[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 5 (Thursday, January 8, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 1057-1062]
[FR Doc No: 2015-00051]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-73978; File No. SR-NASDAQ-2014-125]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC;
Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change to
Impose a Minimum Fee for Execution Venues Operating a Trading Platform
or Multiple Platforms That Utilize NASDAQ Proprietary Depth Data on a
Non-Displayed Basis

January 2, 2015.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act'') \1\, and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given
that on January 2, 2015, The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC (``Nasdaq'' or
``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``SEC'' or ``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in
Items I, II, and III, below, which Items have been prepared by the
Exchange. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments
on the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange proposes to impose a minimum fee for execution venues
operating a trading platform or multiple platforms that utilize NASDAQ
proprietary depth data on a non-displayed basis and that pay monthly
aggregate NASDAQ market proprietary Depth-of-Book Data fees of less
than $15,000.
    The text of the proposed rule change is below; proposed new
language is in italics; proposed deletions are in brackets.
* * * * *

7023. NASDAQ Depth-of-Book Data

    (a) Definitions applicable to this rule.
    (1)-(6) No Change.
    (7) The term ``Trading Platform'' shall mean any execution platform
operated as or by a registered National Securities Exchange (as defined
in Section 3(a)(1) of the Exchange Act), an Alternative Trading System
(as defined in Rule 300(a) of Regulation ATS), or an Electronic
Communications Network (as defined by Rule 600(b)(23) of Regulation
NMS).
    (b) No Change.
    (c) No Change.
    (d) Trading Platform Fee. There shall be a minimum monthly fee for
entities that operate Trading Platforms that utilize NASDAQ Depth-of-
Book Data on a non-display basis and that pay less than $15,000 per
month in aggregate fees for Depth-of-Book Data. The fee shall be $5,000
per month per Trading Platform up to a maximum of three Trading
Platforms.
    (e) [(d)] 30-Day Free-Trial Offer: NASDAQ shall offer all new
individual Subscribers and potential new individual Subscribers a 30-
day waiver of the Subscriber fees for NASDAQ TotalView. This waiver
shall not include the incremental fees assessed for the NASDAQ Level 2-
only service[, which are $30 for Professional Subscribers and $9 for
Non-Professional Subscribers per month]. This fee waiver period shall
be applied on a rolling basis, determined by the date on which a new
individual Subscriber or potential individual Subscriber is first
entitled by a Distributor to receive access to NASDAQ TotalView. A
Distributor may only provide this waiver to a specific

individual Subscriber once. [For the period of the offer, the NASDAQ
TotalView fee of $40 per Professional Subscriber and $5 per Non-
Professional Subscriber per month shall be waived.]
    (f) [(e)] Historical ModelView Information: NASDAQ will make
historical ModelView information available via NASDAQTrader.com.
ModelView contains historical information regarding aggregate displayed
and reserve liquidity at each price level directly from the NASDAQ
Market Center. ModelView is available for a subscription fee of $2,000
per month.
* * * * *

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
    NASDAQ is proposing to amend NASDAQ Rule 7023 (NASDAQ Depth-of-Book
Data) to modify the fees governing the use of NASDAQ TotalView, NASDAQ
OpenView and NASDAQ Level 2 Information (collectively, ``NASDAQ Depth-
of-Book Data'') to increase the fairness and equity of the current fee
schedule. Specifically, NASDAQ is amending Rule 7023(d) to establish a
minimum level of fees for operators of Trading Platforms that utilize
NASDAQ Depth-of-Book Data and that pay less than $15,000 per month for
such usage. The Trading Platform Fee shall be $5,000 per month per
Trading Platform up to a maximum of $15,000 per month, with such fees
being offset once the total NASDAQ Depth-of-Book Data fees paid by such
Trading Platform operator exceed $15,000 per month.
    Effective January 1, 2015, NASDAQ will impose a fee for operators
of Trading Platforms that currently utilize NASDAQ Depth-of-Book Data
and that pay less than $15,000 per month for such usage. Trading
Platforms include registered National Securities Exchanges, Alternative
Trading Systems (``ATSs''), and Electronic Communications Networks
(``ECNS'') as those terms are defined in the Exchange Act and
regulations and rules thereunder. The fee will be $5,000 per month per
Trading Platform up to a maximum of three platforms operated by the
same entity or affiliated entities.
    The fee will be assessed in addition to existing Distributor and
Subscriber fees paid, but will be offset when the entity reaches the
level of $15,000 per month. For example, if a Distributor already pays
$15,000 or more in total monthly Distributor and Subscriber fees, the
Trading Platform fee does not apply. Also, if a firm accrues $10,000 in
Platform fees, and already pays $75,000 in Subscriber fees, the
Distributor is responsible for the $75,000 fee and the Trading Platform
fee does not apply. Additional scenarios are shown below:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Nasdaq depth
                                                                      Trading       non-display    Nasdaq depth
                   Number of trading platforms                     platform fee       fee per        total fee
                                                                                subscriber
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1...............................................................          $5,000          $3,300          $8,300
1...............................................................           5,000           9,000          14,000
1...............................................................           5,000          15,000          15,000
2...............................................................          10,000           9,000          19,000
2...............................................................          10,000          15,000          15,000
3...............................................................          15,000           9,000          24,000
4...............................................................          15,000           9,000          24,000
3...............................................................          15,000          15,000          15,000
4...............................................................          15,000          75,000          75,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Vendors offering Managed Data Solutions (``MDS'') to downstream
Recipients pursuant to NASDAQ Rule 7026 are responsible for the payment
of fees associated with this program. Furthermore, the MDS Vendor must
count each Trading Platform operator separately; an MDS Vendor cannot
avoid the three Trading Platform maximum by commingling multiple firms'
Trading Platforms. For example, the MDS Vendor below has five customers
that collectively operate 10 Trading Platforms:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Trading
                                              Number of    platform fee
                    Firm                       trading     (owed by MDS
                                             platform(s)      vendor)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
a..........................................           0               $0
b..........................................           1             5000
c..........................................           2           10,000
d..........................................           3           15,000
e..........................................           4           15,000
                                            ----------------------------
    Total..................................  ...........          45,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that this proposal is reasonable, proper, and
desirable. NASDAQ attempts to more equitably allocate fees among users
with varying business models. As trading has become more electronic and
automated, displayed and non-displayed usage has shifted dramatically.
Use by individuals versus use by algorithms has shifted as well. NASDAQ
attempts to ensure that its fee schedule tracks these shifts and that
no category of users pays a disproportionately high or low amount
relative to other categories of users.
    To accommodate new subparagraph (d), NASDAQ is renumbering current
subparagraphs (d) and (e) to become new subparagraphs (e) and (f).
Additionally, NASDAQ is eliminating pricing details from re-numbered
paragraph (e) to eliminate specific information which is extraneous and
subject to change.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with
the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder, including the
requirements of Section 6(b) of the Act.\3\ In particular, the Exchange
believes the proposed rule change is consistent with the Section

