[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 115 (Thursday, June 15, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Pages 39275-39280]
[FR Doc No: 2023-12754]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-97681; File No. SR-NYSEARCA-2023-39]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE Arca, Inc.; Notice of Filing
and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Amend the NYSE
Arca Equities Fees and Charges

June 9, 2023.
    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 May 31, 2023, NYSE Arca, Inc. (``NYSE Arca'' or the ``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 amend the NYSE Arca Equities Fees and
Charges (``Fee Schedule'') to (i) modify Ratio Threshold Fees and (ii)
eliminate the Step Up Tier 1 pricing tier under Step Up Tiers. The
Exchange proposes to implement the fee changes effective June 1, 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
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to amend the Fee Schedule to (i) modify Ratio
Threshold Fees, which apply to orders ranked Priority 2--Display Orders
and to shares of Auction-Only Orders that have a disproportionate ratio
of orders that are not executed,\3\ and (ii) eliminate the Step Up Tier
1 pricing tier under Step Up Tiers. The Exchange proposes to implement
the fee changes effective June 1, 2023.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 88930 (May 21,
2020), 85 FR 32068 (May 28, 2020) (SR-NYSEArca-2020-45) (``Ratio
Threshold Fee Filing'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Background
    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.'' \4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 51808 (June 9,
2005), 70 FR 37496, 37499 (June 29, 2005) (File No. S7-10-04) (Final
Rule) (``Regulation NMS'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    While Regulation NMS has enhanced competition, it has also fostered
a ``fragmented'' market structure where trading in a single stock can
occur across multiple trading centers. When multiple trading centers
compete for order flow in the same stock, the

Commission has recognized that ``such competition can lead to the
fragmentation of order flow in that stock.'' \5\ Indeed, equity trading
is currently dispersed across 16 exchanges,\6\ numerous alternative
trading systems,\7\ and broker-dealer internalizers and wholesalers,
all competing for order flow. Based on publicly available information,
no single exchange currently has more than 17% market share.\8\
Therefore, no exchange possesses significant pricing power in the
execution of equity order flow. More specifically, the Exchange
currently has less than 10% market share of executed volume of equities
trading.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 61358, 75 FR 3594,
3597 (January 21, 2010) (File No. S7-02-10) (Concept Release on
Equity Market Structure).
    \6\ See Cboe U.S Equities Market Volume Summary, available at
https://markets.cboe.com/us/equities/market_share.
    \7\ See FINRA ATS Transparency Data, available at https://otctransparency.finra.org/otctransparency/AtsIssueData. A list of
alternative trading systems registered with the Commission is
available at https://www.sec.gov/foia/docs/atslist.htm.
    \8\ See Cboe Global Markets U.S. Equities Market Volume Summary,
available at http://markets.cboe.com/us/equities/market_share/.
    \9\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that the ever-shifting market share among the
exchanges from month to month demonstrates that market participants can
move order flow, or discontinue or reduce use of certain categories of
products, based on transaction fees and credits. Accordingly, the
Exchange's fees, including the proposed modification to the Ratio
Threshold Fee, are reasonably constrained by competitive alternatives
and market participants can readily trade on competing venues if they
deem pricing levels at those other venues to be more favorable.
Proposed Rule Change
Ratio Threshold Fee
    The Ratio Threshold Fee applies to orders ranked Priority 2--
Display Orders (``RT-Display Fee'') and to shares of Auction-Only
Orders during the period when Auction Imbalance information is being
disseminated for a Core Open Auction or Closing Auction (``RT-Auction
Fee''). The purpose of this proposed rule change is to modify the RT-
Auction Fee. The Exchange is not proposing any change to the RT-Display
Fee.
    Currently, for Auction-Only Orders,\10\ ETP Holders with an average
daily number of orders of 10,000 or more are charged an RT-Auction Fee
on a monthly basis.\11\ For purposes of determining the RT-Auction Fee:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ An Auction-Only Order is a Limit or Market Order that is to
be traded only within an auction pursuant to Rule 7.35-E or routed
pursuant to Rule 7.34-E. See Rule 7.31-E(c). Auction-Only Orders are
orders submitted by an ETP Holder during the Early Open Auction,
Core Open Auction, Closing Auction and Trading Halt Auction. See
Rule 7.35-E.
    \11\ Similar to orders ranked Priority 2--Display Orders, the
current fee focuses on Auction-Only Orders because a
disproportionate ratio of such orders that are not executed uses
more system resources, including updates to the Auction Imbalance
Information as such orders are entered and cancelled, than other
order entry and cancellation practices of ETP Holders. Accordingly,
for Auction-Only Orders, Ratio Shares include shares of Auction-Only
Orders executed in a disproportionate ratio to the quantity of
shares entered during the period when Auction Imbalance Information
is being disseminated for the Core Open Auction and Closing Auction.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     The number of ``Ratio Shares'' is the average daily number
of shares of Auction-Only Orders that are cancelled by an ETP Holder at
a disproportionate ratio to the average daily number of shares executed
by that ETP Holder. Orders ranked Priority 2--Display Orders designated
for the Core Trading Session only that are entered during the period
when Auction Imbalance Information for the Core Open Auction is being
disseminated are included in the Ratio Shares calculation.\12\ All
orders entered by an ETP Holder for securities in which it is
registered as a Lead Market Maker are not included the calculation of
Ratio Shares.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ For purposes of the Ratio Threshold Fees, orders ranked
Priority 2--Display Orders designated for the Core Trading Session
only that are cancelled during the period when Auction Imbalance
Information for the Core Open Auction is being disseminated are
included in the calculation of the RT-Auction Fee. The Exchange
includes such orders as Auction-Only Orders for purposes of such fee
because prior to the Core Open Auction, such orders would not be
eligible to trade and therefore would not be included in the RT-
Display Fee calculation, yet such orders would be included in the
imbalance calculation for the Core Open Auction.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     The ``Ratio Shares Threshold'' is an ETP Holder's Ratio
Shares divided by the average daily executed shares by the ETP Holder.
    As noted above, the Exchange charges the RT-Auction Fee for
Auction-Only Orders during the period when Auction Imbalance
Information is being disseminated.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ See Rules 7.35-E(c)(1) (Core Open Auction Imbalance
Information begins at 8:00 a.m. ET) and 7.35-E(d)(1) (Closing
Auction Imbalance Information begins at 3:00 p.m. ET).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange currently does not charge the RT-Auction Fee if
Auction-Only Orders have a Ratio Shares Threshold of less than 50. The
Exchange proposes that it would not charge the RT-Auction Fee if
Auction-Only Orders have a Ratio Shares Threshold of less than 25.
    Currently, if the Ratio Shares Threshold is greater than or equal
to 50, the fee is as follows:
     No Charge for ETP Holders with an average of fewer than 20
million Ratio Shares per day.
     $1.00 per million Ratio Shares for ETP Holders with an
average of 20 million to 200 million Ratio Shares per day.
     $10.00 per million Ratio Shares for ETP Holders with an
average of more than 200 million Ratio Shares per day.
    The Exchange proposes that if the Ratio Shares Threshold is greater
than or equal to 25, the fee would be as follows:
     No Charge for ETP Holders with an average of fewer than 10
million Ratio Shares per day.
     $5.00 per million Ratio Shares for ETP Holders with an
average of 10 million to 100 million Ratio Shares per day.
     $15.00 per million Ratio Shares for ETP Holders with an
average of more than 100 million Ratio Shares per day.
    ETP Holders are currently charged for the entirety of their Ratio
Shares at a rate of $1.00 per million Ratio Shares if the ETP Holder
has an average of 20 million to 200 million Ratio Shares; and $10.00
per million Ratio Shares if the ETP Holder has an average of more than
200 million Ratio Shares. The Exchange proposes that ETP Holders would
be charged for the entirety of their Ratio Shares at a rate of $5.00
per million Ratio Shares if the ETP Holder has an average of 10 million
to 100 million Ratio Shares; and $15.00 per million Ratio Shares if the
ETP Holder has an average of more than 100 million Ratio Shares.
    The following example illustrates the calculation of the RT-Auction
Fee for Auction-Only Orders, as modified by this proposed rule change.
     In a month, ETP Holder B enters a daily average of 50,000
Auction-Only Orders for the Closing Auction, with an average size of
600 shares.
     Thus, ETP Holder B's daily average number of shares
submitted in Auction-Only Orders for the Closing Auction is 30,000,000
shares (50,000 orders x 600 shares).
     During the period when Closing Auction Imbalance
Information is being disseminated, ETP Holder B cancels a daily average
of 29,000,000 shares and executes a daily average of 1,000,000 shares
in the Closing Auction.
     ETP Holder B has an average daily Ratio Shares quantity of
28,000,000 (29,000,000-1,000,000), and a Ratio Shares Threshold of 28
(28,000,000/1,000,000).

