[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 91 (Thursday, May 13, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 26242-26245]
[FR Doc No: 2021-10056]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-91790; File Nos. SR-NYSE-2021-15, SR-NYSEAMER-2021-13,
SR-NYSEArca-2021-15, SR-NYSECHX-2021-04, SR-NYSENAT-2021-05]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; New York Stock Exchange LLC, NYSE
American LLC, NYSE Arca, Inc., NYSE Chicago, Inc., and NYSE National,
Inc.; Suspension of and Order Instituting Proceedings To Determine
Whether To Approve or Disapprove Proposed Rule Changes To Amend the Fee
Schedules Related to Co-Location

May 7, 2021.

I. Introduction

    On March 10, 2021, New York Stock Exchange LLC (``NYSE''), NYSE
American LLC (``NYSE American''), NYSE Arca, Inc. (``NYSE Arca''), NYSE
Chicago, Inc. (``NYSE Chicago''), and NYSE National, Inc. (``NYSE
National'') (collectively, the ``Exchanges'') each filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission (the ``Commission''), pursuant to
Section 19(b)(1) of the

Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4
thereunder,\2\ a proposed rule change to provide Users with access to
the systems and connectivity to the data feeds of several third parties
and establish associated fees.\3\ Each proposed rule change was
immediately effective upon filing with the Commission pursuant to
Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act.\4\ The proposed rule changes were
published for comment in the Federal Register on March 29, 2021.\5\ The
Commission received no comment letters on the proposals. Pursuant to
Section 19(b)(3)(C) of the Act,\6\ the Commission is hereby: (1)
Temporarily suspending File Nos. SR-NYSE-2021-15, SR-NYSEAMER-2021-13,
SR-NYSEArca-2021-15, SR-NYSECHX-2021-04, and SR-NYSENAT-2021-05; and
(2) instituting proceedings to determine whether to approve or
disapprove File Nos. SR-NYSE-2021-15, SR-NYSEAMER-2021-13, SR-NYSEArca-
2021-15, SR-NYSECHX-2021-04, and SR-NYSENAT-2021-05.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ See also infra note 11.
    \4\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \5\ See Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 91386 (March 23,
2021), 86 FR 16410 (March 29, 2021) (SR-NYSE-2021-15); 91387 (March
23, 2021), 86 FR 16417 (March 29, 2021) (SR-NYSEAMER-2021-13); 91388
(March 23, 2021), 86 FR 16433 (March 29, 2021) (SR-NYSEArca-2021-
15); 91390 (March 23, 2021), 86 FR 16424 (March 29, 2021) (SR-
NYSECHX-2021-04) (each, a ``Notice). For ease of reference, page
citations are to the Notice for NYSE-2021-15.
    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(C).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Description of the Proposed Rule Change

    The Exchanges, as part of their co-location services, offer Users
connectivity to the execution systems of third party markets and other
content service providers (``Third Party Systems''), and data feeds
from third party markets and other content service providers (``Third
Party Data Feeds'').\7\ The Exchanges charge fees for connectivity to
Third Party Systems and Third Party Data Feeds. The list of Third Party
Systems and Third Party Data Feeds and associated fees for connectivity
thereto are set forth in the Exchanges' fee schedules.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See Notice, supra note 5, at 16410. For purposes of the
Exchanges' co-location services, a ``User'' means any market
participant that requests to receive co-location services directly
from one or more of the Exchanges, and a User that incurs colocation
fees for a particular co-location service charged by one Exchange
would not be subject to co-location fees for the same co-location
service charged by the Exchange's affiliates. See id. at 16410 n.5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the instant filings, the Exchanges propose to offer and charge
fees for connectivity to several additional Third Party Systems and
Third Party Data Feeds. Specifically, the Exchanges propose to expand
their offerings to include connectivity to the systems of Long Term
Stock Exchange, Members Exchange (``MEMX''), MIAX Emerald, MIAX PEARL
Equities, Morgan Stanley, and TD Ameritrade, and (``Proposed Third
Party Systems'').\8\ The fees associated with these connections would
be determined by the bandwidth a User chooses.\9\ The Exchanges also
propose to expand their offerings to include connectivity to the data
feeds of MEMX, MIAX Emerald, MIAX PEARL Equities, and ICE Data
Services--ICE TMC (``Proposed Third Party Data Feeds).'' \10\ The
Exchanges propose to charge the following monthly connectivity fees for
each of the Proposed Third Party Data Feeds: $3,000 for Members
Exchange, $3,500 for MIAX Emerald, and $2,500 for MIAX PEARL Equities,
and $200 for ICE Data Services--ICE TMC.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See Notice, supra note 5, at 16410-11.
    \9\ The Exchanges' fee schedules set forth the current monthly
recurring fees per connection to Third Party Systems based on the
bandwidth of the connection: $200 for 1 Mb, $400 for 3 Mb, $500 for
5 Mb, $800 for 10 Mb, $1,200 for 25 Mb, $1,800 for 50 Mb, $2,500 for
100 Mb, $3,000 for 200 Mb, $3,500 for 1 Gb.
    \10\ Notice, supra note 5, at 16411. The Exchange represents
that the Proposed ICE TMC Third Party Data Feed is generated by ICE
Bonds, an indirect subsidiary of ICE, and includes market data for
the ICE TMC alternative trading system and that it does not include
market data of the Exchange or Affiliate SROs. Id. at 16411 n.7.
    \11\ Id. at 16411. The Exchanges also propose to amend the fee
schedules to change the name of the ``Miami International Securities
Exchange'' Third Party System to ``MIAX Options,'' to change the
name of the ``MIAX PEARL'' Third Party System to ``MIAX PEARL
Options,'' and to combine MIAX Options, MIAX PEARL Options, MIAX
PEARL Equities, and MIAX Emerald as a single Third Party System on
the fee schedules. The Exchanges further propose to remove obsolete
rule text from their co-location fee schedules: (i) The reference to
the ICE Data Global Index from the list of Third Party Data Feeds
available for connectivity in the fee schedules and to remove the
text noting that the Exchanges would inform customers that it would
cease offering connectivity to the ICE Data Global Index once it was
unavailable; and (ii) the reference in fee schedule indicating
waiver of the Hot Hands fees from the date of the closing of the
data center in Mahwah, New Jersey, through the date of the reopening
of the data center (which occurred on October 1, 2020). See Notice,
supra note 5, at 16411-16413.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Suspension of the Proposed Rule Change