6(b)(5) \4\ requirements that the rules of an exchange be designed to
promote just and equitable principles of trade, to prevent fraudulent
and manipulative acts, to foster cooperation and coordination with
persons engaged in facilitating transactions in securities, to remove
impediments to and to perfect the mechanism for a free and open market
and a national market system, and, in general, to protect investors and
the public interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \4\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NASDAQ believes that this proposal represents an equitable
allocation of reasonable dues and fees, consistent with the
requirements of the Act. The MDS Fee, which has been available as an
option for four years, has reduced costs for Distributors and
Subscriber firms that voluntarily opt for this service. The fee
currently includes a bas [sic] Distributor fee plus a fee per
subscriber, which has been found to be consistent with the Act in
multiple contexts due to the economic efficiencies attributable to
providing the same data elements to an increasing population of
subscribers.
    The Trading Platform fee is equitable and reasonable in that it
ensures that heavy users of the NASDAQ Depth Information pay an
equitable share of the total NASDAQ Depth Information fees. Currently,
Professional Subscribers pay higher fees than Non-Professional
Subscribers based on the calculated assumption of higher usage.
Similarly, External Distributors pay higher fees than Internal
Distributors, also based upon their assumed higher usage levels. NASDAQ
believes that Trading Platforms are generally high users of the data,
using it to power a matching engine for millions or even billions of
trading messages per day. Additionally, the vast majority of operators
of Trading Platforms that use NASDAQ Depth-of-Book Data already pay
$15,000 per month or close to it. Those operators will pay no or little
in additional fees.
    In adopting Regulation NMS, the Commission granted self-regulatory
organizations and broker-dealers increased authority and flexibility to
offer new and unique market data to the public. It was believed that
this authority would expand the amount of data available to consumers,
and also spur innovation and competition for the provision of market
data.
    The Commission concluded that Regulation NMS--by deregulating the
market in proprietary data--would itself further the Act's goals of
facilitating efficiency and competition:

    [E]fficiency is promoted when broker-dealers who do not need the
data beyond the prices, sizes, market center identifications of the
NBBO and consolidated last sale information are not required to
receive (and pay for) such data. The Commission also believes that
efficiency is promoted when broker-dealers may choose to receive
(and pay for) additional market data based on their own internal
analysis of the need for such data.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Securities Exchange Act Release No. 51808 (June 9, 2005), 70
FR 37496 (June 29, 2005).

By removing ``unnecessary regulatory restrictions'' on the ability of
exchanges to sell their own data, Regulation NMS advanced the goals of
the Act and the principles reflected in its legislative history. If the
free market should determine whether proprietary data is sold to
broker-dealers at all, it follows that the price at which such data is
sold should be set by the market as well.
    On July 21, 2010, President Barack Obama signed into law H.R. 4173,
the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2010
(``Dodd-Frank Act''), which amended Section 19 of the Act. Among other
things, Section 916 of the Dodd-Frank Act amended paragraph (A) of
Section 19(b)(3) of the Act by inserting the phrase ``on any person,
whether or not the person is a member of the self-regulatory
organization'' after ``due, fee or other charge imposed by the self-
regulatory organization.'' As a result, all SRO rule proposals
establishing or changing dues, fees, or other charges are immediately
effective upon filing regardless of whether such dues, fees, or other
charges are imposed on members of the SRO, non-members, or both.
Section 916 further amended paragraph (C) of Section 19(b)(3) of the
Exchange Act to read, in pertinent part, ``At any time within the 60-
day period beginning on the date of filing of such a proposed rule
change in accordance with the provisions of paragraph (1) [of Section
19(b)], the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend the change in
the rules of the self-regulatory organization made thereby, 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 this title. If the Commission takes
such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings under paragraph
(2)(B) [of Section 19(b)] to determine whether the proposed rule should
be approved or disapproved.''
    NASDAQ believes that these amendments to Section 19 of the Act
reflect Congress's intent to allow the Commission to rely upon the
forces of competition to ensure that fees for market data are
reasonable and equitably allocated. Although Section 19(b) had formerly
authorized immediate effectiveness for a ``due, fee or other charge
imposed by the self-regulatory organization,'' the Commission adopted a
policy and subsequently a rule stipulating that fees for data and other
products available to persons that are not members of the self-
regulatory organization must be approved by the Commission after first
being published for comment. At the time, the Commission supported the
adoption of the policy and the rule by pointing out that unlike
members, whose representation in self-regulatory organization
governance was mandated by the Act, non-members should be given the
opportunity to comment on fees before being required to pay them, and
that the Commission should specifically approve all such fees. NASDAQ
believes that the amendment to Section 19 reflects Congress's
conclusion that the evolution of self-regulatory organization
governance and competitive market structure have rendered the
Commission's prior policy on non-member fees obsolete. Specifically,
many exchanges have evolved from member-owned not-for-profit
corporations into for-profit investor-owned corporations (or
subsidiaries of investor-owned corporations). Accordingly, exchanges no
longer have narrow incentives to manage their affairs for the exclusive
benefit of their members, but rather have incentives to maximize the
appeal of their products to all customers, whether members or non-
members, so as to broaden distribution and grow revenues. Moreover, we
believe that the change also reflects an endorsement of the
Commission's determinations that reliance on competitive markets is an
appropriate means to ensure equitable and reasonable prices. Simply
put, the change reflects a presumption that all fee changes should be
permitted to take effect immediately, since the level of all fees are
constrained by competitive forces.
    The recent decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the
District of Columbia Circuit in NetCoaliton v. SEC, No. 09-1042 (D.C.
Cir. 2010), although reviewing a Commission decision made prior to the
effective date of the Dodd-Frank Act, upheld the Commission's reliance
upon competitive markets to set reasonable and equitably allocated fees
for market data. ``In fact, the legislative history indicates that the
Congress intended that the market system `evolve through the interplay
of competitive forces as unnecessary regulatory restrictions are

removed' and that the SEC wield its regulatory power `in those
situations where competition may not be sufficient,' such as in the
creation of a `consolidated transactional reporting system.'
NetCoaltion, at 15 (quoting H.R. Rep. No. 94-229, at 92 (1975), as
reprinted in 1975 U.S.C.C.A.N. 321, 323). The court's conclusions about
Congressional intent are therefore reinforced by the Dodd-Frank Act
amendments, which create a presumption that exchange fees, including
market data fees, may take effect immediately, without prior Commission
approval, and that the Commission should take action to suspend a fee
change and institute a proceeding to determine whether the fee change
should be approved or disapproved only where the Commission has
concerns that the change may not be consistent with the Act.