     Since the Ratio Shares Threshold is greater than 25 and
the average daily Ratio Shares quantity is between 10 million and 100
million, ETP Holder B would be subject to the proposed fee of $5.00 per
million Ratio Share, resulting in a fee of $2,940 assuming a 21-day
month (28,000,000/1,000,000 x $5.00 x 21).
    Finally, the combined RT-Display Fee and RT-Auction Fee for an ETP
Holder is currently capped at $2,000,000 per month. The Exchange
proposes to lower the cap to $1,000,000 per month.
    The purpose of the proposed rule change is to recalibrate the
application of the RT-Auction Fee. The Exchange believes the proposed
modification to the calculation of the RT-Auction Fee will continue to
strengthen the Exchange's goal of providing a more efficient
marketplace and enhance the trading experience of all ETP Holders by
encouraging them to more efficiently participate on the Exchange.
    As noted in the Ratio Threshold Fee Filing, the purpose of the
Ratio Threshold Fee is not to create revenue, but rather to provide an
incentive for a small number of ETP Holders to change their order entry
practices. Based on an analysis of order entry practices by ETP Holders
between December 2022 and May 2023, only 2 ETP Holders incurred the RT-
Auction Fee during that time period. Additionally, between December
2022 and May 2023, the median Order Entry Ratio across all ETP Holders
for Auction-Only Orders ranged from -0.87 to -.09, which indicates that
the median ETP Holder had more executed shares than Ratio Shares. The
Exchange does not anticipate the proposed recalibration would subject
any additional ETP Holders to the RT-Auction Fee.
    The Ratio Threshold Fee is intended to encourage efficient usage of
Exchange systems by ETP Holders. The Exchange believes that it is in
the best interests of all ETP Holders and investors who access the
Exchange to encourage efficient systems usage. Unproductive share entry
and cancellation practices, such as when ETP Holders flood the market
with orders that are frequently and/or rapidly cancelled, do little to
support meaningful price discovery, may create investor confusion about
the extent of trading interest in a security. The Exchange further
believes that inefficient order entry practices of a small number of
ETP Holders may place excessive burdens on Exchange systems and to the
systems of other ETP Holders that are ingesting market data, while also
negatively impacting the usefulness of market data feeds that transmit
each order and subsequent cancellation.\14\ ETP Holders with an
excessive ratio of cancelled to executed orders do little to support
meaningful price discovery.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ See generally Recommendations Regarding Regulatory Reponses
to the Market Events of May 6, 2010, Joint CFTC-SEC Advisory
Committee on Emerging Regulatory Issues, at 11 (February 18, 2011)
(``The SEC and CFTC should also consider addressing the
disproportionate impact that [high frequency trading] has on
Exchange message traffic and market surveillance costs. . . . The
Committee recognizes that there are valid reasons for algorithmic
strategies to drive high cancellation rates, but we believe that
this is an area that deserves further study. At a minimum, we
believe that the participants of those strategies should properly
absorb the externalized costs of their activity.'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As noted above, only a small number of ETP Holders are executing
orders at a disproportionately low ratio to the number of orders that
have been entered and, thus, the impact of the current fee has been
narrow and limited to those ETP Holders. These ETP Holders could avoid
the fee by changing their behavior.
Eliminate Underutilized Credit
    In this competitive environment, the Exchange has already
established Step Up Tiers 1-3, which are designed to encourage ETP
Holders that provide displayed liquidity on the Exchange to increase
that order flow, which would benefit all ETP Holders by providing
greater execution opportunities on the Exchange. In order to provide an
incentive for ETP Holders to direct providing displayed order flow to
the Exchange, the credits increase in the various tiers based on
increased levels of volume directed to the Exchange.
    Currently, the following credits are available to ETP Holders that
provide increased levels of displayed liquidity on the Exchange:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                             Credit for adding displayed
                   Tier                               liquidity
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Step Up Tier 1............................  $0.0028 (Tape A and C).
                                            $0.0022 (Tape B).
Step Up Tier 2............................  $0.0033 (Tape A and C).
                                            $0.0034 (Tape B).
Step Up Tier 3............................  $0.0031 (Tape A, B and C).
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange proposes to eliminate current Step Up Tier 1 and
remove the pricing tier from the Fee Schedule. The current Step Up Tier
1 pricing tier has been underutilized by ETP Holders. The Exchange has
observed that only once has an ETP Holder qualified for the tiered
credit in the last 6 months. Since the current Step Up Tier 1 pricing
tier has not been effective in accomplishing its intended purpose,
which is to incent ETP Holders to increase their liquidity adding
activity on the Exchange, the Exchange has determined to eliminate the
pricing tier and remove it from the Fee Schedule.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with section 6(b) of the Act,\15\ in general, and furthers the
objectives of sections 6(b)(4) and (5) of the Act,\16\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \16\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4) and (5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that the proposed fee change would help 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, because it is designed to
reduce the numbers of orders and shares being entered and then
cancelled prior to an execution.
The Proposed Changes Are Reasonable
    As discussed above, the Exchange operates in a highly fragmented
and competitive market. 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.'' \17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ See Regulation NMS, supra note 5, 70 FR at 37499.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As the Commission itself recognized, the market for trading
services in NMS stocks has become ``more fragmented and competitive.''
\18\ Indeed, equity trading is currently dispersed across 13
exchanges,\19\ numerous alternative

