all Redistributors that choose to
externally redistribute the NYSE American Trades product, and would
serve as an incentive for Redistributors to make NYSE American Trades
more broadly available for use by both Professional and Non-
Professional Users. This, in turn, could provide an incentive for
Redistributors to make NYSE BQT available to their customers.
    One-Month Free Trial. The Exchange believes the proposal to provide
the NYSE American market data products to new customers free-of-charge
for their first subscription month is equitable because it applies to
any first-time subscriber, regardless of the use they plan to make of
the feed. As proposed, any first-time subscriber would not be charged
the Access Fee, Non-Display Fee, any applicable Professional and Non-
Professional User Fee, or Redistribution Fee for any of the NYSE
American market data products for one calendar month. The Exchange
believes it is equitable to restrict the availability of this one-month
free trial to customers that have not previously subscribed to any NYSE
American market data product, since customers who are current or
previous subscribers are already familiar with the products and whether
they would suits their needs.
    Deletion of Obsolete Text. The Exchange believes that deleting
obsolete rule text and dates from the Fee Schedule and make non-
substantive clarifying amendments is equitably allocated because these
proposed changes do not change fees, but rather, result in greater
specificity and precision within the Fee Schedule, which would
contribute to reasonably ensuring that the fees described there are
clear and accurate. The Exchange also believes that the proposed
changes are equitable because all readers of the Fee Schedule would
benefit from the increased specificity and clarity that this proposed
rule change would provide.
    For all of the foregoing reasons, the Exchange believes that the
proposed fees for the NYSE American market data products are equitably
allocated.
The Proposed Fees Are Not Unfairly Discriminatory
    The Exchange believes the proposed fees are not unfairly
discriminatory because any differences in the application of the fees
are based on meaningful distinctions between customers, and those
meaningful distinctions are not unfairly discriminatory between
customers.
    Overall. As noted above, this proposed fee change is a result of
the competitive environment for market data products that provide
indicative pricing information across a family of exchanges. To respond
to this competitive environment, the Exchange seeks to amend its fees
to access NYSE American Trades and NYSE American BBO in a display-only
format, which the Exchange hopes will attract more subscribers for its
NYSE BQT market data product. The Exchange is proposing the fee
reductions to make the Exchange's fees more competitive for a specific
segment of market participants, thereby increasing the availability of
the Exchange's data products, expanding the options available to firms
making data purchasing decisions based on their business needs, and
generally increasing competition.
    Access Fee. The Exchange believes that the proposed Per User Access
Fee is not unfairly discriminatory as it would apply equally to all
data recipients that choose to subscribe to NYSE American Trades or
NYSE American BBO in a display-only format. Because NYSE American
Trades and NYSE American BBO are optional products, any data recipient
could choose to subscribe to NYSE American Trades or NYSE American BBO
for display-only use and be eligible for the proposed reduced fee. The
Exchange does not believe that it is unfairly discriminatory that this
proposed fee reduction would be available only to data recipients that
use NYSE American Trades or NYSE American BBO in a display-only format.
Non-display data can be used by data recipients for a wide variety of
profit-generating purposes, including proprietary and agency trading
and smart order routing, as well as by data recipients that operate
order matching and execution platforms that compete directly with the
Exchange for order flow. The data also can be used for a variety of
non-trading purposes that indirectly support trading, such as risk
management and compliance.