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

    NASDAQ does not believe that the proposed rule change will result
in any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act, as amended. Notwithstanding its
determination that the Commission may rely upon competition to
establish fair and equitably allocated fees for market data, the
NetCoaltion court found that the Commission had not, in that case,
compiled a record that adequately supported its conclusion that the
market for the data at issue in the case was competitive. For the
reasons discussed above, NASDAQ believes that the Dodd-Frank Act
amendments to Section 19 materially alter the scope of the Commission's
review of future market data filings, by creating a presumption that
all fees may take effect immediately, without prior analysis by the
Commission of the competitive environment. Even in the absence of this
important statutory change, however, NASDAQ believes that a record may
readily be established to demonstrate the competitive nature of the
market in question.
    There is intense competition between trading platforms that provide
transaction execution and routing services and proprietary data
products. Transaction execution and proprietary data products are
complementary in that market data is both an input and a byproduct of
the execution service. In fact, market data and trade execution are a
paradigmatic example of joint products with joint costs. The decision
whether and on which platform to post an order will depend on the
attributes of the platform where the order can be posted, including the
execution fees, data quality and price and distribution of its data
products. Without the prospect of a taking order seeing and reacting to
a posted order on a particular platform, the posting of the order would
accomplish little. Without trade executions, exchange data products
cannot exist. Data products are valuable to many end users only insofar
as they provide information that end users expect will assist them or
their customers in making trading decisions.
    The costs of producing market data include not only the costs of
the data distribution infrastructure, but also the costs of designing,
maintaining, and operating the exchange's transaction execution
platform and the cost of regulating the exchange to ensure its fair
operation and maintain investor confidence. The total return that a
trading platform earns reflects the revenues it receives from both
products and the joint costs it incurs. Moreover, an exchange's
customers view the costs of transaction executions and of data as a
unified cost of doing business with the exchange. A broker-dealer will
direct orders to a particular exchange only if the expected revenues
from executing trades on the exchange exceed net transaction execution
costs and the cost of data that the broker-dealer chooses to buy to
support its trading decisions (or those of its customers). The choice
of data products is, in turn, a product of the value of the products in
making profitable trading decisions. If the cost of the product exceeds
its expected value, the broker-dealer will choose not to buy it.
Moreover, as a broker-dealer chooses to direct fewer orders to a
particular exchange, the value of the product to that broker-dealer
decreases, for two reasons. First, the product will contain less
information, because executions of the broker-dealer's orders will not
be reflected in it. Second, and perhaps more important, the product
will be less valuable to that broker-dealer because it does not provide
information about the venue to which it is directing its orders. Data
from the competing venue to which the broker-dealer is directing orders
will become correspondingly more valuable.
    Thus, a super-competitive increase in the fees charged for either
transactions or data has the potential to impair revenues from both
products. ``No one disputes that competition for order flow is
`fierce'.'' NetCoalition at 24. However, the existence of fierce
competition for order flow implies a high degree of price sensitivity
on the part of broker-dealers with order flow, since they may readily
reduce costs by directing orders toward the lowest-cost trading venues.
A broker-dealer that shifted its order flow from one platform to
another in response to order execution price differentials would both
reduce the value of that platform's market data and reduce its own need
to consume data from the disfavored platform. Similarly, if a platform
increases its market data fees, the change will affect the overall cost
of doing business with the platform, and affected broker-dealers will
assess whether they can lower their trading costs by directing orders
elsewhere and thereby lessening the need for the more expensive data.
    Analyzing the cost of market data distribution in isolation from
the cost of all of the inputs supporting the creation of market data
will inevitably underestimate the cost of the data. Thus, because it is
impossible to create data without a fast, technologically robust, and
well-regulated execution system, system costs and regulatory costs
affect the price of market data. It would be equally misleading,
however, to attribute all of the exchange's costs to the market data
portion of an exchange's joint product. Rather, all of the exchange's
costs are incurred for the unified purposes of attracting order flow,
executing and/or routing orders, and generating and selling data about
market activity. The total return that an exchange earns reflects the
revenues it receives from the joint products and the total costs of the
joint products.
    Competition among trading platforms can be expected to constrain
the aggregate return each platform earns from the sale of its joint
products, but different platforms may choose from a range of possible,
and equally reasonable, pricing strategies as the means of recovering
total costs. For example, some platform may choose to pay rebates to
attract orders, charge relatively low prices for market information (or
provide information free of charge) and charge relatively high prices
for accessing posted liquidity. Other platforms may choose a strategy
of paying lower rebates (or no rebates) to attract orders, setting
relatively high prices for market information, and setting relatively
low prices for accessing posted liquidity. In this environment, there
is no economic basis for regulating maximum prices for one of the joint
products in an industry in which suppliers face competitive constraints
with regard to the joint offering. This would be akin to strictly
regulating the price that an automobile manufacturer can charge for car
sound systems despite the existence of a highly competitive market for
cars and the