trading systems,\20\ and broker-dealer internalizers and wholesalers,
all competing for order flow. Based on publicly-available information,
no single exchange currently has more than 17% market share (whether
including or excluding auction volume).\21\ 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, the Exchange's fees, including
the proposed modification to the Ratio Threshold Fee, are reasonably
constrained by competitive alternatives and market participants can
readily trade on competing venues if they deem pricing levels at those
other venues to be more favorable.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 51808, 84 FR 5202,
5253 (February 20, 2019) (File No. S7-05-18) (Final Rule).
    \19\ See Cboe U.S Equities Market Volume Summary, available at
https://markets.cboe.com/us/equities/market_share. See generally
https://www.sec.gov/fast-answers/divisionsmarketregmrexchangesshtml.html.
    \20\ See FINRA ATS Transparency Data, available at https://otctransparency.finra.org/otctransparency/AtsIssueData. A list of
alternative trading systems registered with the Commission is
available at https://www.sec.gov/foia/docs/atslist.htm.
    \21\ See Cboe Global Markets U.S. Equities Market Volume
Summary, available at http://markets.cboe.com/us/equities/market_share/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ratio Threshold Fee
    The Exchange believes that the proposed change to the Ratio
Threshold Fee is reasonable because it is designed to achieve
improvements in the quality of displayed liquidity, particularly in
advance of auctions, on the Exchange for the benefit of all market
participants. In addition, the proposed change is reasonable because
market participants may readily avoid the fee by adjusting their order
entry and/or cancellation practices, which would result in more orders
or shares being cancelled before execution.
    Although only a small number of ETP Holders have been impacted
since the Ratio Threshold Fee was implemented, the Exchange believes
the proposed change to the manner in which the RT--Auction Fee is
calculated is necessary to incent the small number of ETP Holders whose
trading behavior imposes on others through order entry practices
resulting in a disproportionate ratio of executed orders or shares to
those that are not executed. Accordingly, the Exchange believes that it
is fair to modify the manner in which the RT--Auction Fee is calculated
and impose the fee on these market participants in order to incentivize
them to modify their practices and thereby benefit the market.
    The Exchange believes that the proposed combined fee cap of
$1,000,000 is reasonable as it would reduce the impact of the fee on
ETP Holders. As noted above, the purpose of the proposed fee is not to
generate revenue for the Exchange, but rather to provide an incentive
for a small number of ETP Holders to change their order entry and/or
cancellation behavior. As a general principal, the Exchange believes
that greater participation on the Exchange by ETP Holders improves
market quality for all market participants. Thus, in modifying the
current fee, and the cap, the Exchange balanced the desire to improve
market quality against the need to discourage inefficient order entry
and/or cancellation practices.
    The Exchange notes that the notion of a fee that incentivizes
efficient order entry and/or cancellation practices is not novel. The
Exchange's current fee is comparable to a fee charged by the NASDAQ
Stock Market LLC (``Nasdaq'') \22\ and by Exchange's options market,
NYSE Arca Options, to OTP Holders to disincentivize a disproportionate
ratio of orders that are not executed.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 66951 (May 9,
2012), 77 FR 28647 (May 15, 2012) (SR-NASDAQ-2012-055) (Notice of
Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To
Institute an Excess Order Fee).
    \23\ See Ratio Threshold Fee, at https://www.nyse.com/publicdocs/nyse/markets/arca-options/NYSE_Arca_Options_Fee_Schedule.pdf. The Ratio Threshold Fee is
charged to OTP Holders based on the number of orders entered
compared to the number of executions received in a calendar month.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Eliminate Underutilized Credit
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change to eliminate
the Step Up Tier 1 pricing tier is reasonable because the pricing tier
that is the subject of this proposed rule change has been underutilized
and has not incentivized ETP Holders to bring liquidity and increase
trading on the Exchange. Only once has an ETP Holder qualified for the
tiered credit in the last 6 months. The Exchange also does not
anticipate any ETP Holder in the near future will qualify for the
pricing incentive proposed for deletion. The Exchange believes it is
reasonable to eliminate requirements and credits, and even entire
pricing tiers, when such incentives become underutilized. The Exchange
believes eliminating underutilized incentive programs would also
simplify the Fee Schedule. The Exchange further believes that removing
reference to the pricing tier that the Exchange proposes to eliminate
from the Fee Schedule would also add clarity to the Fee Schedule.
The Proposal Is an Equitable Allocation of Fees
Ratio Threshold Fee
    The Exchange believes that the proposed change to the Ratio
Threshold Fee is equitably allocated among its market participants.
Although only a small number of ETP Holders may be subject to the RT--
Auction Fee based on their current trading practices, any ETP Holder
could determine to change its order entry practices at any time, and
thus avoid the fee. The fee is therefore designed to encourage better
order entry practices by all ETP Holders for the benefit of all market
participants. Moreover, as noted above, the purpose of the Ratio
Threshold Fee is not to generate revenue for the Exchange, but rather
to provide an incentive for a small number of ETP Holders to change
their order entry and/or cancellation behavior.
    The Exchange believes that the proposal constitutes an equitable
allocation of fees because all similarly situated ETP Holders would be
subject to the fees. As noted above, the Exchange believes that because
having a disproportionate ratio of unexecuted orders is a problem
associated with a relatively small number of ETP Holders, the impact of
the proposal would be limited to those ETP Holders, and only if they do
not alter their trading practices. The Exchange believes the proposal
would encourage ETP Holders that could be impacted to modify their
practices in order to avoid the fee, thereby improving the market for
all participants.
Eliminate Underutilized Credit
    The Exchange believes that eliminating requirements and credits,
and even entire pricing tiers, from the Fee Schedule when such
incentives become ineffective is equitable because the requirements,
and credits, and even entire pricing tiers, would be eliminated in
their entirety and would no longer be available to any ETP Holder. The
Exchange also believes that the proposed change would protect investors
and the public interest because the deletion of the underutilized
pricing tier would make the Fee Schedule more accessible and
transparent and facilitate market participants' understanding of the
fees charged for services currently offered by the Exchange.

The Proposal Is Not Unfairly Discriminatory
    The Exchange believes that the proposal is not unfairly
discriminatory.
Ratio Threshold Fee
    The Exchange believes that the proposed change to the Ratio
Threshold Fee is not unfairly discriminatory. In the prevailing
competitive environment, ETP Holders are free to disfavor the
Exchange's pricing if they believe that alternatives offer them better
value, and are free to transact on competitor markets to avoid being
subject to the Exchange's fees that are the subject of this proposed
rule change. The Exchange believes that the proposed fee change neither
targets nor will it have a disparate impact on any particular category
of market participant. The Exchange believes that the proposal does not
permit unfair discrimination because it would be applied to all
similarly situated ETP Holders, who would all be subject to the fee on
an equal basis.
Eliminate Underutilized Credit
    The Exchange believes that eliminating requirements and credits
associated with Step Up Tier 1 from the Fee Schedule when such
incentives become ineffective is not unfairly discriminatory because
the requirements and credits associated with the pricing tier would be
eliminated in its entirety and would no longer be available to any ETP
Holder. All ETP Holders would continue to be subject to the same fee
structure, and access to the Exchange's market would continue to be
offered on fair and non-discriminatory terms. The Exchange also
believes that the proposed change would protect investors and the
public interest because the deletion of the underutilized pricing tier
would make the Fee Schedule more accessible and transparent and
facilitate market participants' understanding of the fees charged for
services currently offered by the Exchange.
    Finally, the submission of orders to the Exchange is optional for
ETP Holders in that they could choose whether to submit orders to the
Exchange and, if they do, the extent of its activity in this regard.
For the foregoing reasons, the Exchange believes that the proposal is
consistent with the Act.