While some of these non-trading uses do not directly generate revenues,
they can nonetheless substantially reduce the recipient's costs by
automating such functions so that they can be carried out in a more
efficient and accurate manner and reduce errors and labor costs,
thereby benefiting end users. The Exchange therefore believes that
there is a meaningful distinction between display and non-display users
of market data and that charging a different access fee for non-display
use is not unfairly discriminatory because data recipients can derive
substantial value from such non-display uses, for example, by
automating tasks so that can be performed more quickly and accurately
and less expensively than if they were performed manually.
    Redistribution Fees. The Exchange believes the proposed change to
provide a credit to a Redistributor that externally redistributes NYSE
American Trades to Professional and Non-Professional Users in a
display-only format in an amount equal to the monthly Professional User
and Non-Professional User fees for such external distribution, up to a
maximum of the Redistribution Fee, is not unfairly discriminatory. The
proposed credit would apply equally to all Redistributors that choose
to externally redistribute the NYSE American Trades product for display
use, and would serve as an incentive for Redistributors to make NYSE
American Trades more broadly available for use by both Professional and
Non-Professional Users. This, in turn, could provide an incentive for
Redistributors to make NYSE BQT available to their customers.
    The Exchange believes that there is a meaningful distinction
between vendors that distribute market data in a display-only format,
as such vendors are more likely to service the non-professional
community, and vendors that distribute market data for non-display use
only, as users of non-display data are more likely to be professionals
that derive substantial value from such non-display uses. While this
credit is not available to vendors that redistribute NYSE American
Trades for non-display use only, such vendors would be eligible for
this credit if they choose to expand their distribution of NYSE
American Trades for display use. NYSE BQT is targeted for display use
and the Exchange believes that the proposed credit would increase the
number of Redistributors--whether current vendors that redistribute on
a non-display only basis or new vendors--that would make NYSE BQT
available to their customers.
    One-Month Free Trial. The Exchange believes that the proposed rule
change providing for a one-month free trial period to test is not
unfairly discriminatory because the financial benefit of the fee waiver
would be available to all firms subscribing to a NYSE American market
data product for the first time on a free-trial basis. The Exchange
believes there is a meaningful distinction between customers that are
subscribing to a market data for the first time, who may benefit from a
period within which to set up and test use of the product before it
becomes fee liable, and users that are already receiving the Exchange's
market data products and are deriving value from such use. The Exchange
believes that the limited period of the free trial would not be
unfairly discriminatory to other users of the Exchange's market data
products because it is designed to provide a reasonable period of time
to set up and test a new market data product. The Exchange further
believes that providing a free trial for a calendar month would ease
administrative burdens for data recipients to subscribe to a new data
product and eliminate fees for a period before such users are able to
derive any benefit from the data.
    Deletion of Obsolete Text. The Exchange believes that deleting
obsolete rule text and dates from the Fee Schedule and make non-
substantive clarifying amendments is not unfairly discriminatory
because these proposed changes do not change fees, but rather, result
in greater specificity and precision within the Fee Schedule, which
would contribute to reasonably ensuring that the fees described there
are clear and accurate. The Exchange also believes that the proposed
changes are not unfairly discriminatory because all readers of the Fee
Schedule would benefit from the increased specificity and clarity that
this proposed rule change would provide.
    For all of the foregoing reasons, the Exchange believes that the
proposed fees are 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.
    Intramarket Competition. The Exchange believes that the proposed
fees do not put any market participants at a relative disadvantage
compared to other market participants. As noted above, the proposed fee
schedule would apply to all subscribers of NYSE American market data
products, and customers may not only choose whether to subscribe to the
products at all, but also may tailor their subscriptions to include
only the products and uses that they deem suitable for their business
needs.
    The Exchange also believes that the proposed fees neither favor nor
penalize one or more categories of market participants in a manner that
would impose an undue market on competition. As shown above, to the
extent that particular proposed fees apply to only a subset of
subscribers, those distinctions are not unfairly discriminatory and do
unfairly burden one set of customers over another. To the contrary, by
tailoring the proposed fees in this manner, the Exchange believes that
it has eliminated the potential burden on competition that might
result, for instance, from unfairly asking vendors that distribute
market data in a display-only format to pay the same fees as vendors
that distribute market data for non-display use to professionals that
derive substantial value from such non-display uses.
    Intermarket Competition. The Exchange believes that the proposed
fees do not impose a burden on competition or on other exchanges that
is not necessary or appropriate; indeed, the Exchange believes the
proposed fee changes would have the effect of increasing competition.
As demonstrated above and in Professor Rysman's attached paper,
exchanges are platforms for market data and trading. In setting the
proposed fees, the Exchange is constrained by the availability of
substitute platforms also offering market data products and trading,
and low barriers to entry mean new exchange platforms are frequently
introduced. The fact that exchanges are platforms ensures that no
exchange can make pricing decisions for one side of its platform
without considering, and being constrained by, the effects that price
will have on the other side of the platform. In setting fees at issue
here, the Exchange is constrained by the fact that, if its pricing
across the platform is unattractive to customers, customers will have
its pick of an increasing number of alternative platforms to use
instead of the Exchange. Given this intense competition between
platforms, no one exchange's market data fees can impose an unnecessary
burden on competition, and the Exchange's proposed fees do not do so
here.
    In addition, the Exchange believes that the proposed fees do not
impose a burden on competition or on other exchanges that is not
necessary or appropriate because of the availability of numerous
substitute market data products. Specifically, as described above, NYSE
BQT competes head-to-head with the Nasdaq Basic product and