availability of after-market alternatives to the manufacturer-supplied
system.
    The market for market data products is competitive and inherently
contestable because there is fierce competition for the inputs
necessary to the creation of proprietary data and strict pricing
discipline for the proprietary products themselves. Numerous exchanges
compete with each other for listings, trades, and market data itself,
providing virtually limitless opportunities for entrepreneurs who wish
to produce and distribute their own market data. This proprietary data
is produced by each individual exchange, as well as other entities, in
a vigorously competitive market.
    Broker-dealers currently have numerous alternative venues for their
order flow, including ten self-regulatory organization (``SRO'')
markets, as well as internalizing broker-dealers (``BDs'') and various
forms of alternative trading systems (``ATSs''), including dark pools
and electronic communication networks (``ECNs''). Each SRO market
competes to produce transaction reports via trade executions, and two
FINRA-regulated Trade Reporting Facilities (``TRFs'') compete to
attract internalized transaction reports. Competitive markets for order
flow, executions, and transaction reports provide pricing discipline
for the inputs of proprietary data products.
    The large number of SROs, TRFs, BDs, and ATSs that currently
produce proprietary data or are currently capable of producing it
provides further pricing discipline for proprietary data products. Each
SRO, TRF, ATS, and BD is currently permitted to produce proprietary
data products, and many currently do or have announced plans to do so,
including NASDAQ, NYSE, NYSE Amex, NYSEArca, and BATS.
    Any ATS or BD can combine with any other ATS, BD, or multiple ATSs
or BDs to produce joint proprietary data products. Additionally, order
routers and market data vendors can facilitate single or multiple
broker-dealers' production of proprietary data products. The potential
sources of proprietary products are virtually limitless.
    The fact that proprietary data from ATSs, BDs, and vendors can by-
pass SROs is significant in two respects. First, non-SROs can compete
directly with SROs for the production and sale of proprietary data
products, as BATS and Arca did before registering as exchanges by
publishing proprietary book data on the Internet. Second, because a
single order or transaction report can appear in an SRO proprietary
product, a non-SRO proprietary product, or both, the data available in
proprietary products is exponentially greater than the actual number of
orders and transaction reports that exist in the marketplace.
    Market data vendors provide another form of price discipline for
proprietary data products because they control the primary means of
access to end users. Vendors impose price restraints based upon their
business models. For example, vendors such as Bloomberg and Thomson
Reuters that assess a surcharge on data they sell may refuse to offer
proprietary products that end users will not purchase in sufficient
numbers. Internet portals, such as Google, impose a discipline by
providing only data that will enable them to attract ``eyeballs'' that
contribute to their advertising revenue. Retail broker-dealers, such as
Schwab and Fidelity, offer their customers proprietary data only if it
promotes trading and generates sufficient commission revenue. Although
the business models may differ, these vendors' pricing discipline is
the same: They can simply refuse to purchase any proprietary data
product that fails to provide sufficient value. NASDAQ and other
producers of proprietary data products must understand and respond to
these varying business models and pricing disciplines in order to
market proprietary data products successfully.
    In addition to the competition and price discipline described
above, the market for proprietary data products is also highly
contestable because market entry is rapid, inexpensive, and profitable.
The history of electronic trading is replete with examples of entrants
that swiftly grew into some of the largest electronic trading platforms
and proprietary data producers: Archipelago, Bloomberg Tradebook,
Island, RediBook, Attain, TracECN, BATS Trading and Direct Edge. A
proliferation of dark pools and other ATSs operate profitably with
fragmentary shares of consolidated market volume.
    Regulation NMS, by deregulating the market for proprietary data,
has increased the contestability of that market. While broker-dealers
have previously published their proprietary data individually,
Regulation NMS encourages market data vendors and broker-dealers to
produce proprietary products cooperatively in a manner never before
possible. Multiple market data vendors already have the capability to
aggregate data and disseminate it on a profitable scale, including
Bloomberg, and Thomson Reuters.
    The court in NetCoalition concluded that the Commission had failed
to demonstrate that the market for market data was competitive based on
the reasoning of the Commission's NetCoalition order because, in the
court's view, the Commission had not adequately demonstrated that the
depth-of-book data at issue in the case is used to attract order flow.
NASDAQ believes, however, that evidence not before the court clearly
demonstrates that availability of data attracts order flow. For
example, as of July 2010, 92 of the top 100 broker-dealers by shares
executed on NASDAQ consumed Level 2/NQDS and 80 of the top 100 broker-
dealers consumed TotalView. During that month, the Level 2/NQDS-users
were responsible for 94.44% of the orders entered into NASDAQ and
TotalView users were responsible for 92.98%.
    Competition among platforms has driven NASDAQ continually to
improve its platform data offerings and to cater to customers' data
needs. For example, NASDAQ has developed and maintained multiple
delivery mechanisms (IP, multi-cast, and compression) that enable
customers to receive data in the form and manner they prefer and at the
lowest cost to them. NASDAQ offers front end applications such as its
``Bookviewer'' to help customers utilize data. NASDAQ has created new
products like TotalView Aggregate to complement TotalView ITCH and
Level 2/NQDS, because offering data in multiple formatting allows
NASDAQ to better fit customer needs. NASDAQ offers data via multiple
extranet providers, thereby helping to reduce network and total cost
for its data products. NASDAQ has developed an online administrative
system to provide customers transparency into their data feed requests
and streamline data usage reporting. NASDAQ has also expanded its
Enterprise License options that reduce the administrative burden and
costs to firms that purchase market data.
    Despite these enhancements and a dramatic increase in message
traffic, NASDAQ's fees for market data have remained flat. In fact, as
a percent of total customer costs, NASDAQ data fees have fallen
relative to other data usage costs--including bandwidth, programming,
and infrastructure--that have risen. The same holds true for execution
services; despite numerous enhancements to NASDAQ's trading platform,
absolute and relative trading costs have declined. Platform competition
has intensified as new entrants have emerged, constraining prices for
both executions and for data.
    The vigor of competition for depth information is significant and
the Exchange believes that this proposal

clearly evidences such competition. NASDAQ is offering a new pricing
model in order to keep pace with changes in the industry and evolving
customer needs. It is entirely optional and is geared towards
attracting new customers, as well as retaining existing customers.
    The Exchange has witnessed competitors creating new products and
innovative pricing in this space over the course of the past year.
NASDAQ continues to see firms challenge its pricing on the basis of the
Exchange's explicit fees being higher than the zero-priced fees from
other competitors such as BATS. In all cases, firms make decisions on
how much and what types of data to consume on the basis of the total
cost of interacting with NASDAQ or other exchanges. Of course, the
explicit data fees are but one factor in a total platform analysis.
Some competitors have lower transactions fees and higher data fees, and
others are vice versa. The market for this depth information is highly
competitive and continually evolves as products develop and change.

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

    No written comments were either solicited or received.

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.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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: (i)
necessary or appropriate in the public interest; (ii) for the
protection of investors; or (iii) 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 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_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-NASDAQ-2014-125 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NASDAQ-2014-125. This
file number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml
). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written
statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with
the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed
rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those
that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions
of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and printing in
the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE., Washington,
DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and
3:00 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available for inspection
and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All comments
received will be posted without change; the Commission does not edit
personal identifying information from submissions. You should submit
only information that you wish to make available publicly.
    All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NASDAQ-2014-125 and
should be submitted on or before January 29, 2015.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Brent J. Fields,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2015-00051 Filed 1-7-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 189 (Tuesday, September 29, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Page 61004]
[FR Doc No: 2020-21456]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2020-N-1227]

Roerig Division of Pfizer Inc., et al.; Withdrawal of Approval of
10 Abbreviated New Drug Applications; Correction

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice; correction.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is correcting a notice
that appeared in the Federal Register on July 21, 2020. The document
announced the withdrawal of approval of 10 abbreviated new drug
applications (ANDAs) from multiple applicants, withdrawn as of August
20, 2020. The document indicated that FDA was withdrawing approval of
the following two ANDAs after receiving a withdrawal request from
Kadmon Pharmaceuticals, LLC., 119 Commonwealth Dr., Warrendale, PA
15086: ANDA 076203, Ribavirin Capsules, 200 milligrams (mg) and ANDA
077456, Ribavirin Tablets, 200 mg, 400 mg, and 600 mg. Before FDA
withdrew the approval of these ANDAs, Kadmon Pharmaceuticals, LLC.
informed FDA that it did not want the approval of the ANDAs withdrawn.
Because Kadmon Pharmaceuticals, LLC., timely requested that approval of
these ANDAs not be withdrawn, the approval of ANDAs 076203 and 077456
are still in effect.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Martha Nguyen, Center for Drug
Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New
Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 75, Rm. 1676, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 240-
402-6980<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Correction

    In the Federal Register of Tuesday, July 21, 2020 (85 FR 44096),
appearing on page 44096 in FR Doc. 2020-15727, the following correction
is made:
    On page 44096, in the table, the entries for ANDAs 076203 and
077456 are removed.