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

    In accordance with section 6(b)(8) of the Act,\24\ the Exchange
believes that the proposed rule change would not 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 fee change would encourage ETP Holders to modify
their order entry and/or cancellation practices so that fewer orders or
shares are cancelled without resulting in an execution, thereby
promoting price discovery and transparency and enhancing order
execution opportunities on the Exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(8).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Intramarket Competition. The Exchange believes the proposed change
to the Ratio Threshold Fee would not place any undue burden on
intramarket competition that is not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act because the proposed fee change
is designed to encourage ETP Holders to submit orders or shares into
the market that are actionable. Further, the proposal would apply to
all ETP Holders on an equal basis, and, as such, the proposed change
would not impose a disparate burden on competition among market
participants on the Exchange. To the extent that these purposes are
achieved, the Exchange believes that the proposal would serve as an
incentive for ETP Holders to modify their order entry practices, thus
enhancing the quality of the market and increase the volume of orders
or shares directed to, and executed on, the Exchange. In turn, all the
Exchange's market participants would benefit from the improved market
liquidity. The Exchange also does not believe the proposed rule change
to eliminate underutilized pricing tiers will impose any burden on
intramarket competition because the proposed change would impact all
ETP Holders uniformly. To the extent the proposed rule change places a
burden on competition, any such burden would be outweighed by the fact
that the pricing incentive proposed for deletion has not served its
intended purpose of incentivizing ETP Holders to more broadly
participate on the Exchange.
    Intermarket Competition. The Exchange operates in a highly
competitive market in which market participants can readily choose to
send their orders to other exchange and off-exchange venues if they
deem fee levels at those other venues to be more favorable. As noted
above, the Exchange's market share of intraday trading (i.e., excluding
auctions) is currently less than 10%. In such an environment, the
Exchange must continually review, and consider adjusting its fees and
rebates to remain competitive with other exchanges and with off-
exchange venues. Because competitors are free to modify their own fees
and credits in response, the Exchange does not believe its proposed fee
change can impose any burden on intermarket competition.

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 has become effective upon filing pursuant
to section 19(b)(3)(A) \25\ of the Act and paragraph (f) thereunder. 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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-2023-39 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-2023-39. 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 10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of
the filing also will be available for inspection and copying at the
principal offices 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-
NYSEARCA-2023-39, and should be submitted on or before July 6, 2023.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\26\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sherry R. Haywood,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2023-12754 Filed 6-14-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 103 (Tuesday, June 1, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 29308-29311]
[FR Doc No: 2021-11409]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-92016; File No. SR-NYSEARCA-2021-40]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE Arca, Inc.; Notice of Filing
and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Amend the NYSE
Arca Equities Fees and Charges

May 25, 2021.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) \1\ of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 (the ``Act''),\2\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\3\ notice is hereby
given that on May 11, 2021, 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, II,
and III below, which Items have been prepared by the self-regulatory
organization. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit
comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange proposes to amend the NYSE Arca Equities Fees and
Charges (``Fee Schedule'') to adopt reduced fees for Retail Orders that
are executed in the Exchange's opening and closing auctions. The
Exchange proposes to implement the fee changes effective May 11, 2021.
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
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to amend the Fee Schedule to adopt reduced
fees for Retail Orders \4\ that are executed in the Exchange's opening
and closing auctions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ A Retail Order is an agency order that originates from a
natural person and is submitted to the Exchange by an ETP Holder,
provided that no change is made to the terms of the order to price
or side of market and the order does not originate from a trading
algorithm or any other computerized methodology. See Securities
Exchange Act Release No. 67540 (July 30, 2012), 77 FR 46539 (August
3, 2012) (SR-NYSEArca-2012-77).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed changes respond to the current competitive environment
where order flow providers have a choice of where to direct Retail
Orders by offering further incentives for ETP Holders \5\ to send such
orders to the Exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ All references to ETP Holders in connection with this
proposed fee change include Market Makers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange proposes to implement the fee changes effective May
11, 2021.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ The Exchange originally filed to amend the Fee Schedule on
May 3, 2021 (SR-NYSEArca-2021-36). SR-NYSEArca-2021-36 was
subsequently withdrawn and replaced by this filing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Background
    As noted above, 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.'' \7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 51808 (June 9,
2005), 70 FR 37496, 37499 (June 29, 2005) (File No. S7-10-04) (Final
Rule) (``Regulation NMS'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    While Regulation NMS has enhanced competition, it has also fostered
a ``fragmented'' market structure where trading in a single stock can
occur across multiple trading centers. When multiple trading centers
compete for order flow in the same stock, the Commission has recognized
that ``such competition can lead to the fragmentation of order flow in
that stock.'' \8\ Indeed, equity trading is