    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(C) of the Act,\12\ at any time within
60 days of the date of filing of an immediately effective proposed rule
change pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Act,\13\ the Commission
summarily may temporarily suspend the change in the rules of a self-
regulatory organization (``SRO'') 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. As discussed below, the Commission believes a temporary
suspension of the proposed rule changes is necessary and appropriate to
allow for additional analysis of the proposed rule changes' consistency
with the Act and the rules thereunder.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(C).
    \13\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchanges provide various arguments in support of the proposed
fees for connections to the Proposed Third Party Data Systems and
Proposed Third Party Data Feeds. With respect to whether the proposed
fees are reasonable, the Exchanges argue that the market for access to
Third Party Data Systems and Third Party Data Feeds is competitive, and
that the availability of substitutes is a check on their ability to
charge unreasonable fees for these services.\14\ The Exchanges also
maintain that fees charged for co-location are constrained by active
competition for order flow of, and other business from, such market
participants.\15\ The Exchanges state that they compete with other
providers, including other colocation providers and market data
vendors, which may include Hosting Users.\16\ They state that they
understand that at least one other vendor currently offers the Proposed
MIAX Third Party Data Feeds, and that they are aware of no impediment
to third parties offering substitute services.\17\ The Exchanges also
state that if one or more third parties presently offer, or in the
future opt to offer, access and connectivity to Third Party Systems and
Third Party Data Feeds to Users, a User may utilize the IDS network, a
third party telecommunication network, a cross connect, or a
combination thereof to access such services and products through a
connection to an access center outside the data center (which could be
an IDS access center, a third-party access center, or both), another
User, or a third party vendor.\18\ The Exchanges also state that the
fees are reasonable because they allow the Exchanges to defray or cover
the costs of the data center facility hardware and technology
infrastructure necessary to provide connectivity to Users.\19\
Regarding differences in fees for the Proposed

Third Party Data Feeds, the Exchanges state that they can charge the
ICE TMC Third Party Data Feed a lower price because they can offer the
feed over their established connection with less effort, since they
already offer several Third Party Data Feeds supplied by ICE Data
Service.\20\ They state that they must establish and maintain
connections to the exchanges for the other proposed Third Party Data
Feeds,\21\ and that MIAX charges separate fees to the Exchange to
become a distributor of each of its data feed products, and that the
distribution fees that the Exchange must pay to MIAX are higher for the
proposed MIAX Emerald Third Party Data Feed than for the proposed MIAX
PEARL Equities Third Party Data Feed.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ See Notice, supra note 5, at 16414.
    \15\ See id. at 16414 and 16416.
    \16\ See id.
    \17\ See id. at 16414.
    \18\ See id. at 16415.
    \19\ See id. at 16414.
    \20\ See id.
    \21\ See id.
    \22\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, the Exchanges state that the proposed fees are
equitably allocated and not unfairly discriminatory because they would
apply to all Users equally, the proposed services are voluntary, and
Users would only be charged if they opted to use them.\23\ Further, the
Exchanges state that the proposals do not impose a burden on
competition that is not necessary or appropriate because they offer
choice and reflects the competitive environment.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ See id. at 16415.
    \24\ See id. at 16416.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    When exchanges file their proposed rule changes with the
Commission, including fee filings, they are required to provide a
statement supporting the proposal's basis under the Act and the rules
and regulations thereunder applicable to the exchange.\25\ The
instructions to Form 19b-4, on which exchanges file their proposed rule
changes, specify that such statement ``should be sufficiently detailed
and specific to support a finding that the proposed rule change is
consistent with [those] requirements'' \26\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ See 17 CFR 240.19b-4 (Item 3 entitled ``Self-Regulatory
Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis for,
the Proposed Rule Change'').
    \26\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Section 6 of the Act, including Sections 6(b)(4), (5), and (8),
require the rules of an exchange to: (1) Provide for the equitable
allocation of reasonable fees among members, issuers, and other persons
using the exchange's facilities; \27\ (2) perfect the mechanism of a
free and open market and a national market system, protect investors
and the public interest, and not be designed to permit unfair
discrimination between customers, issuers, brokers, or dealers; \28\
and (3) not impose any burden on competition not necessary or
appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.\29\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).
    \28\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
    \29\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(8).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In temporarily suspending the Exchanges' proposed rule changes, the
Commission intends to further consider whether the proposed fees for
connections to the Proposed Third Party Data Systems and the Proposed
Third Party Data Feeds are consistent with the statutory requirements
applicable to a national securities exchange under the Act. In
particular, the Commission will consider whether the proposed rule
changes satisfy the standards under the Act and the rules thereunder
requiring, among other things, that an exchange's rules provide for the
equitable allocation of reasonable fees among members, issuers, and
other persons using its facilities; are designed to perfect the
operation of a free and open market and a national market system, and
to protect investors and the public interest; are not designed to
permit unfair discrimination between customers, issuers, brokers or
dealers; and do not impose any burden on competition not necessary or
appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.\30\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \30\ See 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4), (5), and (8), respectively.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Therefore, the Commission finds that it is appropriate in the
public interest, for the protection of investors, and otherwise in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act, to temporarily suspend the
proposed rule changes.\31\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \31\ For purposes of temporarily suspending the proposed rule
change, the Commission has considered the proposed rule's impact on
efficiency, competition, and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C.
78c(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Proceedings To Determine Whether To Approve or Disapprove the
Proposed Rule Changes

    In addition to temporarily suspending the proposals, the Commission
also hereby institutes proceedings pursuant to Sections 19(b)(3)(C)
\32\ and 19(b)(2)(B) of the Act \33\ to determine whether the Exchanges
proposed rule changes should be approved or disapproved. Institution of
proceedings does not indicate that the Commission has reached any
conclusions with respect to any of the issues involved. Rather, the
Commission seeks and encourages interested persons to provide
additional comment on the proposed rule changes to inform the
Commission's analysis of whether to approve or disapprove the proposed
rule changes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \32\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(C). Once the Commission temporarily
suspends a proposed rule change, Section 19(b)(3)(C) of the Act
requires that the Commission institute proceedings under Section
19(b)(2)(B) to determine whether a proposed rule change should be
approved or disapproved.
    \33\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2)(B).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(2)(B) of the Act,\34\ the Commission is
providing notice of the grounds for possible disapproval under
consideration:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \34\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2)(B). Section 19(b)(2)(B) of the Act also
provides that proceedings to determine whether to disapprove a
proposed rule change must be concluded within 180 days of the date
of publication of notice of the filing of the proposed rule change.
See id. The time for conclusion of the proceedings may be extended
for up to 60 days if the Commission finds good cause for such
extension and publishes its reasons for so finding, or if the
exchange consents to the longer period. See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Whether the Exchanges have demonstrated how the proposed
fees are consistent with Section 6(b)(4) of the Act, which requires
that the rules of a national securities exchange ``provide for the
equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees, and other charges among
its members and issuers and other persons using its facilities''; \35\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \35\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Whether the Exchanges have demonstrated how the proposed
fees are consistent with Section 6(b)(5) of the Act, which requires,
among other things, that the rules of a national securities exchange
not be ``designed to permit unfair discrimination between customers,
issuers, brokers, or dealers''; \36\ and
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \36\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Whether the Exchanges have demonstrated how the proposed
fees are consistent with Section 6(b)(8) of the Act, which requires
that the rules of a national securities exchange ``not impose any
burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of
the purposes of [the Act].'' \37\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \37\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(8).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As discussed in Section III above, the Exchanges argue that the
fees proposed for connectivity to the Proposed Third Party Data Systems
and Proposed Third Party Data Feeds are constrained by competition, and
allow the Exchanges to defray or cover the costs of offering the
services. The Commission believes that there are questions as to
whether the Exchanges have provided sufficient information to
demonstrate that the proposals, including in particular the fees for
connectivity to the Proposed Third Party Systems and Proposed Third
Party Data Feeds, are consistent with the Act.
    Under the Commission's Rules of Practice, the ``burden to
demonstrate that a proposed rule change is consistent with the [Act]
and the rules

and regulations issued thereunder . . . is on the [SRO] that proposed
the rule change.'' \38\ The description of a proposed rule change, its
purpose and operation, its effect, and a legal analysis of its
consistency with applicable requirements must all be sufficiently
detailed and specific to support an affirmative Commission finding,\39\
and any failure of an SRO to provide this information may result in the
Commission not having a sufficient basis to make an affirmative finding
that a proposed rule change is consistent with the Act and the
applicable rules and regulations.\40\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \38\ 17 CFR 201.700(b)(3).
    \39\ See id.
    \40\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission is instituting proceedings to allow for additional
consideration and comment on the issues raised herein, including as to
whether the proposed fees are consistent with the Act, and
specifically, with its requirements that the rules of a national
securities exchange provide for the equitable allocation of reasonable
dues, fees, and other charges among its members, issuers, and other
persons using its facilities; are designed to perfect the operation of
a free and open market and a national market system, and to protect
investors and the public interest; are not designed to permit unfair
discrimination between customers, issuers, brokers, or dealers; and do
not impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or
appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act; as well as any
other provision of the Act, or the rules and regulations thereunder.