    Dated: September 21, 2020.
Lauren K. Roth,
Associate Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2020-21456 Filed 9-28-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4164-01-P


[Federal Register: July 9, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 132)]
[Notices]
[Page 39357-39358]
[DOCID:fr09jy08-110]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-58073; File No. SR-CBOE-2008-71]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Chicago Board Options Exchange,
Incorporated; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed
Rule Change Relating to the Temporary Membership Status Access Fee

July 1, 2008.
    Pursuant to section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that
on June 30, 2008, the Chicago Board Options Exchange, Incorporated
(``CBOE'' or ``Exchange''), filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission (``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in
Items I, II, and III below, which Items have been prepared by CBOE.
CBOE has designated this proposal as one establishing or changing a
due, fee, or other charge imposed by the Exchange under section
19(b)(3)(A),\3\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(2) thereunder,\4\ which renders the
proposal effective upon filing with the Commission. The Commission is
publishing this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change
from interested parties.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    CBOE proposes to adjust the monthly access fee for persons granted
temporary CBOE membership status (``Temporary Members'') pursuant to
Interpretation and Policy .02 under CBOE Rule 3.19 (``Rule 3.19.02'').
The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Web
site (http://www.cboe.org/Legal/), 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, CBOE 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. CBOE 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 current access fee for Temporary Members under Rule 3.19.02 \5\
is $10,868 per month and took effect on June 1, 2008. The Exchange
proposes to revise the access fee to be $12,387 per month commencing on
July 1, 2008.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 56458 (September 18,
2007), 72 FR 54309 (September 24, 2007) (SR-CBOE-2007-107) for a
description of the Temporary Membership status under Rule 3.19.02.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange used the following process to set the proposed access
fee: The Exchange polled each of the clearing firms that assists in
facilitating at least 10% of the transferable CBOE membership leases
and obtained the Clearing Firm Floating Monthly Rate \6\ designated by
each of these clearing firms for the month of July 2008. The Exchange
then set the proposed access fee at an amount equal to the highest of
these Clearing Firm Floating Monthly Rates.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ The term ``Clearing Firm Floating Monthly Rate'' refers to
the floating monthly rate that a clearing firm designates, in
connection with transferable membership leases that the clearing
firm assisted in facilitating, for leases that utilize that floating
monthly rate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange used the same process to set the proposed access fee
that it used to set the current access fee. The only difference is that
the Exchange used Clearing Firm Floating Monthly Rate information for
the month of July 2008 to set the proposed access fee (instead of
Clearing Firm Floating Monthly Rate information for the month of June
2008 as was used to set the current access fee) in order to take into
account changes in Clearing Firm Floating Monthly Rates for the month
of July 2008.
    The Exchange believes that the process used to set the proposed
access fee and the proposed access fee itself are appropriate for the
same reasons set forth in CBOE rule filing SR-CBOE-2008-12 in support
of that process and the original access fee for Temporary Members under
Rule 3.19.02.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 57293 (February 8,
2008), 73 FR 8729 (February 14, 2008) (SR-CBOE-2008-12), which
established the original access fee for Temporary Members under Rule
3.19.02, for detail regarding the rationale in support of the
original access fee and the process used to set that fee, which is
also applicable to this proposed rule change as well.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed access fee will remain in effect until such time
either that the Exchange submits a further rule filing pursuant to
section 19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act \8\ to modify the proposed access
fee or the Temporary Membership status under Rule 3.19.02 is
terminated. Accordingly, the Exchange may, and likely will, further
adjust the proposed access fee in the future if the Exchange determines
that it would be appropriate to do so taking into consideration lease
rates for transferable CBOE memberships prevailing at that time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The procedural provisions of the CBOE Fee Schedule related to the
assessment of the proposed access fee are not proposed to be changed
and will remain the same as the current procedural provisions regarding
the assessment of the current access fee.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with section 6(b) of the Act,\9\ in general, and furthers the
objectives of section 6(b)(4) of the Act,\10\ in particular, in that it
is designed to provide for the equitable allocation of reasonable dues,
fees, and other charges among persons using its facilities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \10\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

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

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

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

    Because the foregoing rule change establishes or changes a due,
fee, or other charge imposed by the Exchange, it has become effective
pursuant to

section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \11\ and subparagraph (f)(2) of Rule
19b-4 \12\ thereunder. At any time within 60 days of the filing of the
proposed rule change, the Commission may summarily abrogate 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \12\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://
www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-CBOE-2008-71 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-CBOE-2008-71. This file
number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/
sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for inspection and
copying 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 such filing also will be available for
inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All
comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does
not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should
submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All
submissions should refer to File No. SR-CBOE-2008-71 and should be
submitted on or before July 30, 2008.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\13\
Florence E. Harmon,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. E8-15487 Filed 7-8-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 111 (Monday, June 12, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 26964-26966]
[FR Doc No: 2017-12040]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-80867; File No. SR-NYSE-2017-08]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; New York Stock Exchange LLC;
Notice of Filing of Proposed Rule Change To Amend its Listing Standards
for Closed-end Funds

June 6, 2017.
    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 May 24, 2017, New York Stock Exchange LLC (``NYSE'' or the
``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I, II,
and III below, which Items have been prepared by the self-regulatory
organization. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit
comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange proposes to amend its listing standards for closed-end
funds. The proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Web site
at www.nyse.com, at the principal office of the Exchange, and at the
Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to amend its listing standards for closed-end
funds to conform them to those of NYSE MKT LLC (``NYSE MKT'').
    Paragraph A of Section 102.04 of the NYSE Listed Company Manual
(the ``Manual'') currently permits the listing of a closed-end
management investment company registered under the Investment Company
Act of 1940 (a ``Fund'') that meets the distribution requirements of
Section 102.01A of the Manual and the stock price and market value of
publicly-held shares requirement of Section 102.01B of the Manual,
provided that the required market value of publicly held shares for
Funds is $60 million regardless of whether it is an IPO or an existing
Fund. Notwithstanding the foregoing requirement for market value of
publicly held shares of $60 million, the Exchange will generally
authorize the listing of all the Funds in a group of Funds listed
concurrently with a common investment adviser or investment advisers
who are ``affiliated persons'', as defined in Section 2(a)(3) of the
Investment Company Act of 1940, as amended, if:
     Total group market value of publicly held shares equals in
the aggregate at least $200 million;
     The group market value of publicly held shares averages at
least $45 million per Fund; and
     No one Fund in the group has market value of publicly held
shares of less than $30 million.
    Section 802.01B of the Manual provides that the Exchange will
promptly initiate suspension and delisting procedures with respect to a
Fund if the average market capitalization of the entity over 30
consecutive trading days is below $15 million. In addition, the
Exchange will promptly initiate suspension and delisting procedures
with respect to a Fund if it ceases to maintain its closed-end status.
The Exchange will notify the Fund if the average market capitalization
falls below $25 million and will advise the Fund of the delisting
standard. Funds are not eligible to follow the cure procedures outlined
in Sections 802.02 and 802.03 of the Manual.
    The Exchange proposes to amend Paragraph A of Section 102.04 and
Section 802.01B to eliminate their current requirements with respect to
the initial and continued listing of Funds and replace them with
listing requirements substantively identical to those under the current
NYSE MKT listing standards for Funds. The proposed amended standards
would include requirements with respect to a Fund's net asset value.
The net asset value (or ``NAV'') of a Fund is the value of all Fund
assets (less liabilities) divided by the number of shares outstanding.
All Funds disclose NAV on at least a quarterly basis and many disclose
it more frequently. While Funds typically trade at either a premium or
discount to NAV, their share price generally maintains a close
relationship to NAV. As a consequence, the market price of a Fund is
less reliant on the price discovery mechanism of a liquid trading
market than is the case with operating companies. As Exchange listing
requirements with respect to publicly held shares are generally
intended to facilitate a liquid trading market for operating companies,
the role of a Fund's NAV in determining the market price of its
securities makes publicly held shares requirements less important for
Funds than for operating companies. Therefore, the Exchange believes
that NAV is an appropriate additional or alternative measure of the
suitability of Funds for initial and continued listing.
    As proposed, a Fund would be qualified for listing on a stand-alone
basis if it has a market value of publicly held shares or net assets of
at least $20 million. As further proposed, Funds would be eligible to
be listed concurrently with a common investment adviser or investment
advisers who are ``affiliated persons'', as defined in Section 2(a)(3)
of the Investment Company Act of 1940, as amended, if:
     The group has a total market value of publicly held shares
or net assets of at least $75 million;
     The Funds in the group have an average market value of
publicly held shares or net assets of at least $15 million; and
     Each Fund in the group has a market value of publicly held
shares or net assets of at least $10 million.
    These proposed initial listing standards are based on Section
101(g) of the NYSE MKT Company Guide without any substantive
differences.
    The continued listing standards for Funds set forth in Section
802.01B currently provide that a Fund is subject to delisting if its
average market capitalization is less than $15 million over 30 trading
days. The Exchange proposes to replace this requirement with a new
continued listing standard providing that a Fund would be subject to
delisting if the total market value of publicly held shares and net
assets are each less than $5 million for more than 60 consecutive
calendar days. These proposed continued listing standards are based on
Section 1003(b)(v) of the NYSE MKT Company Guide without