currently dispersed across 16 exchanges,\9\ numerous alternative
trading systems,\10\ and broker-dealer internalizers and wholesalers,
all competing for order flow. Based on publicly-available information,
no single exchange currently has more than 17% market share.\11\
Therefore, no exchange possesses significant pricing power in the
execution of equity order flow. More specifically, the Exchange
currently has less than 10% market share of executed volume of equities
trading.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 61358, 75 FR 3594,
3597 (January 21, 2010) (File No. S7-02-10) (Concept Release on
Equity Market Structure).
    \9\ See Cboe U.S. Equities Market Volume Summary, available at
https://markets.cboe.com/us/equities/market_share. See generally
https://www.sec.gov/fast-answers/divisionsmarketregmrexchangesshtml.html.
    \10\ See FINRA ATS Transparency Data, available at https://otctransparency.finra.org/otctransparency/AtsIssueData. A list of
alternative trading systems registered with the Commission is
available at https://www.sec.gov/foia/docs/atslist.htm.
    \11\ See Cboe Global Markets U.S. Equities Market Volume
Summary, available at http://markets.cboe.com/us/equities/market_share/.
    \12\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that the ever-shifting market share among the
exchanges from month to month demonstrates that market participants can
move order flow, or discontinue or reduce use of certain categories of
products. While it is not possible to know a firm's reason for shifting
order flow, the Exchange believes that one such reason is because of
fee changes at any of the registered exchanges or non-exchange venues
to which a firm routes order flow. The competition for Retail Orders is
even more stark, particularly as it relates to exchange versus off-
exchange venues.
    The Exchange thus needs to compete in the first instance with non-
exchange venues for Retail Order flow, and with the 16 other exchange
venues for that Retail Order flow that is not directed off-exchange.
Accordingly, competitive forces compel the Exchange to use exchange
transaction fees and credits, particularly as they relate to competing
for Retail Order flow, because market participants can readily trade on
competing venues if they deem pricing levels at those other venues to
be more favorable.
Proposed Rule Change
    In response to this competitive environment, the Exchange proposes
to adopt reduced fees for Retail Orders that are executed in the
Exchange's opening and closing auctions. Specifically, under the Basic
rates section of the Fee Schedule, the Exchange currently charges a fee
of $0.0015 per share for Market and Auction-Only Orders in Tape A, Tape
B and Tape C securities executed in an Early Opening Auction, Core Open
Auction or Trading Halt Auction with a cap of $20,000 per Equity
Trading Permit ID. This fee also applies to Retail Orders that are
executed in such auctions. To attract additional Retail Orders for
execution in the Exchange's opening auctions, the Exchange proposes to
adopt a lower fee of $0.0005 per share for Market and Auction-Only
Orders in Tape A, Tape B and Tape C securities that are designated as
Retail Orders and executed in the Early Open Auction, Core Open Auction
or Trading Halt Auction.
    Further, under the Basic rates section of the Fee Schedule, the
Exchange currently charges a fee of $0.0012 per share for Market,
Market-On-Close, Limit-On-Close, and Auction-Only Orders in Tape A,
Tape B and Tape C securities executed in the Closing Auction. This fee
also applies to Retail Orders executed in the Closing Auction. To
attract additional Retail Orders for execution on the Exchange, the
Exchange proposes to adopt a lower fee of $0.0008 per share for Market,
Market-On-Close, Limit-On-Close, and Auction-Only Orders in Tape A,
Tape B and Tape C securities that are designated as Retail Orders and
executed in the Closing Auction.
    The Exchange is not proposing any change to the cap for Market and
Auction-Only Orders executed in an Early Open Auction, Core Open
Auction or Trading Halt Auction, which would remain at $20,000 per
Equity Trading Permit ID.
    The purpose of the proposed rule change is to encourage even
greater participation from ETP Holders and promote additional liquidity
in Retail Orders. As described above, ETP Holders have a choice of
where to send such orders. The Exchange believes that the proposed
lower fees could lead to more ETP Holders choosing to route their
Retail Orders to the Exchange for execution in the opening and closing
auctions rather than to a competing exchange.
    The Exchange does not know how much Retail Order flow ETP Holders
choose to route to other exchanges or to off-exchange venues. Without
having a view of ETP Holders' activity on other markets and off-
exchange venues, the Exchange has no way of knowing whether this
proposed rule change would result in any ETP Holders sending more of
their Retail Orders to the Exchange. The Exchange cannot predict with
certainty how many ETP Holders would avail themselves of this
opportunity but additional Retail Orders would benefit all market
participants because it would provide greater execution opportunities
in the Exchange's opening and closing auctions.
    The proposed rule change is designed to be available to all ETP
Holders on the Exchange and is intended to provide ETP Holders a
greater incentive to direct more of their Retail Orders for execution
in the Exchange's opening and closing auctions.
    The proposed changes are not otherwise intended to address any
other issues, and the Exchange is not aware of any significant problems
that market participants would have in complying with the proposed
changes.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with Section 6(b) of the Act,\13\ in general, and furthers the
objectives of Sections 6(b)(4) and (5) of the Act,\14\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \14\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4) and (5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Proposed Fee Change Is Reasonable
    As discussed above, the Exchange operates in a highly fragmented
and competitive market. 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.'' \15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 51808 (June 9,
2005), 70 FR 37496, 37499 (June 29, 2005).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 [sic] reduce use of certain
categories of products, in response to fee changes. With respect to
Retail Orders, ETP Holders can choose from any one of the 16 currently
operating registered exchanges, and numerous off-exchange venues, to
route such order flow. Accordingly, competitive forces

reasonably constrain exchange transaction fees that relate to Retail
Orders on an exchange. Stated otherwise, changes to exchange
transaction fees can have a direct effect on the ability of an exchange
to compete for order flow.
    Given this competitive environment, the proposal represents a
reasonable attempt to attract additional Retail Orders to the Exchange.
    The Exchange believes that the proposed change to adopt lower fees
for Retail Orders executed in the Exchange's opening and closing
auctions is reasonable because the lower fees would encourage ETP
Holders to send a greater number of their Retail Orders for execution
on the Exchange. As noted above, the Exchange operates in a highly
competitive environment, particularly for attracting Retail Order flow.
The Exchange believes it is reasonable to offer reduced fees for Retail
Orders in the opening and closing auctions. The Exchange believes the
proposed change is also reasonable because it is designed to attract
higher volumes of Retail Orders transacted on the Exchange by ETP
Holders which would benefit all market participants by offering greater
price discovery and an increased opportunity to trade on the Exchange.
    On the backdrop of the competitive environment in which the
Exchange currently operates, the proposed rule change is a reasonable
attempt to increase liquidity on the Exchange and improve the
Exchange's market share relative to its competitors.
The Proposed Fee Change Is an Equitable Allocation of Fees and Credits
    The Exchange believes its proposal is an equitable allocation of
its fees among its market participants because all ETP Holders that
participate on the Exchange may qualify for the proposed reduced fee if
they elect to send their Retail Orders for execution in the Exchange's
opening and closing auctions. Without having a view of ETP Holders'
activity on other markets and off-exchange venues, the Exchange has no
way of knowing whether this proposed rule change would result in any
ETP Holder sending more of their Retail Orders to the Exchange. The
Exchange cannot predict with certainty how many ETP Holders would avail
themselves of this opportunity but additional Retail Orders would
benefit all market participants because it would provide greater
execution opportunities in the Exchange's opening and closing auctions.
The Exchange anticipates that multiple ETP Holders that engage in
retail trading activity would endeavor to send more of their Retail
Orders for execution in the Exchange's opening and closing auctions and
pay the proposed lower fee.
    Further, given the competitive market for attracting Retail Order
flow, the Exchange notes that with this proposed rule change, the
Exchange's pricing for Retail Orders that are executed in the opening
and closing auctions would be lower that fees charged by other
exchanges that the Exchange competes with for order flow. For example,
the Nasdaq Stock Market LLC (``Nasdaq'') charges its members a fee of
$0.0015 per share per share for orders, including Retail Orders, that
are executed in the Nasdaq Opening Cross, and a fee that ranges between
$0.0008 per share and $0.0016 per share for orders, including Retail
Orders, that are executed in the Nasdaq Closing Cross.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ See Nasdaq Price List, NASDAQ Crossing Network, at http://nasdaqtrader.com/Trader.aspx?id=PriceListTrading2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange further believes that the proposed change is equitable
because it is reasonably related to the value to the Exchange's market
quality associated with higher volume in Retail Orders. The Exchange
believes that recalibrating the fees charged for execution of Retail
Orders will continue to attract order flow and liquidity to the
Exchange, thereby contributing to price discovery on the Exchange and
benefiting investors generally.
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is equitable
because maintaining or increasing the proportion of Retail Orders in
exchange-listed securities that are executed on a registered national
securities exchange (rather than relying on certain available off-
exchange execution methods) would contribute to investors' confidence
in the fairness of their transactions and would benefit all investors
by deepening the Exchange's liquidity pool, supporting the quality of
price discovery, promoting market transparency and improving investor
protection.
The Proposed Fee Change Is Not Unfairly Discriminatory
    The Exchange believes that the proposal is not unfairly
discriminatory. In the prevailing competitive environment, ETP Holders
are free to disfavor the Exchange's pricing if they believe that
alternatives offer them better value.
    The Exchange believes that the proposed change is not unfairly
discriminatory because it would apply to all ETP Holders on an equal
and non-discriminatory basis. The Exchange believes that the proposed
rule change is not unfairly discriminatory because maintaining or
increasing the proportion of Retail Orders in exchange-listed
securities that are executed on a registered national securities
exchange (rather than relying on certain available off-exchange
execution methods) would contribute to investors' confidence in the
fairness of their transactions and would benefit all investors by
deepening the Exchange's liquidity pool, supporting the quality of
price discovery, promoting market transparency and improving investor
protection. This aspect of the proposed rule change also is consistent
with the Act because all similarly situated ETP Holders would pay the
same fee for Retail Orders executed in the Exchange's opening and
closing auctions. Lastly, the submission of Retail Orders is optional
for ETP Holders in that they could choose whether to submit Retail
Orders and, if they do, the extent of its activity in this regard. The
Exchange believes that it is subject to significant competitive forces,
as described below in the Exchange's statement regarding the burden on
competition.
    For the foregoing reasons, the Exchange believes that the proposal
is consistent with the Act.