V. Commission's Solicitation of Comments

    The Commission requests written views, data, and arguments with
respect to the concerns identified above as well as any other relevant
concerns. Such comments should be submitted by June 3, 2021. Rebuttal
comments should be submitted by June 17, 2021. Although there do not
appear to be any issues relevant to approval or disapproval which would
be facilitated by an oral presentation of views, data, and arguments,
the Commission will consider, pursuant to Rule 19b-4, any request for
an opportunity to make an oral presentation.\41\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \41\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2). Section 19(b)(2) of the Act grants the
Commission flexibility to determine what type of proceeding--either
oral or notice and opportunity for written comments--is appropriate
for consideration of a particular proposal by an SRO. See Securities
Acts Amendments of 1975, Report of the Senate Committee on Banking,
Housing and Urban Affairs to Accompany S. 249, S. Rep. No. 75, 94th
Cong., 1st Sess. 30 (1975).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission asks that commenters address the sufficiency and
merit of the Exchange's statements in support of the proposals, in
addition to any other comments they may wish to submit about the
proposed rule changes.
    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and
arguments concerning the proposed rule changes, 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 Nos. SR-NYSE-2021-15, SR-NYSEAMER-2021-13, SR-NYSEArca-2021-15,
SR-NYSECHX-2021-04, and SR-NYSENAT-2021-05 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 Nos. SR-NYSE-2021-15, SR-NYSEAMER-
2021-13, SR-NYSEArca-2021-15, SR-NYSECHX-2021-04, and SR-NYSENAT-2021-
05. The 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 such filing also will be
available for inspection and copying at the principal office of the
Exchange. All comments received will be posted without change. 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 publicly available. All
submissions should refer to File Nos. SR-NYSE-2021-15, SR-NYSEAMER-
2021-13, SR-NYSEArca-2021-15, SR-NYSECHX-2021-04, and SR-NYSENAT-2021-
05 and should be submitted on or before June 3, 2021. Rebuttal comments
should be submitted by June 17, 2021.

VI. Conclusion

    It is therefore ordered, pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(C) of the
Act,\42\ that File Nos. SR-NYSE-2021-15, SR-NYSEAMER-2021-13, SR-
NYSEArca-2021-15, SR-NYSECHX-2021-04, and SR-NYSENAT-2021-05, be and
hereby are, temporarily suspended. In addition, the Commission is
instituting proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule changes
should be approved or disapproved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \42\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(C).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\43\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \43\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(57) and (58).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Jill M. Peterson,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2021-10056 Filed 5-12-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 78 (Monday, April 24, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Pages 24839-24842]
[FR Doc No: 2023-08523]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-97319; File No. SR-CboeBZX-2023-023]

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

April 18, 2023.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the ``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given
that on April 3, 2023, Cboe BZX Exchange, Inc. (the ``Exchange'' or
``BZX'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the
``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I, II,
and III below, which Items have been prepared by the Exchange. The
Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the
proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

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

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to amend its Fee Schedule, effective April 3,
2023.
    The Exchange first notes that it operates in a highly competitive
market in which market participants can readily direct order flow to
competing venues if they deem fee levels at a particular venue to be
excessive or incentives to be insufficient. More specifically, the
Exchange is only one of 16 options venues to which market participants
may direct their order flow. Based on publicly available information,
no single options exchange has more than 17% of the market share and
currently the Exchange represents only approximately 5% of the market
share.\3\ Thus, in such a low-concentrated and highly competitive
market, no single options exchange, including the Exchange, possesses
significant pricing power in the execution of option order flow. The
Exchange believes that the ever-shifting market share among the
exchanges from month to month demonstrates that market participants can
shift order flow or discontinue to reduce use of certain categories of
products, in response to fee changes. Accordingly, competitive forces
constrain the Exchange's transaction fees, and market participants can
readily trade on competing venues if they deem pricing levels at those
other venues to be more favorable.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See Cboe Global Markets U.S. Options Market Monthly Volume
Summary (March 28, 2023), available at https://www.cboe.com/us/options/market_statistics/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange's Fee Schedule sets forth standard rebates and rates
applied per contract. For example, the Exchange provides a rebate of
$0.29 per contract for Market Maker orders that add liquidity in Penny
Securities, yielding fee code PM. The Fee Codes and