any substantive differences.\4\ The Exchange further proposes to lower
the threshold for when the Exchange would advise the Fund of the
delisting standard. Because the market capitalization component of the
delisting standard would be $5 million of total market value of
publicly held shares over 60 calendar days instead of an average of $15
million of market capitalization over 30 trading days as is currently
the case, the Exchange proposes to similarly reduce the notification
threshold from an average market capitalization of $25 million to a
total market value of publicly held shares over a 60 calendar day
period of $10 million.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ The Exchange would monitor compliance on an ongoing basis
with the proposed amended total market value of publicly held shares
requirement. The Exchange would communicate with any Fund whose
total market value of publicly held shares fell below $5 million
over 60 calendar days to enable the Fund to provide evidence that
its net assets had exceeded $5 million over the required period. The
Exchange would promptly initiate suspension and delisting procedures
with respect to any such Fund that was unable at that time to
display compliance with the net asset requirement. The Exchange
notes that no Fund listed on the NYSE is currently below compliance
with its continued listing standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange also proposes to conform its distribution standards
for continued listing of Funds to those of NYSE MKT. Common stocks of
Funds are currently subject to the distribution requirements for the
common stocks of operating companies set forth in Section 802.01A of
the Manual.\5\ The Exchange proposes to replace those requirements for
Funds with distribution standards substantively identical to those
applied to Funds by NYSE MKT under Section 1003(b)(i) of the NYSE MKT
Company Guide. Under the proposed amendment, the Exchange would
normally give consideration to the prompt initiation of suspension and
delisting procedures with respect to the common stock of a Fund if:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Under Section 802.01A, a Fund is below compliance if (i) its
total number of stockholders is less than 400; (ii) the number of
total stockholders is less than 1,200 and the average monthly
trading volume is less than100,000 shares (for the most recent 12
months); or (iii) the number of publicly-held shares is less than
600,000.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (A) The number of shares publicly held \6\ (is less than 200,000;
or
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Shares held by directors, officers, or their immediate
families and other concentrated holdings of 10 percent or more will
be excluded in calculating the number of publicly-held shares and
number of public shareholders for purposes of the proposed continued
listing standards. The definition of publicly-held shares in the
NYSE MKT rule is worded differently but is applied in exactly the
same way that the proposed NYSE provision would be applied.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (B) the total number of public shareholders is less than 300; or
    (C) the total market value of shares publicly held is less than
$1,000,000 for more than 90 calendar consecutive days.
    The Exchange and NYSE MKT are under common ownership and issuers
listed on both markets are subject to oversight by the same regulatory
staff. Therefore, the staff of NYSE Regulation responsible for
regulation of both markets has observed over time the application of
the NYSE MKT listing rules for Funds. In the staff's experience, Funds
listed under the NYSE MKT Fund listing standards rarely become
unsuitable over time for continued exchange trading. Consequently, the
Exchange believes that, in adopting listing standards for Funds that
are substantially similar to those of NYSE MKT, its proposed initial
and continued listing standards for Funds would be consistent with the
protection of investors.
    The Exchange is also proposing to correct a typographical error in
Section 802.01B.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with Section 6(b) of the Act,\7\ in general, and furthers the
objectives of Section 6(b)(5) \8\ of the Act, in particular in that it
is designed 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
and is not designed to permit unfair discrimination between customers,
issuers, brokers, or dealers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed amendment is consistent with Section 6(b)(5) of the
Act, as the initial and continued listing criteria set forth in the
proposed rules are designed to protect investors and the public
interest. As noted above, the Exchange's proposed amended listing
requirements for Funds are substantively identical to those of NYSE
MKT. The Exchange and NYSE MKT are under common ownership and issuers
listed on both markets are subject to oversight by the same regulatory
staff. Therefore, the staff of NYSE Regulation which is responsible for
regulation of both the Exchange and NYSE MKT has observed over an
extended period of time the application of the NYSE MKT listing rules
for Funds. Over this extended period, the staff's experience has been
that the application of the NYSE MKT Fund listing standards has
resulted in the listing of Funds that have generally been suitable on
an ongoing basis for exchange trading. Consequently, based on this
experience, the Exchange believes that, by adopting amended initial and
continued listing standards for Funds that are substantially the same
as those of NYSE MKT, the Exchange would continue to have listing
standards which would ensure that listed Funds are suitable for
exchange trading. Consequently, the Exchange believes that the proposed
rule change is consistent with the protection of investors and the
public interest.
    The modification of the market capitalization level at which the
Exchange provides an early warning to an issuer from $25 million of
average market capitalization over 30 trading days to $10 million of
market value of publicly held shares over 60 calendar days is
consistent with the proposed amendment to the substantive continued
listing standard. It would provide issuers with sufficient warning of
any potential noncompliance and is therefore consistent with the
protection of investors and the public interest.
    The Exchange believes that the proposed amendment would facilitate
the listing and trading of a greater number of Funds on the Exchange,
enhancing competition among market participants, to the benefit of
investors and the marketplace.

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate
in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The proposed rule change is
designed to harmonize the Exchange's rules with those of NYSE MKT. As
such, it is intended to promote competition for the listing of Funds by
providing them with a greater number of listing venue alternatives.