the Cboe One Feed. These products each serve as reasonable substitutes
for one another as they are each designed to provide investors with a
unified view of real-time quotes and last-sale prices in all Tape A, B,
and C securities. Each product provides subscribers with consolidated
top-of-book quotes and trades from multiple U.S. equities markets. NYSE
BQT provides top-of-book quotes and trades data from five NYSE-
affiliated U.S. equities exchanges, while Cboe One Feed similarly
provides top-of-book quotes and trades data from Cboe's four U.S.
equities exchanges. NYSE BQT, Nasdaq Basic, and Cboe One Feed are all
intended to provide indicative pricing and therefore, are reasonable
substitutes for one another. Additionally, market data vendors are also
able to offer close substitutes to NYSE BQT. Because market data users
can find suitable substitute feeds, an exchange that overprices its
market data products stands a high risk that users may substitute
another source of market data information for its own. These
competitive pressures ensure that no one exchange's market data fees
can impose an unnecessary burden on competition, and the Exchange's
proposed fees do not do so here.

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

    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) \75\ of the Act and subparagraph (f)(2) of Rule
19b-4 \76\ thereunder, because it establishes a due, fee, or other
charge imposed by the Exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \75\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \76\ 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) \77\ of the Act to determine whether the proposed
rule change should be approved or disapproved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \77\ 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-NYSEAMER-2019-55 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-NYSEAMER-2019-55. 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-NYSEAMER-2019-55, and should be
submitted on or before January 17, 2020.
    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\78\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \78\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).

J. Matthew DeLesDernier,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2019-27870 Filed 12-26-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: February 20, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 34)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 9233-9234]
[DOCID:fr20fe08-24]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

49 CFR Parts 385 and 395

[Docket No. FMCSA-2004-19608]
RIN-2126-AB14

Hours of Service of Drivers

AGENCY: Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.

ACTION: Interim final rule (IFR); extension of comment period.

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

SUMMARY: FMCSA extends the comment period for the Hours of Service of
Drivers interim final rule published on December 17, 2007, for 30 days.
The FMCSA received a request to extend the comment period from the
Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety on February 7, 2008. The
extension of the comment period will allow all interested parties
additional time to submit comments to the interim final rule.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before March 17, 2008.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by Federal Docket
Management System Number FMCSA-2004-19608 by any of the following
methods:
     Web site: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the

instructions for submitting comments on the Federal electronic docket
site.
     Fax: 1-202-493-2251.
     Mail: Docket Management Facility, U.S. Department of
Transportation, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington,
DC 20590-0001.
     Hand Delivery: Ground Floor, Room W12-140, DOT Building,
1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
e.t., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    Instructions: All submissions must include the Agency name and
docket number or Regulatory Identification Number (RIN) for this
rulemaking. For detailed instructions on submitting comments and
additional information on the rulemaking process, see the Public
Participation heading below. Note that all comments received will be
posted without change to http://www.regulations.gov, including any

personal information provided. Please see the Privacy Act heading
below.
    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or
comments received, go to http://www.regulations.gov at any time or to

the ground floor, room W12-140, DOT Building, New Jersey Avenue, SE.,
Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., e.t., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays.
    Privacy Act: Anyone is able to search the electronic form of all
comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual
submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf
of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review DOT's
complete Privacy Act Statement in the Federal Register published on
April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477-78), or you may visit http://docketsinfo.dot.gov
.

    Public participation: The http://www.regulations.gov Web site is

generally available 24 hours each day, 365 days each year. You can
obtain electronic submission and retrieval help and guidelines under
the ``help'' section of the http://www.regulations.gov Web site and also at the DOT's http://docketsinfo.dot.gov Web site. If you want the