Associated Fees section of the Fees Schedule also provide for certain
fee codes associated with certain order types and market participants
that provide for various other fees or rebates. Additionally, the Fee
Schedule offers tiered pricing which provides Members \4\ opportunities
to qualify for higher rebates or reduced fees where certain volume
criteria and thresholds are met. In response to the competitive
environment, the Exchange also offers tiered pricing, which provides
Members with opportunities to qualify for higher rebates or reduced
fees where certain volume criteria and thresholds are met. Tiered
pricing provides an incremental incentive for Members to strive for
higher tier levels, which provides increasingly higher benefits or
discounts for satisfying increasingly more stringent criteria.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See Exchange Rule 1.5(n).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange proposes to update the Market Maker Penny Add Volume
Tiers (i.e., applicable to orders yielding fee code PM) set forth in
footnote 6 of the Fee Schedule. The Exchange currently provides
opportunities for rebates per contract to add liquidity in Penny
Securities as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ ``ADAV'' means average daily added volume calculated as the
number of contracts added.
    \6\ ``OCC Customer Volume'' or ``OCV'' means the total equity
and ETF options volume that clears in the Customer range at the
Options Clearing Corporation (``OCC'') for the month for which the
fees apply, excluding volume on any day that the Exchange
experiences an Exchange System Disruption and on any day with a
scheduled early market close.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                              Rebate per
          Tier             contract to add        Required criteria
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tier 1..................            ($0.31)  Member has an ADAV \5\ in
                                              Market Maker orders
                                              >=0.15% of average OCV.\6\
Tier 2..................             (0.38)  Member has an ADAV in
                                              Market Maker orders
                                              >=0.25% of average OCV.
Tier 3..................             (0.39)  Member has an ADAV in
                                              Market Maker orders
                                              >=0.40% of average OCV.
Tier 4..................             (0.40)  (1) Member has an ADAV in
                                              Market Maker orders
                                              >=0.45% of average OCV;
                                              and
                                             (2) Member has a Step-Up
                                              ADRV in Customer orders
                                              >=0.05% of OCV from
                                              December 2022.
Tier 5..................             (0.43)  Member has an ADAV in
                                              Market Maker orders
                                              >=0.60% of average OCV.
Tier 6..................             (0.44)  (1) Member has an ADAV in
                                              Market Maker orders
                                              >=0.75% of average OCV;
                                              and
                                             (2) Member has an ADRV in
                                              Customer orders >=0.50% of
                                              average OCV.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange proposes to amend these tiers to add new Tier 5 to
provide a rebate of $0.41 per contract to add liquidity if a Member has
(1) an ADAV in Market Maker orders greater than or equal to 0.50% of
average OCV; and (2) a Step-Up ADAV in Market Maker orders in SPY
greater than or equal to 0.05% of average OCV from December 2022.\7\
The Exchange also proposes a corresponding non-substantive amendment to
update current Tiers 5 and 6 to Tiers 6 and 7, respectively.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ The Exchange proposes to add this tier as described in the
table in Footnote 6 and amend the amounts of the rebates in the
Standard Rates table.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the ``Act'') and the rules and
regulations thereunder applicable to the Exchange and, in particular,
the requirements of Section 6(b) of the Act.\8\ Specifically, the
Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with the
Section 6(b)(5) \9\ requirements that the rules of an exchange be
designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to
promote just and equitable principles of trade, to foster cooperation
and coordination with persons engaged in regulating, clearing,
settling, processing information with respect to, and facilitating
transactions in securities, to remove impediments to and perfect the
mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system, and,
in general, to protect investors and the public interest. Additionally,
the Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with the
Section 6(b)(5) \10\ requirement that the rules of an exchange not be
designed to permit unfair discrimination between customers, issuers,
brokers, or dealers. The Exchange also believes the proposed rule
change is consistent with Section 6(b)(4) of the Act,\11\ which
requires that Exchange rules provide for the equitable allocation of
reasonable dues, fees, and other charges among its Trading Permit
Holders and other persons using its facilities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
    \10\ Id.
    \11\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As described above, the Exchange operates in a highly competitive
market in which market participants can readily direct order flow to
competing venues if they deem fee levels at a particular venue to be
excessive or incentives to be insufficient. The proposed rule change
reflects a competitive pricing structure designed to incentivize market
participants to direct their order flow to the Exchange, which the
Exchange believes would enhance market quality to the benefit of all
Members. Additionally, competing exchanges offer similar tiered pricing
structures, including schedules of rebates and fees that apply based
upon similarly situated members achieving certain volume and/or growth
thresholds, as well as assess similar fees or rebates for similar types
of orders, to that of the Exchange.
    The Exchange believes adding new Tier 5 to the Market Maker Penny
Add Volume Tiers is reasonable as it is designed to encourage Market
Makers to increase their order flow to the Exchange to achieve the
proposed tier. More specifically, the Exchange believes that adopting a
new tier may encourage Members to increase their ADAV in Market Makers
orders, including in SPY, over a modestly higher percentage of average
OCV, and that reducing the difficulty of achieving an existing tier
offers alternative criteria to the Market Maker Penny Add Volume Tiers,
as restructured, for Members to strive to achieve by submitting the
requisite add volume order flow. An increase in Market Maker add
volume, particularly, facilitates tighter spreads and an increase in
overall liquidity provider activity, both of which signal additional
corresponding increase in order flow from other market participants,
contributing towards a robust, well-balanced market ecosystem. Indeed,
increased overall order flow benefits investors by continuing to deepen
the Exchange's liquidity pool, potentially providing even greater
execution incentives and opportunities, offering additional flexibility
for all investors to enjoy cost savings, supporting the quality of
price discovery, promoting market transparency and improving investor
protection.
    The Exchange also believes that the proposed criteria and rebate in
new Tier 5 reasonably reflect the incremental difficulty in achieving
the remaining

Market Maker Penny Add Volume Tiers, and are in line with the criteria
and enhanced rebates offered under the remaining Market Maker Penny Add
Volume Tiers.
    The Exchange believes the proposed change is also equitable and not
unfairly discriminatory because it applies uniformly to all Members,
who will have the opportunity to meet the new tier's criteria and
receive the corresponding rebate for the tier if such criteria is met.
Without having a view of activity on other markets and off-exchange
venues, the Exchange has no way of knowing whether these proposed
changes would definitely result in any Members qualifying for the
proposed rebates. While the Exchange has no way of predicting with
certainty how the proposed changes will impact Member activity, based
on trading activity from the prior months, the Exchange anticipates
that up to two Members will achieve new Tier 5. Additionally, all
Members are able to increase their Market Maker order flow to attempt
to achieve the new tier. Should a Member not meet the proposed new
criteria, the Member will merely not receive that corresponding
enhanced rebate.

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate
in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The Exchange believes the
proposal to amend the Market Maker Penny Add Volume Tiers does not
impose any burden on intramarket competition that is not necessary or
appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act, as they will
apply to all Members and all Members will continue to have an
opportunity to receive rebates through the program. All Market Maker
Volume Add Tiers are generally designed to increase the competitiveness
of BZX and incentivize participants to increase their order flow on the
Exchange, providing for additional execution opportunities for market
participants and improved price transparency. An overall increase in
add activity may provide for deeper, more liquid markets and execution
opportunities at improved prices. Furthermore, greater overall order
flow, trading opportunities, and pricing transparency benefit all
market participants on the Exchange by enhancing market quality and
continuing to encourage Members to send orders, thereby contributing
towards a robust and well-balanced market ecosystem.
    The Exchange also believes the proposed rule change does not impose
any burden on intermarket competition that is not necessary or
appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. As previously
discussed, the Exchange operates in a highly competitive market.
Members have numerous alternative venues they may participate on and
direct their order flow, including 15 other options exchanges.
Additionally, the Exchange represents a small percentage of the overall
market. Based on publicly available information, no single options
exchange has more than 17% of the market share. Therefore, no exchange
possesses significant pricing power in the execution of order flow.
Indeed, participants can readily choose to send their orders to other
exchanges if they deem fee levels at those other venues to be more
favorable. Moreover, 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.'' The fact that
this market is competitive has also long been recognized by the courts.
In NetCoalition v. Securities and Exchange Commission, the D.C. Circuit
stated as follows: ``[n]o one disputes that competition for order flow
is `fierce.' . . . As the SEC explained, `[i]n the U.S. national market
system, buyers and sellers of securities, and the broker-dealers that
act as their order-routing agents, have a wide range of choices of
where to route orders for execution'; [and] `no exchange can afford to
take its market share percentages for granted' because `no exchange
possesses a monopoly, regulatory or otherwise, in the execution of
order flow from broker dealers'. . . .''. Accordingly, the Exchange
does not believe its proposed fee change imposes any burden on
competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the
purposes of the Act.

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

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

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

    The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act \12\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(2) \13\ thereunder.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii).
    \13\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule
change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule
change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or
appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or
otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission
takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings to
determine whether the proposed rule change should be approved or
disapproved.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to [email protected]. Please include
File Number SR-CboeBZX-2023-023 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-CboeBZX-2023-023. 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-CboeBZX-2023-023 and should
be submitted on or before May 15, 2023.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sherry R. Haywood,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2023-08523 Filed 4-21-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: March 15, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 50)]
[Notices]
[Page 13439]
[DOCID:fr15mr06-180]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[File No. 1-14625]

Issuer Delisting; Notice of Application of Host Marriott
Corporation To Withdraw Its Common Stock, $.01 Par Value and Purchase
Share Rights for Series A Junior Participating Preferred Stock, $.01
Par Value, From Listing and Registration on the Pacific Exchange, Inc.