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

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

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

    Within 45 days of the date of publication of this notice in the
Federal

Register or up to 90 days (i) as the Commission may designate if it
finds such longer period to be appropriate and publishes its reasons
for so finding or (ii) as to which the self-regulatory organization
consents, the Commission will:
    (A) By order approve or disapprove the proposed rule change, or
    (B) institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule
change should be disapproved.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-NYSE-2017-08 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NYSE-2017-08. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549 on official business days between the hours of
10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of such filing also will be available
for inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All
comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does
not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should
submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All
submissions should refer to File Number SR-NYSE-2017-08, and should be
submitted on or before July 3, 2017.

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

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

Brent J. Fields,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2017-12040 Filed 6-9-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 62 (Monday, April 3, 2017)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 16122-16124]
[FR Doc No: 2017-06426]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

44 CFR Part 64

[Docket ID FEMA-2016-0002; Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-8473]

Suspension of Community Eligibility

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This rule identifies communities where the sale of flood
insurance has been authorized under the National Flood Insurance
Program (NFIP) that are scheduled for suspension on the effective dates
listed within this rule because of noncompliance with the floodplain
management requirements of the program. If the Federal Emergency
Management Agency (FEMA) receives documentation that the community has
adopted the required floodplain management measures prior to the
effective suspension date given in this rule, the suspension will not
occur and a notice of this will be provided by publication in the
Federal Register on a subsequent date. Also, information identifying
the current participation status of a community can be obtained from
FEMA's Community Status Book (CSB). The CSB is available at https://www.fema.gov/national-flood-insurance-program-community-status-book.

DATES: The effective date of each community's scheduled suspension is
the third date (``Susp.'') listed in the third column of the following
tables.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you want to determine whether a
particular community was suspended on the suspension date or for
further information, contact Patricia Suber, Federal Insurance and
Mitigation Administration, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 400 C
Street SW., Washington, DC 20472,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The NFIP enables property owners to purchase
Federal flood insurance that is not otherwise generally available from
private insurers. In return, communities agree to adopt and administer
local floodplain management measures aimed at protecting lives and new
construction from future flooding. Section 1315 of the National Flood
Insurance Act of 1968, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 4022, prohibits the sale
of NFIP flood insurance unless an appropriate public body adopts
adequate floodplain management measures with effective enforcement
measures. The communities listed in this document no longer meet that
statutory requirement for compliance with program regulations, 44 CFR
part 59. Accordingly, the communities will be suspended on the
effective date in the third column. As of that date, flood insurance
will no longer be available in the community. We recognize that some of
these communities may adopt and submit the required documentation of
legally enforceable floodplain management measures after this rule is
published but prior to the actual suspension date. These communities
will not be suspended and will continue to be eligible for the sale of
NFIP flood insurance. A notice withdrawing the suspension of such
communities will be published in the Federal Register.
    In addition, FEMA publishes a Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) that
identifies the Special Flood Hazard Areas (SFHAs) in these communities.
The date of the FIRM, if one has been published, is indicated in the
fourth column of the table. No direct Federal financial assistance
(except assistance pursuant to the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief
and Emergency Assistance Act not in connection with a flood) may be
provided for construction or acquisition of buildings in identified
SFHAs for communities not participating in the NFIP and identified for
more than a year on FEMA's initial FIRM for the community as having
flood-prone areas (section 202(a) of the Flood Disaster Protection Act
of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4106(a), as amended). This prohibition against
certain types of Federal assistance becomes effective for the
communities listed on the date shown in the last column. The
Administrator finds that notice and public comment procedures under 5
U.S.C. 553(b), are impracticable and unnecessary because communities
listed in this final rule have been adequately notified.
    Each community receives 6-month, 90-day, and 30-day notification
letters addressed to the Chief Executive Officer stating that the
community will be suspended unless the required floodplain management
measures are met prior to the effective suspension date. Since these
notifications were made, this final rule may take effect within less
than 30 days.
    National Environmental Policy Act. FEMA has determined that the
community suspension(s) included in this rule is a non-discretionary
action and therefore the National

Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) does not
apply.
    Regulatory Flexibility Act. The Administrator has determined that
this rule is exempt from the requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility
Act because the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968, as amended,
Section 1315, 42 U.S.C. 4022, prohibits flood insurance coverage unless
an appropriate public body adopts adequate floodplain management
measures with effective enforcement measures. The communities listed no
longer comply with the statutory requirements, and after the effective
date, flood insurance will no longer be available in the communities
unless remedial action takes place.
    Regulatory Classification. This final rule is not a significant
regulatory action under the criteria of section 3(f) of Executive Order
12866 of September 30, 1993, Regulatory Planning and Review, 58 FR
51735.
    Executive Order 13132, Federalism. This rule involves no policies
that have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132.
    Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform. This rule meets the
applicable standards of Executive Order 12988.
    Paperwork Reduction Act. This rule does not involve any collection
of information for purposes of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C.
3501 et seq.

List of Subjects in 44 CFR Part 64

    Flood insurance, Floodplains.

    Accordingly, 44 CFR part 64 is amended as follows:

PART 64--[AMENDED]

0
1. The authority citation for part 64 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 4001 et seq.; Reorganization Plan No. 3 of
1978, 3 CFR, 1978 Comp.; p. 329; E.O. 12127, 44 FR 19367, 3 CFR,
1979 Comp.; p. 376.

Sec.  64.6  [Amended]

0
2. The tables published under the authority of Sec.  64.6 are amended
as follows:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                Effective date
                                                authorization/
                                  Community     cancellation of    Current effective map   Date certain Federal
      State and location             No.         sale of flood             date            assistance no longer
                                                 insurance in                               available in SFHAs
                                                   community
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Region IV

Tennessee:
    Belle Meade, City of,             470408  N/A, Emerg;         April 5, 2017.........  April 5, 2017.
     Davidson County.                          September 29,
                                               2003, Reg; April
                                               5, 2017, Susp.
    Oak Hill, City of,                470351  August 18, 1975,    ......do..............   Do.
     Davidson County.                          Emerg; April 1,
                                               1980, Reg; April
                                               5, 2017, Susp.

           Region VI

Texas:
    San Perlita, City of,             480667  February 16, 1979,  ......do..............   Do.
     Willacy County.                           Emerg; May 5,
                                               1981, Reg; April
                                               5, 2017, Susp.
    Willacy County,                   480664  July 25, 1975,      ......do..............   Do.
     Unincorporated Areas.                     Emerg; February
                                               15, 1984, Reg;
                                               April 5, 2017,
                                               Susp.

          Region VII

Iowa:
    Bayard, City of, Guthrie          190553  N/A, Emerg;         ......do..............   Do.
     County.                                   October 15, 2015,
                                               Reg; April 5,
                                               2017, Susp.
    Fontanelle, City of, Adair        190579  N/A, Emerg;         ......do..............   Do.
     County.                                   November 25,
                                               2015, Reg; April
                                               5, 2017, Susp.
    Guthrie County,                   190871  November 9, 1993,   ......do..............   Do.
     Unincorporated Areas.                     Emerg; September
                                               1, 1996, Reg;
                                               April 5, 2017,
                                               Susp.
    Jamaica, City of, Guthrie         190744  June 24, 2008,      ......do..............   Do.
     County.                                   Emerg; May 1,
                                               2011, Reg; April
                                               5, 2017, Susp.
    Prescott, City of, Adams          190004  October 12, 2005,   ......do..............   Do.
     County.                                   Emerg; January 1,
                                               2006, Reg; April
                                               5, 2017, Susp.