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

    In accordance with Section 6(b)(8) of the Act,\17\ the Exchange
believes that the proposed rule change would not 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 fee 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 ETP Holders. 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.'' \18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(8).
    \18\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 51808, 70 FR 37495,
37498-99 (June 29, 2005) (S7-10-04) (Final Rule).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Intramarket Competition. The Exchange believes the proposed
amendments to its Fee Schedule would not impose any burden on
competition that is not necessary or appropriate in

furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The proposed changes are
designed to attract additional Retail Orders to the Exchange, in
particular for execution in the Exchange's opening and closing
auctions. The Exchange believes that the proposed lower fee would
incentivize market participants to direct their Retail Orders to the
Exchange. Greater overall order flow, trading opportunities, and
pricing transparency benefits all market participants on the Exchange
by enhancing market quality and continuing to encourage ETP Holders to
send orders, thereby contributing towards a robust and well-balanced
market ecosystem.
    Intermarket Competition. The Exchange operates in a highly
competitive market in which market participants can readily choose to
send their orders to other exchange and off-exchange venues if they
deem fee levels at those other venues to be more favorable. As noted
above, the Exchange's market share of intraday trading (i.e., excluding
auctions) is currently less than 10%. In such an environment, the
Exchange must continually adjust its fees and rebates to remain
competitive with other exchanges and with off-exchange venues. Because
competitors are free to modify their own fees and credits in response,
and because market participants may readily adjust their order routing
practices, the Exchange does not believe its proposed fee change can
impose any burden on intermarket competition.
    The Exchange believes that the proposed change could promote
competition between the Exchange and other execution venues, including
those that currently offer similar order types and comparable
transaction pricing, by encouraging additional orders to be sent to the
Exchange for execution.

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) \19\ of the Act and subparagraph (f)(2) of Rule
19b-4 \20\ thereunder, because it establishes a due, fee, or other
charge imposed by the Exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \20\ 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) \21\ of the Act to determine whether the proposed
rule change should be approved or disapproved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2)(B).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-NYSEARCA-2021-40 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-2021-40. 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-NYSEARCA-2021-40, and should be
submitted on or before June 22, 2021.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\22\
J. Matthew DeLesDernier,
Assistant Secretary.

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

    \22\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 2021-11409 Filed 5-28-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: February 26, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 38)]
[Notices]
[Page 10317-10319]
[DOCID:fr26fe08-101]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-57354; File No. SR-Amex-2008-10]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; American Stock Exchange, LLC;
Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change
Relating to Rule 918-ANTE

February 19, 2008.
    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 February 14, 2008, the American Stock Exchange, LLC (``Amex''
or ``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 substantially prepared by the Exchange.
The Amex filed this proposal pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the
Act,\3\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder,\4\ which renders the proposed
rule change effective upon filing with the Commission. 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.
    \3\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \4\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange seeks to conform Amex Rule 918--ANTE to non-ANTE Rule
918 in connection with a recent approval to permit the sending of
Principal Acting as Agent Orders (``P/A Orders'') through the Options
Intermarket Linkage (the ``Linkage'') prior to the opening of
trading.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 56850 (November 27,
2007), 72 FR 68225 (December 4, 2007) (SR-Amex-2007-123) (``Original
Approval'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The text of the proposed rule change is available at the Amex, at
the Commission's Public Reference Room, and at http://www.amex.com.

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 the
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

1. Purpose
    The Commission recently approved the Exchange's proposal to adopt
Commentary .06 to Amex Rule 918 to implement Amendment No. 23 to
Section 7(a)(i) of the Plan for the Purpose of Creating and Operating
an Intermarket Options Linkage (the

``Linkage Plan'' or ``Plan'').\6\ Amendment No. 23, coupled with the
related Exchange rule filing recently approved by the Commission, will
permit the use of the Linkage prior to the opening of trading.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Id. See also Securities Exchange Act Release No. 56780
(November 13, 2007), 72 FR 65113 (November 19, 2007) (File No. 4-
429).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange proposes to conform Amex Rule 918--ANTE to the
recently approved Amex Rule 918 permitting the use of the Linkage prior
to the opening of trading. The purpose of this proposal is to correct
Amex Rule 918--ANTE which the Exchange inadvertently failed to revise
in its prior filing to implement Amendment No. 23. In addition, because
Amex Rule 918--ANTE (rather than Rule 918) applies to all options
trading, the Exchange seeks to eliminate Commentary .06 to Amex Rule
918.
    As set forth in the Original Approval, the Linkage Plan, prior to
Amendment No. 23, did not contemplate the use of the Linkage before a
Plan participant (a ``Participant'') opened for trading and
disseminated a quotation in an options series. There, accordingly, was
no trade-through protection for opening trades. As a result, if there
was a better market away at the time a Participant opened its market,
the Amex specialist, responsible both for the opening and for
protecting customer orders, could not access that market for a
customer. The customer, accordingly, could receive a price inferior to
the national best bid and offer.
    This proposal to conform Amex Rule 918--ANTE to the recently
approved Amex Rule 918 will permit the sending of P/A Orders prior to
the opening, allowing the Amex specialist to access better markets on
behalf of customers prior to the Exchange's opening in connection with
the ANTE system. In implementing this proposed rule change, the
Exchange will ensure that customers receive the best price for their
orders. Under the Plan, a Participant receiving market has three (3)
seconds to respond to a P/A Order, and the Participant receiving market
can then reject a response it receives more than three (3) seconds
after sending the order. In the unlikely event that the Amex opens its
market during this three (3) second period, it is possible that the
opening price could differ from the price of an executed P/A Order. In
that case, the Amex will ensure that the specialist provides the
customer with the most advantageous price. Therefore, the proposal will
only benefit customers by providing them with potential price
improvement at the opening.
2. Statutory Basis
    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) of the
Act \8\ in particular in that it is designed to prevent fraudulent and
manipulative acts and practices, promote just and equitable principles
of trade, remove impediments to and perfect the mechanisms of a free
and open market and a national market system, and, in general, protect
investors and the public interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The proposed rule change will impose no 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

    The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \9\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) under the Act \10\
because: (i) It does not significantly affect the protection of
investors or the public interest; (ii) it does not impose any
significant burden on competition; and (iii) by its terms, it does not
become operative for 30 days after the date of the filing, or such
shorter time as the Commission may designate if consistent with the
protection of investors and the public interest; provided that the
Exchange has given the Commission written notice of its intent to file
the proposed rule change, along with a brief description and text of
the proposed rule change, at least five business days prior to the date
of filing of the proposed rule change. 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 15 U.S.C. Section 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \10\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Amex has requested that the Commission waive the 30-day
operative delay for the proposal. The Commission grants Amex's
request.\11\ The proposed rule change would allow Amex to send P/A
Orders through the Linkage prior to the opening of trading, which
should facilitate access to superior prices that may be available at
other options exchanges at the opening. Therefore, Commission believes
that waiving the 30-day operative delay is consistent with the
protection of investors and the public interest, because it may result
in better-priced executions for investors. For this reason, the
Commission designates the proposal effective and operative upon filing
with the Commission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ For purposes only of waiving the operative delay of this
proposal, the Commission has considered the proposed rule's impact
on efficiency, competition, and capital formation. 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://
www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-Amex-2008-10 on the subject line.