March 9, 2006.
    On March 3, 2006, Host Marriott Corporation, a Maryland corporation
(``Issuer''), filed an application with the Securities and Exchange
Commission (``Commission''), pursuant to Section 12(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (``Act'') \1\ and Rule 12d2-2(d)
thereunder,\2\ to withdraw its common stock, $.01 par value, and
purchase share rights for series A junior participating preferred
stock, $.01 par value (collectively ``Securities''), from listing and
registration on the Pacific Exchange, Inc. (``PCX'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78l(d).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.12d2-2(d).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Board of Directors (``Board'') approved resolutions on February
9, 2006, to delist the Securities from listing and registration on PCX.
The Issuer stated that the following reasons factored into the Board's
decision: (i) There is very little activity in the Securities on PCX;
(ii) the low trading volume of the Securities on PCX does not justify
the expense of continued listing, and such continued listing is
considered by the Board to be a misuse of corporate resources; and
(iii) the Securities are listed on the New York Stock Exchange, Inc.
(``NYSE'') and will continue to be listed on NYSE.
    The Issuer stated in its application that it has complied with
applicable rules of PCX by complying with all applicable laws in effect
in the State of Maryland, the state in which it is incorporated, and by
providing PCX with the required documents governing the withdrawal of
securities from listing and registration on PCX.
    The Issuer's application relates solely to the withdrawal of the
Securities from listing on PCX and shall not affect their continued
listing on NYSE, the Chicago Stock Exchange, Inc. (``CHX''),\3\ or
their obligation to be registered under Section 12(b) of the Act.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The Issuer filed an application with the Commission to
withdraw the Securities from listing and registration on CHX on
March 3, 2006. Notice of such application will be published
separately.
    \4\ 15 U.S.C. 78l(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Any interested person may, on or before April 3, 2006, comment on
the facts bearing upon whether the application has been made in
accordance with the rules of PCX, and what terms, if any, should be
imposed by the Commission for the protection of investors. All comment
letters may be submitted by either of the following methods:

Electronic Comments

     Send an e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
the File Number 1-14625 or;

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number 1-14625. This file number
should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used. To help us
process and review your comments more efficiently, please use only one
method. The Commission will post all comments on the Commission's
Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/delist.shtml). Comments are

also available for public inspection and copying in the Commission's
Public Reference Room. All comments received will be posted without
change; we do not edit personal identifying information from
submissions. You should submit only information that you wish to make
available publicly.
    The Commission, based on the information submitted to it, will
issue an order granting the application after the date mentioned above,
unless the Commission determines to order a hearing on the matter.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation,
pursuant to delegated authority.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Nancy M. Morris,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E6-3696 Filed 3-14-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 197 (Friday, October 13, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Pages 71043-71046]
[FR Doc No: 2023-22507]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-98693; File No. SR-NYSEARCA-2023-69]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE Arca, Inc.; Notice of Filing
and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Modify the NYSE
Arca Options Fee Schedule

October 5, 2023.
    Pursuant to section 19(b)(1) \1\ of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 (``Act'') \2\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\3\ notice is hereby given
that, on September 29, 2023, NYSE Arca, Inc. (``NYSE Arca'' or the
``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the
``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I and II
below, which Items have been prepared by the self-regulatory
organization. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit
comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange proposes to modify the NYSE Arca Options Fee Schedule
(``Fee Schedule'') regarding the Customer Incentive Program and Market
Maker Penny and SPY Posting Credit Tiers. The Exchange proposes to
implement the fee change effective October 2, 2023.

The proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's website at
www.nyse.com, at the principal office of the Exchange, and at the
Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    The purpose of this filing is to amend the Fee Schedule to modify
certain qualifying bases for the Customer Incentive Program and the
Market Maker Penny and SPY Posting Credit Tiers (the ``Market Maker
Posting Credit Tiers''). The Exchange proposes to implement the rule
change on October 2, 2023.
Customer Incentive Program
    The Customer Incentive Program offers OTP Holders and OTP Firms
(collectively, ``OTP Holders'') an additional ($0.03) credit on
Customer Posting Credits if they achieve one of two qualifying
criteria.\4\ Currently, an OTP Holder may earn this credit by achieving
either (1) an ADV from Market Maker total electronic volume of at least
0.60% of TCADV, plus at least 0.10% of TCADV from Customer posted
interest in non-Penny issues, or (2) at least 0.30% of TCADV from
Customer posted interest in all issues, not including Professional
Customer interest, plus executed ADV of 0.60% of U.S. equity market
share posted and executed on the NYSE Arca Equities [sic] market.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See Fee Schedule, Customer Incentive Program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange proposes to modify the first of these qualifications
by increasing the required amount of Market Maker total electronic
volume to at least 1.00% of TCADV and eliminating any required volume
from Customer posted interest. The Exchange does not propose any
changes to the second qualifying basis for the Customer Incentive
Program or to the amount of the credit available to qualifying OTP
Holders, which will remain at ($0.03). In addition, OTP Holders would
continue to be eligible to earn only one ($0.03) credit through the
Customer Incentive Program.
    The Exchange cannot predict with certainty whether any OTP Holders
would seek to qualify for the Customer Incentive Program, but believes
that the proposed change would continue to encourage OTP Holders to
direct Market Maker interest to the Exchange to earn an additional
credit on the Customer Posting Credits. Although the proposed change
would increase the level of Market Maker posted interest required to
qualify for the additional credit, it would also remove the Customer
posted interest component of the qualification, which could make
earning the credit more achievable for OTP Holders.
Market Maker Posting Credit Tiers
    The Exchange currently offers qualifying OTP Holders tiered credits
on electronic executions of Market Maker posted interest in Penny
issues and SPY through the Market Maker Posting Credit Tiers.\5\
Currently, an OTP Holder may qualify for Super Tier II of the Market
Maker Posting Credit Tiers by achieving at least 0.10% of TCADV from
Market Maker posted interest in all issues, plus ETP Holder and Market
Maker posted volume in Tape B securities that is equal to at least
1.50% of US Tape B consolidated average daily volume (``CADV'') for the
billing month executed on NYSE Arca Equities [sic] market. The Exchange
proposes to modify this qualification for Super Tier II to require at
least 0.15% of TCADV from Market Maker posted interest in all issues,
plus ETP Holder and Market Maker Tape B adding ADV that is equal to at
least 1.40% of US Tape B CADV for the billing month executed on NYSE
Arca Equities [sic] market.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See Fee Schedule, Market Maker Penny and Spy Posting Credit
Tiers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange does not propose any changes to the amounts of the
credits available to OTP Holders that qualify for Super Tier II or to
any of the other qualifications for or credits offered through the
Market Maker Posting Tiers.
    Although the Exchange cannot predict with certainty whether any OTP
Holders would seek to qualify for the Market Maker Posting Credit
Tiers, the Exchange believes that the proposed change would continue to
encourage OTP Holders to direct Market Maker interest to the Exchange
to earn the credits offered in Super Tier II. In addition, although the
proposed change would increase the level of Market Maker posted
interest required to qualify for Super Tier II, it would also reduce
the requirement for posted volume in Tape B securities, which could
make the incentive more achievable for OTP Holders.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with section 6(b) of the Act,\6\ in general, and furthers the
objectives of sections 6(b)(4) and (5) of the Act,\7\ in particular,
because it provides for the equitable allocation of reasonable dues,
fees, and other charges among its members, issuers and other persons
using its facilities and does not unfairly discriminate between
customers, issuers, brokers or dealers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4) and (5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Proposed Rule Change Is Reasonable
    The Exchange operates in a highly competitive market. 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.'' \8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 51808 (June 9,
2005), 70 FR 37496, 37499 (June 29, 2005) (S7-10-04) (``Reg NMS
Adopting Release'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    There are currently 16 registered options exchanges competing for
order flow. Based on publicly-available information, and excluding
index-based options, no single exchange has more than 16% of the market
share of executed volume of multiply-listed equity and ETF options
trades.\9\ Therefore, no exchange possesses significant pricing power
in the execution of multiply-listed equity and ETF options order flow.
More specifically, in August 2023, the Exchange had less than 12%
market share of executed volume of multiply-listed equity and ETF
options trades.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ The OCC publishes options and futures volume in a variety of
formats, including daily and monthly volume by exchange, available
here: https://www.theocc.com/Market-Data/Market-Data-Reports/Volume-and-Open-Interest/Monthly-Weekly-Volume-Statistics.
    \10\ Based on a compilation of OCC data for monthly volume of
equity-based options and monthly volume of equity-based ETF options,
see id., the Exchange's market share in equity-based options
increased slightly from 11.36% for the month of August 2022 to
11.37% for the month of August 2023.