           Region X

Oregon:
    Ashland, City of, Jackson         410090  August 9, 1974,     ......do..............   Do.
     County.                                   Emerg; June 1,
                                               1981, Reg; April
                                               5, 2017, Susp.
    Jackson County,                   415589  December 31, 1970,  ......do..............   Do.
     Unincorporated Areas.                     Emerg; April 1,
                                               1982, Reg; April
                                               5, 2017, Susp.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-do- = Ditto.
Code for reading third column: Emerg.--Emergency; Reg.--Regular; Susp.--Suspension.

    Dated: March 27, 2017.
Michael M. Grimm,
Assistant Administrator for Mitigation, Federal Insurance and
Mitigation Administration, Department of Homeland Security, Federal
Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2017-06426 Filed 3-31-17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-12-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 218 (Thursday, November 10, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 79019-79020]
[FR Doc No: 2016-27188]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OPPT-2003-0004; FRL-9954-71]

Access to Confidential Business Information by Battelle Memorial
Institute and Its Identified Subcontractor, Avanti Corporation

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: EPA has authorized its contractors, Battelle Memorial
Institute (BMI) of Columbus, OH and Avanti Corporation of Alexandria,
VA, to access information which has been submitted to EPA under
sections 4, 5, 6, 8(a), 11 and 21 of the Toxic Substances Control Act
(TSCA). Some of the information may be claimed or determined to be
Confidential Business Information (CBI).

DATES: Access to the confidential data occurred on October 20, 2016.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
    For technical information contact: Scott Sherlock, Environmental
Assistance Division (7408M), Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics,
Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW.,
Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email
address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    For general information contact: The TSCA-Hotline, ABVI-Goodwill,
422 South Clinton Ave., Rochester, NY 14620; telephone number: (202)
554-1404; email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. Does this action apply to me?

    This action is directed to the public in general. This action may,
however, be of interest to all who manufacture, process, or distribute
industrial chemicals. Since other entities may also be interested, the
Agency has not attempted to describe all the specific entities that may
be affected by this action.

B. How can I get copies of this document and other related information?

    The docket for this action, identified by docket identification
(ID) number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2003-0004 is available at http://www.regulations.gov or at the Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics
Docket (OPPT Docket), Environmental Protection Agency Docket Center
(EPA/DC), West William Jefferson Clinton Bldg., Rm. 3334, 1301
Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC. The Public Reading Room is open
from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal
holidays. The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is (202)
566-1744, and the telephone number for the OPPT Docket is (202) 566-
0280. Please review the visitor instructions and additional information
about the docket available at http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

II. What action is the Agency taking?

    Under EPA contract number EP-W-16-017, contractors BMI of 505 King
Avenue, Columbus, OH and Avanti Corporation of 5520 Cherokee Avenue,
Suite 205, Alexandria, VA are assisting the Office of Pollution
Prevention and Toxics (OPPT) by providing statistical and technical
support for the assessment of toxic substances. They are also providing
statistical, mathematical, field data collection, and technical

analysis support and planning for OPPT programs such as Lead Programs
and other technology and exposure related studies.
    In accordance with 40 CFR 2.306(j), EPA has determined that under
EPA contract number EP-W-16-017, BMI and Avanti Corporation required
access to CBI submitted to EPA under sections 4, 5, 6, 8(a), 11 and 21
of TSCA to perform successfully the duties specified under the
contract. BMI and Avanti Corporation personnel were given access to
information submitted to EPA under sections 4, 5, 6, 8(a), 11 and 21 of
TSCA. Some of the information may be claimed or determined to be CBI.
    EPA is issuing this notice to inform all submitters of information
under sections 4, 5, 6, 8(a), 11 and 21 of TSCA that EPA has provided
BMI and Avanti Corporation access to these CBI materials on a need-to-
know basis only. All access to TSCA CBI under this contract is taking
place at EPA Headquarters and BMI's site located in Columbus, OH, in
accordance with EPA's TSCA CBI Protection Manual.
    Access to TSCA data, including CBI, will continue until June 12,
2021. If the contract is extended, this access will also continue for
the duration of the extended contract without further notice.
    BMI and Avanti Corporation personnel have signed nondisclosure
agreements and were briefed on appropriate security procedures before
they are permitted access to TSCA CBI.

    Authority:  15 U.S.C. 2601 et seq.

    Dated: November 2, 2016.
Pamela S. Myrick,
Director, Information Management Division, Office of Pollution
Prevention and Toxics.
[FR Doc. 2016-27188 Filed 11-9-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register: March 10, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 46)]
[Notices]
[Page 11151]
[DOCID:fr10mr10-58]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 13630-000]

Lewis County Development Corporation; Notice of Preliminary
Permit Application Accepted for Filing and Soliciting Comments, Motions
To Intervene, and Competing Applications

March 3, 2010.
    On November 16, 2009, Lewis County Development Corporation (Lewis
County Corp) filed an application for a preliminary permit, pursuant to
section 4(f) of the Federal Power Act, proposing to study the
feasibility of the Croghan Dam Hydroelectric Project No. 13630, to be
located at the existing Croghan Dam, on the on the Beaver River, in
Lewis County, New York.
    The proposed project would consist of: (1) An existing concrete
gravity dam structure consisting of an 11.5-foot-high by 120-foot-long
section, and a 9.5-foot-high by 103-foot-long section; (2) an existing
approximately 121-acre impoundment with a normal water surface
elevation of 817.7 feet mean sea level; (3) a new 75-foot-long by 35-
foot-wide powerhouse; (4) two new turbine generator units for a total
installed capacity of 450 kilowatts; (5) a new approximately 360-foot-
long, 13.2-kilovolt transmission line; and (6) appurtenant facilities.
The proposed project would operate in run-of-river mode and generate an
estimated average annual generation of 2,773 megawatt-hours.
    Lewis County Corp: Larry Dolhof, Lewis County Development
Corporation, P.O. Box 704, Lyons Falls, NY 13368,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    FERC Contact: Michael Watts,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Deadline for filing comments, motions to intervene, competing
applications (without notices of intent), or notices of intent to file
competing applications: 60 days from the issuance of this notice.
Comments, motions to intervene, notices of intent, and competing
applications may be filed electronically via the Internet. See 18 CFR
385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's Web site
under the ``eFiling'' link. If unable to be filed electronically,
documents may be paper-filed. To paper-file, an original and eight
copies should be mailed to: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426. For
more information on how to submit these types of filings please go to
the Commission's Web site located at http://www.ferc.gov/filing-
comments.asp. More information about this project can be viewed or
printed on the ``eLibrary'' link of Commission's Web site at http://
www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/elibrary.asp. Enter the docket number (P-
13630) in the docket number field to access the document. For
assistance, call toll-free 1-866-208-3372.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-5042 Filed 3-9-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P