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 SR-Amex-2008-10. 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 Number SR-Amex-2008-10 and should be submitted on or before March
18, 2008.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E8-3559 Filed 2-25-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 100 (Tuesday, May 26, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 30077-30080]
[FR Doc No: 2015-12582]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2014-N-1819]

Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission for Office
of Management and Budget Review; Comment Request; Spousal Influence on
Consumer Understanding of and Response to Direct-to-Consumer
Prescription Drug Advertisements

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

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

DATES: Fax written comments on the collection of information by June
25, 2015.

ADDRESSES: To ensure that comments on the information collection are
received, OMB recommends that written comments be faxed to the Office
of Information and Regulatory Affairs, OMB, Attn: FDA Desk Officer,
FAX:<PHONE_NUMBER>, or emailed to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>All
comments should be identified with the OMB control number 0910-NEW and
title ``Spousal Influence on Consumer Understanding of and Response to
Direct-to-Consumer (DTC) Prescription Drug Advertisements''. Also
include the FDA docket number found in brackets in the heading of this
document.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: FDA PRA Staff, Office of Operations,
Food and Drug Administration, 8455 Colesville Rd., COLE-14526, Silver
Spring, MD 20993-0002<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In compliance with 44 U.S.C. 3507, FDA has
submitted the following proposed collection of information to OMB for
review and clearance.

Spousal Influence on Consumer Understanding of and Response to Direct-
to-Consumer Prescription Drug Advertisements--(OMB Control Number 0910-
NEW)

    Section 1701(a)(4) of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C.
300u(a)(4)) authorizes FDA to conduct research relating to health
information. Section 1003(d)(2)(C) of the Federal Food, Drug, and
Cosmetic Act (the FD&C Act) (21 U.S.C. 393(d)(2)(C)) authorizes FDA to
conduct research relating to drugs and other FDA regulated products in
carrying out the provisions of the FD&C Act.
    Consumers are often thought of as individual targets for
prescription drug advertisements (ads), as if they are always exposed
to DTC ads individually and subsequently make judgments about
advertised products on their own. However, judgments about prescription
drugs portrayed in DTC television ads are likely made in social
contexts much of the time. For example, a potential consumer and his or
her spouse (e.g., marital or domestic partner) may view an ad together
and discuss drug benefits, side effects, and risks. These social
interactions may result in unique reactions relative to consumers who
view DTC prescription drug television ads alone. For example, spouses
may influence their partner by expressing concern about risks and side
effects that might occur, or pressuring their partner to consider the
drug despite its risks and side effects. These outcomes have important
public health implications. The Office of Prescription Drug Promotion
plans to examine differences between consumers viewing prescription
drug ads with a spouse versus alone through empirical research.
    The main study will be preceded by pretesting designed to delineate
the procedures and measures used in the main study. Pretest and main
study participants will be couples who are married or in a marital-like
living arrangement in which one member (consumer) has asthma and the
other does not (spouse). All participants will be 18 years of age or
older and married or cohabiting for 6 months or longer. We will exclude
individuals who work in

healthcare or marketing settings because their knowledge and
experiences may not reflect those of the average consumer. Data
collection will take place in person.
    Participants will be randomly assigned to one of four experimental
conditions in a 2 x 2 design, as depicted in Table 1. We will compare
one version of an ad that depicts a low benefit and low risk drug with
a second version that depicts a high benefit and high risk drug.
Participants will be randomly assigned to view the ad alone or together
with their spouse. Participants in both viewing conditions will
individually complete a prequestionnaire. In the ``together''
condition, participants will view the ad with their spouse and then
engage in a brief discussion together about the ad. In the ``alone''
condition, participants will view the ad without their spouse, take a
short break, and then respond to a postquestionnaire consisting of
questions about information in the ad. The short break in the ``alone''
condition will facilitate reflection about the ad to mirror discussion
engaged in by those in the ``together'' condition. The consumer in the
``together'' condition will complete the same postquestionnaire
administered to those in the ``alone'' condition, and the spouse will
complete a slightly different questionnaire that assesses key measures
that relate to consumer reactions. These procedures are depicted in
Table 2. Participation is estimated to take approximately 60 minutes.
    Measures are designed to assess memory and understanding of risk
and benefit information as well as other ad content, intention to seek
more information about the product, and variables pertaining to the
consumer-spouse relationship such as relationship closeness and
communication style. The questionnaire is available upon request.

                   Table 1--Experimental Study Design
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                          Risk/benefit condition
                                 ---------------------------------------
        Viewing condition            Low risk/low       High risk/high
                                        benefit             benefit
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alone...........................  Condition A.......  Condition B
Together........................  Condition C.......  Condition D
------------------------------------------------------------------------

   Table 2--Overview of Data Collection Process for Alone and Together
                               Conditions
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                           Viewing condition
            Steps            -------------------------------------------
                                      Alone               Together
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1...........................  Consumer completes    Consumer and spouse
                               prequestionnaire.     complete
                                                     prequestionnaire
                                                     separately (spouse
                                                     completes selected
                                                     measures).
2...........................  Consumer views        Consumer and spouse
                               advertising stimuli   view advertising
                               alone.                stimuli together.
3...........................  5 minute break......  Couples engage in a
                                                     5 minute semi-
                                                     structured
                                                     conversation
                                                     related to the
                                                     advertising
                                                     stimuli.
4...........................  Consumer completes    Consumer and spouse
                               postquestionnaire.    complete
                                                     postquestionnaire
                                                     separately (spouse
                                                     completes selected
                                                     measures).
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the Federal Register of November 14, 2014 (79 FR 68278), FDA
published a 60-day notice requesting public comment on the proposed
collection of information. FDA received comments from two organizations
in response to our Federal Register notice. In the following section,
we outline the observations and suggestions raised in the comments and
provide our responses.
    (Comment from Abbvie) It is difficult to ascertain how the Agency
will utilize the results of this study should it demonstrate that the
perception of ads differs when viewed alone or with someone else.
Regulating companion versus solitary viewing practices would present
insurmountable legal and practical hurdles. Rather than conduct this
study, we suggest that FDA resources and tax payer dollars would be
better directed to research that enhances the quality of how we
communicate benefit and risk information to consumers regardless of the
setting in which the ad is viewed.
    (Response) Much research in the social sciences demonstrates the
strong influence of environmental and social conditions under which
humans think and act. In regard to prescription drug advertising, it
may be that when a risk is perceived as particularly negative, viewing
with a partner reinforces this perception. Conversely, it may be that
partners downplay risks or emphasize benefits, leading to alternate
perceptions and intentions. These potential outcomes have implications
for public health. Thus, it is important to generate insight about not
only the message portrayed in DTC TV ads but also the conditions under
which these messages are received and processed. Pending findings from
this research, organizations involved in developing DTC drug
communications may be encouraged to remain aware of the social context
in which DTC ads are often viewed and the influence of this context on
consumer perceptions, judgments, and decisions. Consideration of this
broader context may facilitate the development of better DTC drug
communications that remain accurate and balanced regardless of setting.
    (Comment from Eli Lilly) Compelling a discussion between the
consumer and spouse about the advertisement is likely to generate data
that may or may not be applicable in a real-world setting. Consider
removing the prescribed interaction and allow a discussion to occur if
the couple so chooses.
    (Response) Allowing a discussion to occur if the couple chooses
could confound the research design and undermine our ability to make
conclusive statements. Implementing the procedures systematically
across the sample is a stronger study design (Ref. 1). There is a long
tradition in the social and behavioral sciences of studying marital
communication as proposed (Ref. 2). This research tradition continues
because this method is more objective than participant self-reports
(Ref. 3). Also, measures taken from these spousal communications are
linked with important real world outcomes including health behavior and
well-being (Ref. 4, Ref. 5), divorce, and marital satisfaction (Ref. 6,
Ref. 2). This research method compels a discussion between partners as
a way to understand the content and style of their communication. Thus,
our proposed study is in keeping with the methods in this research
area.
    (Comment from Eli Lilly) We are challenged to understand how this
research yields any useful, actionable information when it is
impractical to