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

    The Exchange believes that the ever-shifting market share among the
exchanges from month to month demonstrates that market participants can
shift order flow, or discontinue or reduce use of certain categories of
products, in response to fee changes. Accordingly, competitive forces
constrain options exchange transaction fees. Stated otherwise,
modifications to exchange transaction fees can have a direct effect on
the ability of an exchange to compete for order flow.
    The Exchange believes that the proposed changes to the qualifying
criteria for the Customer Incentive Program and Market Maker Posting
Credit Tiers are reasonable because they are intended to continue to
incent OTP Holders to direct interest to the Exchange (and, in
particular, Customer and Market Maker posted interest) in order to
benefit from the credits offered through the Customer Incentive Program
and Market Maker Posting Credit Tiers. Although the proposed changes
would increase certain of the requirements to qualify for the credits
offered through these programs, the proposed changes would also reduce
or eliminate certain other requirements; accordingly, the Exchange
believes that the proposed changes would not discourage OTP Holders
from seeking to qualify for the credits and could instead make the
credits more attainable for OTP Holders.
    To the extent the proposed rule change attracts greater volume and
liquidity by encouraging OTP Holders to increase their options volume
on the Exchange, the Exchange believes the proposed change would
improve the Exchange's overall competitiveness and strengthen its
market quality for all market participants. In the backdrop of the
competitive environment in which the Exchange operates, the proposed
rule change is a reasonable attempt by the Exchange to increase the
depth of its market and improve its market share relative to its
competitors.
The Proposed Rule Change Is an Equitable Allocation of Credits and Fees
    The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is an equitable
allocation of its fees and credits. The proposal is based on the amount
and type of business transacted on the Exchange, and OTP Holders can
attempt to qualify for the Customer Incentive Program and Market Maker
Posting Credit Tiers or not. Moreover, the proposal is designed to
incent OTP Holders to continue to direct Customer and Market Maker
interest to the Exchange and to aggregate such interest at the Exchange
as a primary execution venue. To the extent that the proposed change
attracts more opportunities for execution of Customer or Market Maker
interest on the Exchange, this increased order flow would continue to
make the Exchange a more competitive venue for order execution. Thus,
the Exchange believes the proposed rule change would improve market
quality for all market participants on the Exchange and, as a
consequence, attract more order flow to the Exchange thereby improving
market-wide quality and price discovery.
The Proposed Rule Change Is Not Unfairly Discriminatory
    The Exchange believes the proposed changes to the Customer
Incentive Program and Market Maker Posting Credit Tiers are not
unfairly discriminatory because they would apply to all similarly-
situated market participants on an equal and non-discriminatory basis.
The proposal is based on the amount and type of business transacted on
the Exchange, and OTP Holders are not obligated to try to achieve the
proposed qualifications to earn the credits, nor are they obligated to
execute posted interest. To the extent that the proposed changes
attract more interest, including Customer and Market Maker posting
interest, to the Exchange, this increased order flow would continue to
make the Exchange a more competitive venue for order execution. Thus,
the Exchange believes the proposed rule change would improve market
quality for all market participants on the Exchange and, as a
consequence, attract more order flow to the Exchange thereby improving
market-wide quality and price discovery. The resulting increased volume
and liquidity would provide more trading opportunities and tighter
spreads to all market participants and thus would promote just and
equitable principles of trade, remove impediments to and perfect the
mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system and,
in general, to protect investors and the public interest.
    Finally, the Exchange believes that it is subject to significant
competitive forces, as described below in the Exchange's statement
regarding the burden on competition.

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

    In accordance with section 6(b)(8) of the Act, the Exchange does
not believe that the proposed rule change would impose any burden on
competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the
purposes of the Act. Instead, as discussed above, the Exchange believes
that the proposed change would encourage the submission of additional
liquidity to a public exchange, thereby promoting market depth, price
discovery and transparency and enhancing order execution opportunities
for all market participants. As a result, the Exchange believes that
the proposed change furthers the Commission's goal in adopting
Regulation NMS of fostering integrated competition among orders, which
promotes ``more efficient pricing of individual stocks for all types of
orders, large and small.'' \11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See Reg NMS Adopting Release, supra note 8, at 37499.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Intramarket Competition. The proposed changes are designed to
attract additional order flow to the Exchange, including both Customer
and Market Maker posting interest. The Exchange believes that the
proposed changes would continue to incent OTP Holders to direct order
flow to the Exchange in order to qualify for the Customer Incentive
Program and Market Maker Posting Credit Tiers. Greater liquidity
benefits all market participants on the Exchange and increased order
flow would increase opportunities for execution of other trading
interest. The proposed changes to the qualifications for the Customer
Incentive Program and Market Maker Posting Credit Tiers would apply to
all similarly-situated market participants and, accordingly, the
proposed change would not impose a disparate burden on competition
among market participants on the Exchange.
    Intermarket Competition. The Exchange operates in a highly
competitive market in which market participants can readily favor one
of the 16 competing option exchanges if they deem fee levels at a
particular venue to be excessive. In such an environment, the Exchange
must continually adjust its fees to remain competitive with other
exchanges and to attract order flow to the Exchange. Based on publicly-
available information, and excluding index-based options, no single
exchange has more than 16% of the market share of executed volume of
multiply-listed equity and ETF options trades.\12\ Therefore, currently
no exchange possesses significant pricing power in the execution of
multiply-listed equity and ETF options order flow. More specifically,
in August 2023, the

Exchange had less than 12% market share of executed volume of multiply-
listed equity and ETF options trades.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ The OCC publishes options and futures volume in a variety
of formats, including daily and monthly volume by exchange,
available here: https://www.theocc.com/Market-Data/Market-Data-Reports/Volume-and-Open-Interest/Monthly-Weekly-Volume-Statistics.
    \13\ Based on a compilation of OCC data for monthly volume of
equity-based options and monthly volume of equity-based ETF options,
see id., the Exchange's market share in equity-based options
increased slightly from 11.36% for the month of August 2022 to
11.37% for the month of August 2023.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change reflects this
competitive environment because it modifies the Exchange's fees in a
manner designed to continue to incent OTP Holders to direct Customer
and Market Maker posted interest to the Exchange, to provide liquidity
and to attract order flow. To the extent that this purpose is achieved,
all the Exchange's market participants should benefit from the improved
market quality and increased opportunities for price improvement.