Agency to notify you that your comments were received, please include a
self-addressed, stamped envelope or postcard or print the
acknowledgement page that appears after submitting comments online.
    Comments received after the comment closing date will be included
in the docket, and we will consider late comments to the extent
practicable. FMCSA may, however, issue a final rule at any time after
the close of the comment period.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Thomas Yager, Driver and Carrier
Operations; or<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>. Office hours
are from 7:45 a.m. to 4:15 p.m., e.t., Monday through Friday, except
Federal holidays.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On February 7, 2008, the Advocates for
Highway and Auto Safety (Advocates) sent a request on behalf of
themselves, Public Citizen, the Truck Safety Coalition, and the
International Brotherhood of Teamsters for an extension of the comment
period in the subject rulemaking proceeding. They stated that the
complexity of the issues involved, including the new analyses provided
in the interim final rule, has required serious evaluation that has
taken up much of its limited staff time. The Advocates requested a 30-
day extension of the comment period which they believe would be in the
public interest and would not prevent the Agency from issuing a final
rule in 2008.
    In order to allow petitioners and the general public an opportunity
to provide comprehensive comments on the new analyses included in the

interim final rule published by the Federal Motor Carrier Safety
Administration on December 17, 2007, the Agency has decided to grant
the petitioner's request to extend the comment period for the
rulemaking by 30 days. The comment period has been extended and
comments must be received on or before March 17, 2008.

    Issued: February 13, 2008.
John H. Hill,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. E8-3073 Filed 2-19-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 144 (Wednesday, July 27, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Page 44944]
[FR Doc No: 2011-19030]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-1995-DR; Docket ID FEMA-2011-0001]

Vermont; Amendment No. 1 to Notice of a Major Disaster
Declaration

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice amends the notice of a major disaster declaration
for the State of Vermont (FEMA-1995-DR), dated June 15, 2011 and
related determinations.

DATES: Effective Date: June 20, 2011.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Peggy Miller, Office of Response and
Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street, SW.,
Washington, DC 20472,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The notice of a major disaster declaration
for the State of Vermont is hereby amended to include the following
area among those areas determined to have been adversely affected by
the event declared a major disaster by the President in his declaration
of June 15, 2011.

Washington County for Public Assistance. The following Catalog of
Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers (CFDA) are to be used for
reporting and drawing funds: 97.030, Community Disaster Loans;
97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis Counseling; 97.033, Disaster
Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster Unemployment Assistance (DUA);
97.046, Fire Management Assistance Grant; 97.048, Disaster Housing
Assistance to Individuals and Households In Presidentially Declared
Disaster Areas; 97.049, Presidentially Declared Disaster
Assistance--Disaster Housing Operations for Individuals and
Households; 97.050 Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance to
Individuals and Households--Other Needs; 97.036, Disaster Grants--
Public Assistance (Presidentially Declared Disasters); 97.039,
Hazard Mitigation Grant.

    Dated: June 23, 2011.
W. Craig Fugate,
Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2011-19030 Filed 7-26-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111-23-P


Comment Info: =================

General Comment:Dear Mr. Zeller:

My name is Kim Peyton and I am writing as an individual consumer to request an extension of the comment period for the Food and Drug Administration's ("FDA") Proposed Rule Deeming Tobacco Products to be Subject to the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, as amended by the Family Smoking and Prevention and Tobacco Control Act (the "Proposed Rule") published at 79 Fed. Reg. 23,142 and Federal Register No. 2014-09491. On behalf of myself, I am requesting that the comment period for the Proposed Rule be extended by the FDA for an additional 105 days, from its current 75-day period, to 180 days.

The Proposed Rule raises a number of significant issues and questions that are important and relevant to me, as a consumer of products that are proposed for regulation under the Proposed Rule. I have been reading and taking notes but the Proposed Rule asks about a hundred different questions I might want to respond to. I want to provide my thoughts and comments on many of these issues, but my time to devote to researching is only an hour or two each day. I have been reading several pages a day and I realize that I may not get to respond in an informed way at this rate. It is very important that to me to be able to not only comment but to truly understand what I am commenting on and that my answers be well researched and well thought out.  I know that the FDA took many years to even come up with the Proposed Rule, so I do not think it is at all unreasonable to allow the public more time to understand it and to comment on it. This is our only chance to voice our opinion and to provide feedback.

 My quality of life has greatly improved since I started using e-cigarettes as an alternative to combustible cigarettes and I firmly believe that they saved my life. I want to provide you with my story. I also want to respond to your questions with science and evidence so that you can take my comment into account. I realize that the FDA has the authority under 21 CFR 10.40 to extend this time frame and that the FDA has exercised this authority on numerous occasions in the past. I would therefore ask that you do so here, so that all stakeholders have the opportunity to provide their comments on this proposed regulation. Thank you, Kim Peyton