influence who is watching TV advertisements at any given time.
    (Response) As stated in response to a previous comment, it is
important to generate insight about not only the message portrayed in
DTC TV ads but also the conditions under which these messages are
received and processed. Such insight may facilitate the development of
better DTC drug communications regardless of setting.
    (Comment from Eli Lilly) Include a ``General Population'' control
group.
    (Response) Researching each medical condition, or general
population sample, requires significant resources. We are interested in
response to the ads among consumers for whom the ad is personally
relevant (i.e., they or their partner have been diagnosed with asthma).
We are committed to conducting this research using our available
resources while ensuring the integrity of the research by collecting
data on a high prevalence condition for which participants might be
thought of as sufficiently representative of the average consumer, thus
allowing us to draw conclusions about broad perceptual and cognitive
processing outcomes.
    (Comment from Eli Lilly) Q12 invites speculation from respondents
who may be unable to evaluate what is or is not a ``serious'' side
effect. Consider eliminating this question or re-phrasing to: ``Please
rate the seriousness of the side effects for [Drug X] that you remember
from the ad.''
    (Response) We have conducted cognitive interviews to refine and
improve the survey questions. Through this process, we found that a
number of participants had difficulty reading and/or answering Q12 in
its original form. We also tested an alternative version of this
question that conforms to the reviewer's re-phrasing, ``In your
opinion, how serious are the side effects of [Drug X]?'' Many cognitive
interview participants preferred this alternative version, and we will
adopt it for the final questionnaire.
    (Comment from Eli Lilly) Response options in Q16 may be interpreted
qualitatively (i.e., on the whole, the risks outweigh the benefits) or
literally (i.e., how many more risks were stated than benefits).
Rephrasing to reflect true intent is recommended.
    (Response) We appreciate this comment. This item was tested in a
rigorous cognitive interview protocol and there was no indication that
participants had difficulty interpreting the response options. However,
we will also be conducting pretesting which will provide an additional
opportunity to identify and remove questions that do not function as
intended, further refining the questionnaire prior to the main study.
    (Comment from Eli Lilly) Q19b is ambiguous and unclear. Rephrasing
or deletion is recommended.
    (Response) We tested this item as part of our cognitive interview
protocol. The majority of participants understood this question, and
their answers suggest that the question did a good job of
distinguishing between those who focused on the arguments and facts
presented in the ad versus those who paid more attention to peripheral
cues, such as the visual narrative. Because the item functioned as
intended, we intend to retain Q19b.
    (Comment from Eli Lilly) Q20 is ambiguous and unclear. Rephrasing
or deletion is recommended.
    (Response) In our cognitive interviews, some participants had
difficulty understanding the meaning of the introductory phrase ``In
these thoughts''. Due to the ambiguity of Q20 as a whole, we will
remove this item from the questionnaire.
    (Comment from Eli Lilly) Q21 instructions could bias respondents to
evaluate each statement as risk-related. Consider rephrasing to, ``The
following statements describe how people deal with various
situations.''
    (Response) The Q21 battery is a validated scale specifically
designed to measure attitudes toward risk (Ref. 7). Respondents are
meant to evaluate the statements as though they are risk-related.
Therefore, we will retain the Q21 battery.
    (Comment from Eli Lilly) The scale for Q25 should be made
consistent with other scales to ensure internal consistency. A scale
with a midpoint is recommended.
    (Response) When developing the questionnaires, we included a number
of questions from existing multi-items scales. The number and format of
response options differed from scale to scale (e.g., 6-points vs. 10-
points, fully labelled vs. anchors-only, etc.). We will revise the
Likert-type response scales so that the number of levels and labeling
formats across questions is consistent.
    To examine differences between experimental conditions, we will
conduct inferential statistical tests such as analysis of variance.
With the sample size described in Table 3, we will have sufficient
power to detect small-to-medium sized effects in the main study.
    FDA estimates the burden of this collection of information as
follows:

                                 Table 3--Estimated Annual Reporting Burden \1\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                    Number of
                                       Number of    responses      Total       Average burden per
              Activity                respondents      per         annual           response         Total hours
                                                    respondent   responses
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                   Pretesting
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number to Complete the Screener.....          700            1          700  0.08 (5 minutes)......           56
Number of Completes.................          120            1          120  1.....................          120
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                   Main Study
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number to Complete the Screener.....        4,060            1        4,060  0.08 (5 minutes)......          325
Number of Completes.................          792            1          792  1.....................          792
                                     ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total...........................  ...........  ...........  ...........  ......................        1,293
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ There are no capital costs or operating and maintenance costs associated with this collection of
  information.

References

    The following references have been placed on display in the
Division of Dockets Management (see ADDRESSES) and may be seen by
interested persons between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday,
and are available electronically at http://www.regulations.gov. (FDA
has verified all the Web site addresses in this reference section,
but we are not responsible for any

subsequent changes to the Web sites after this document publishes in
the Federal Register.)

Reis, H., and C. Judd, Handbook of Research Methods in Social and
Personality Psychology, 2nd Ed. New York: Cambridge University Press
(2014).
Kerig, P.K., and D.H. Baucom, (Eds.). Couple Observational Coding
Systems, Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum (2004).
Bakeman, R., Behavioral Observation and Coding, In H.T. Reis & C.M.
Judd (Eds.) Handbook of Research Methods in Social and Personality
Psychology,pp. 138-159. New York: Cambridge University Press (2000).
Ewart, C.K., C.B. Taylor, H.C. Kraemer, and W.S. Agras. ``High Blood
Pressure and Marital Discord: Not Being Nasty Matters More Than
Being Nice,'' Health Psychology, 10, pp. 155-163 (1991).
Spitzberg, B.H., and W.R. Cupach, Handbook of Interpersonal
Competence Research, NY: Springer-Verlag (1989).
Gottman, J.M., What Predicts Divorce? The Relationship Between
Marital Processes and Marital Outcomes. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum
(1994).
Rohrmann, B., ``Risk Attitude Scales: Concepts, Questionnaires,
Utilizations [Project Report],'' University of Melbourne, Australia.
Retrieved from http://www.rohrmannresearch.net/pdfs/rohrmann-racreport.pdf (2005).

    Dated: May 18, 2015.
Leslie Kux,
Associate Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2015-12582 Filed 5-22-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4164-01-P