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) \14\ of the Act and subparagraph (f)(2) of Rule
19b-4 \15\ thereunder, because it establishes a due, fee, or other
charge imposed by the Exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \15\ 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) \16\ of the Act to determine whether the proposed
rule change should be approved or disapproved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ 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 (https://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to [email protected]. Please include
file number SR-NYSEARCA-2023-69 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-NYSEARCA-2023-69.
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 (https://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 a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available
for inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. Do
not include personal identifiable information in submissions; you
should submit only information that you wish to make available
publicly. We may redact in part or withhold entirely from publication
submitted material that is obscene or subject to copyright protection.
All submissions should refer to file number SR-NYSEARCA-2023-69 and
should be submitted on or before November 3, 2023.

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

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

Sherry R. Haywood,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2023-22507 Filed 10-12-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 85 (Wednesday, May 2, 2012)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 25953-25954]
[FR Doc No: 2012-10340]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R03-OAR-2012-0271; FRL-9664-1]

Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
Maryland; Removal of the 1980 Consent Order for the Maryland Slag
Company

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA proposes to approve the State Implementation Plan (SIP)
revision submitted by the Maryland Department of Environment to revise
the Maryland State Implementation Plan (SIP). The revision removes a
1980 Consent Order issued to the Maryland Slag Company (now known as
MultServ). The 1980 Consent Order is no longer required to satisfy
applicable Federal regulations and the Clean Air Act (CAA). In the
Final Rules section of this Federal Register, EPA is approving the
State's SIP submittal as a direct final rule without prior proposal
because the Agency views this as a noncontroversial submittal and
anticipates no adverse comments. A detailed rationale for the approval
is set forth in the direct final rule. If no adverse comments are
received in response to this action, no further activity is
contemplated. If EPA receives adverse comments, the direct final rule
will be withdrawn and all public comments received will be addressed in
a subsequent final rule based on this proposed rule. EPA will not
institute a second comment period. Any parties interested in commenting
on this action should do so at this time.

DATES: Comments must be received in writing by June 1, 2012.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID Number EPA-
R03-OAR-2012-0271 by one of the following methods:
    A. www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line instructions for
submitting comments.
    B. Email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    C. Mail: EPA-R03-OAR-2012-0271, Marcia L. Spink, Associate Director
for Policy and Science, Mailcode 3AP00, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch Street Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103.
    D. Hand Delivery: At the previously-listed EPA Region III address.
Such deliveries are only accepted during the Docket's normal hours of
operation, and special arrangements should be made for deliveries of
boxed information.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R03-OAR-
2012-0271. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included
in the public docket without change, and may be made available online
at www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided,
unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential
Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you consider to
be CBI or otherwise protected through www.regulations.gov or email. The
www.regulations.gov Web site is an ``anonymous access'' system, which
means EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you
provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an email comment
directly to EPA without going through www.regulations.gov, your email
address will be automatically captured and included as part of the
comment that is placed in the public docket and made available on the
Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you
include your name and other contact information in the body of your
comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your
comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for
clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic
files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of
encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses.
    Docket: All documents in the electronic docket are listed in the
www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, i.e., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such
as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be
publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket
materials are available either electronically in www.regulations.gov or
in hard copy during normal business hours at the Air Protection
Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,

Region III, 1650 Arch Street Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103. Copies
of the State submittal are available at the Maryland Department of the
Environment, 1800 Washington Boulevard Suite 705, Baltimore, Maryland
21230.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Marcia L. Spink,<PHONE_NUMBER>, or by
email at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: For further information, please see the
information provided in the direct final action, with the same title,
that is located in the ``Rules and Regulations'' section of this
Federal Register publication.

    Dated: April 12, 2012.
W.C. Early,
Acting, Regional Administrator, Region III.
[FR Doc. 2012-10340 Filed 5-1-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


1. ExxonMobil Chemical Company
M. David Adenuga on behalf of ExxonMobil Chemical Company
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Oxo Americas Regulatory Affairs Advisor

2. Eileen Conneely
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>American Chemistry Council
High Phthalates Panel
700 2[nd] Street NW
Washington, D.C. 20002

3. Dow Silicones Corporation
2200 W Salzburg Rd., Auburn, MI 48611
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
989.636.1243
Director EHS&S, Consumer Solutions

4. American Chemistry Council's Silicones Environmental, Health, and Safety Center (SEHSC),
700 Second St., NE Washington, DC 20002
Karluss Thomas  -<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Sr. Director

Subject: Title: Procedures for Requesting a Chemical Risk Evaluation under TSCA ICR Numbers [OMB Control No.: 2070-0202]
I am contacting you to solicit your comments on the renewal of the Information Collection Request (ICR) for the collection of information to accompany a manufacturer requested risk evaluation under the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) Risk Evaluation Rule. The Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) requires EPA to allow manufacturers to request that EPA conduct a risk evaluation on a chemical or group of chemicals for which they manufacturer.  The final rule outlined the criteria and information chemical manufacturers must provide for EPA to consider a chemical substance for risk evaluation. The information collection activities covered by this ICR renewal are those carried out by a chemical manufacturer in requesting a specific chemical risk evaluation under TSCA be conducted by EPA. This information is necessary in order for EPA to review information covered by chemical manufacturers and determine if the chemical substance is suitable for risk evaluation.

      The Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) requires that agencies receive Office of Management and Budget (OMB) clearance before requesting most types of information from the public.  In order to receive OMB clearance, federal agencies prepare draft ICRs providing an overview of the information collection and estimates of the cost and time for the public to respond.  The agencies consult with potential respondents and the public about the ICR and, where appropriate, incorporate comments received.  The draft ICR is then sent to OMB for its review and approval. These ICRs are periodically renewed.

      The existing ICR for the Risk Evaluation rule is being renewed. Entitled, "Agency Information Collection Activities; Procedures for Requesting a Chemical Risk Evaluation under TSCA (EPA ICR No. 2559.03; OMB Control No. 2070-0202) (Renewal)". OMB requires federal agencies to consult with nine or fewer potential respondents prior to submitting the ICR renewal to OMB for review and approval.  This consultation requirement is in addition to providing the public with 60 days to comment on the proposed collection activity. The notice announcing the ICR renewal and solicitation of comments was published in the Federal Register on January 28, 2020. See docket number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2016-0654 at http://www.regulations.gov/ to access the Federal Register Notice, the ICR supporting document, and any public comments received to date. There have been no regulatory changes since the last ICR in 2017.

      Please note that, if you take this opportunity to provide input, your name, affiliation, phone number, and any information that you provide (e.g., email copies) will be incorporated and attached to the ICR supporting statement, which will be a public document.  In addition, you may be contacted by the OMB desk examiner reviewing this ICR renewal to verify the accuracy of any comments as reported in the ICR by EPA. To comment on this ICR, please respond to this email, or post comments in the docket at  http://www.regulations.gov/.

      EPA solicits your input on the following questions.

1.            INFORMATION COLLECTION

                (a) Is the information that the Agency seeks under this ICR available from any public source, or already collected by another office at EPA or by another agency?  If yes, where can the Agency find the data?

                (b) Is it clear what is required for data submission?  If not, are there any suggestions for clarifying instructions?
2.            ELECTRONIC SUBMISSION
      (a) How would you rate your overall experience using the electronic tool (Central Data Exchange or CDX)?

      (b) If you encountered difficulties, how can EPA improve the process?

3.         	CLARITY OF INSTRUCTIONS

 The ICR is intended to requires/request that requesters provide certain data so the Agency can utilize it, based on the instructions is it clear what is required in a submission and how to submit the information?

	(b) If it is not clear, how can EPA improve the process?

4. 	BURDEN COST ANALYSIS

      (a) Do you agree with EPA's estimated burden and costs related to submitting information for a manufacturer requested risk evaluation?

      (b) Are the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) labor rates accurate? If you have any reason to consider the BLS labor rates inaccurate or inappropriate as used by EPA, please explain your rationale.

      Your timely response to the questions will be greatly appreciated.  We hope to receive your responses by June 24, 2020 so we can consider those responses, along with other consultation responses and public comments resulting from the Federal Register notice, at the same time as we prepare a final document for OMB review.  Thank you for your assistance.

Sincerely,

Susanna W. Blair
Immediate Office  -  Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics
Phone<PHONE_NUMBER>


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 212 (Wednesday, November 2, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 76360-76361]
[FR Doc No: 2016-26406]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2004-D-0369]

Animal Drug User Fees and Fee Waivers and Reductions; Draft
Revised Guidance for Industry; Availability

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice of availability.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or Agency) is announcing
the availability of a draft revised guidance for industry (GFI) #170
entitled ``Animal Drug User Fees and Fee Waivers and Reductions.'' This
draft revised guidance document describes the types of fees the Food
and Drug Administration (FDA or the Agency) is authorized to collect
under the Animal Drug User Fee Act of 2003 (ADUFA), as amended, and how
to request waivers and reductions from these fees.

DATES: Although you can comment on any guidance at any time (see 21 CFR
10.115(g)(5)), to ensure that the Agency considers your comment on this
draft revised guidance before it begins work on the final version of
the guidance, submit either electronic or written comments on the draft
revised guidance by January 3, 2017.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments as follows:

Electronic Submissions

    Submit electronic comments in the following way:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the instructions for submitting comments. Comments submitted
electronically, including attachments, to http://www.regulations.gov
will be posted to the docket unchanged. Because your comment will be
made public, you are solely responsible for ensuring that your comment
does not include any confidential information that you or a third party
may not wish to be posted, such as medical information, your or anyone
else's Social Security number, or confidential business information,
such as a manufacturing process. Please note that if you include your
name, contact information, or other information that identifies you in
the body of your comments, that information will be posted on http://www.regulations.gov.
     If you want to submit a comment with confidential
information that you do not wish to be made available to the public,
submit the comment as a written/paper submission and in the manner
detailed (see ``Written/Paper Submissions'' and ``Instructions'').

Written/Paper Submissions

    Submit written/paper submissions as follows:
     Mail/Hand delivery/Courier (for written/paper
submissions): Division of Dockets Management (HFA-305), Food and Drug
Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.
     For written/paper comments submitted to the Division of
Dockets Management, FDA will post your comment, as well as any
attachments, except for information submitted, marked and identified,
as confidential, if submitted as detailed in ``Instructions.''
    Instructions: All submissions received must include the Docket No.
FDA-2004-D-0369 for ``Animal Drug User Fees and Fee Waivers and
Reductions.'' Received comments will be placed in the docket and,
except for those submitted as ``Confidential Submissions,'' publicly
viewable at http://www.regulations.gov or at the Division of Dockets
Management between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday.
     Confidential Submissions--To submit a comment with
confidential information that you do not wish to be made publicly
available, submit your comments only as a written/paper submission. You
should submit two copies total. One copy will include the information
you claim to be confidential with a heading or cover note that states
``THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION.'' The

Agency will review this copy, including the claimed confidential
information, in its consideration of comments. The second copy, which
will have the claimed confidential information redacted/blacked out,
will be available for public viewing and posted on http://www.regulations.gov. Submit both copies to the Division of Dockets
Management. If you do not wish your name and contact information to be
made publicly available, you can provide this information on the cover
sheet and not in the body of your comments and you must identify this
information as ``confidential.'' Any information marked as
``confidential'' will not be disclosed except in accordance with 21 CFR
10.20 and other applicable disclosure law. For more information about
FDA's posting of comments to public dockets, see 80 FR 56469, September
18, 2015, or access the information at: http://www.fda.gov/regulatoryinformation/dockets/default.htm.
    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or
the electronic and written/paper comments received, go to http://www.regulations.gov and insert the docket number, found in brackets in
the heading of this document, into the ``Search'' box and follow the
prompts and/or go to the Division of Dockets Management, 5630 Fishers
Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.
    Submit written requests for single copies of the guidance to the
Policy and Regulations Staff (HFV-6), Center for Veterinary Medicine,
Food and Drug Administration, 7519 Standish Pl., Rockville, MD 20855.
Send one self-addressed adhesive label to assist that office in
processing your requests. See the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for
electronic access to the draft revised guidance document.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Diane Heinz, Center for Veterinary
Medicine (HFV-6), Food and Drug Administration, 7519 Standish Pl.,
Rockville, MD 20855,<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    FDA is announcing the availability of a draft revised GFI #170
entitled ``Animal Drug User Fees and Fee Waivers and Reductions.'' This
draft revised guidance document describes the types of fees FDA is
authorized to collect under ADUFA and how to request waivers and
reductions from these fees. It clarifies the criteria for Barrier to
Innovation waivers, clarifies the procedures for Small Business
waivers, and makes additional clarifying changes.

II. Significance of Guidance

    This level 1 draft revised guidance is being issued consistent with
FDA's good guidance practices regulation (21 CFR 10.115). The draft
revised guidance, when finalized, will represent the current thinking
of FDA on ``Animal Drug User Fees and Fee Waivers and Reductions.'' It
does not establish any rights for any person and is not binding on FDA
or the public. You can use an alternative approach if it satisfies the
requirements of the applicable statutes and regulations.

III. Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995

    This draft revised guidance refers to previously approved
collections of information that are subject to review by the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
(44 U.S.C. 3501-3520). The collections of information referred to in
the guidance entitled ``Animal Drug User Fees and Fee Waivers and
Reductions'' have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0540.

IV. Electronic Access

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

    Dated: October 27, 2016.
Leslie Kux,
Associate Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2016-26406 Filed 11-1-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4164-01-P