Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled
Industry and Security Bureau
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
Food and Drug Administration
Coast Guard
U.S. Customs and Border Protection
Fish and Wildlife Service
Land Management Bureau
Federal Aviation Administration
Consult the Reader Aids section at the end of this page for phone numbers, online resources, finding aids, reminders, and notice of recently enacted public laws.
To subscribe to the Federal Register Table of Contents LISTSERV electronic mailing list, go to http://listserv.access.gpo.gov and select Online mailing list archives, FEDREGTOC-L, Join or leave the list (or change settings); then follow the instructions.
Coast Guard, DHS.
Notice of enforcement of regulation.
The Coast Guard will enforce a security zone associated with the North American International Auto Show, Detroit River, Detroit, MI. This security zone is intended to restrict vessels from a portion of the Detroit River in order to ensure the safety and security of participants, visitors, and public officials at the North American International Auto Show, which is being held at Cobo Hall in downtown Detroit, MI. Vessels in close proximity to the security zone will be subject to increased monitoring and boarding during the enforcement of the security zone. No person or vessel may enter the security zone while it is being enforced without permission of the Captain of the Port Detroit.
The security zone regulation described in 33 CFR 165.915(a)(3) will be enforced from 8 a.m. on January 12, 2015 through 11:59 p.m. on January 25, 2014.
If you have questions on this document, call or email LT Adrian Palomeque, Prevention, U.S. Coast Guard Sector Detroit, 110 Mount Elliot Ave., Detroit, MI 48207; telephone (313) 568-9508; email
The Coast Guard will enforce the North American International Auto Show, Detroit River, Detroit, MI security zone listed in 33 CFR 165.915(a)(3). This security zone includes all waters of the Detroit River encompassed by a line beginning at a point of origin on land adjacent to the west end of Joe Lewis Arena at 42°19.44′ N, 083°03.11′ W; then extending offshore approximately 150 yards to 42°19.39′ N, 083°03.07′ W; then proceeding upriver approximately 2000 yards to a point at 42°19.72′ N, 083°01.88′ W; then proceeding onshore to a point on land adjacent the Tricentennial State Park at 42°19.79′ N, 083°01.90′ W; then proceeding downriver along the shoreline to connect back to the point of origin. All coordinates are North American Datum 1983.
All persons and vessels shall comply with the instructions of the Captain of the Port Detroit or his designated on-scene representative, who may be contacted via VHF Channel 16.
Under the provisions of 33 CFR 165.33, no person or vessel may enter or remain in this security zone without the permission of the Captain of the Port Detroit. Each person and vessel in this security zone shall obey any direction or order of the Captain of the Port Detroit. The Captain of the Port Detroit may take possession and control of any vessel in this security zone. The Captain of the Port Detroit may remove any person, vessel, article, or thing from this security zone. No person may board, or take or place any article or thing on board any vessel in this security zone without the permission of the Captain of Port Detroit. No person may take or place any article or thing upon any waterfront facility in this security zone without the permission of the Captain of the Port Detroit.
Vessels that wish to transit through this security zone shall request permission from the Captain of the Port Detroit or his designated representative. Requests must be made in advance and approved by the Captain of Port before transits will be authorized. Approvals may be granted on a case by case basis. The Captain of the Port may be contacted via U.S. Coast Guard Sector Detroit on channel 16, VHF-FM. The Coast Guard will give notice to the public via Local Notice to Mariners and VHF radio broadcasts that the regulation is in effect.
This document is issued under authority of 33 CFR 165.915 and 5 U.S.C. 552(a). If the Captain of the Port determines that this security zone need not be enforced for the full duration stated in this document; he may suspend such enforcement and notify the public of the suspension via a Broadcast Notice to Mariners.
Environmental Protection Agency.
Direct final rule.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is approving revisions to the State Implementation Plan (SIP) for the state of Iowa. The purpose of these revisions is to update the Polk County Board of Health Rules and Regulations, Chapter V, Air Pollution. The revisions reflect updates to the Iowa statewide rules previously approved by EPA and will ensure consistency between the applicable local agency rules and Federally-approved rules. On April 15, 2014, the state notified EPA that it is withdrawing their request to approve greenhouse gases definition as relating to greenhouse gas emissions. This withdrawal request is in recognition of the July 12, 2013, U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia decision which vacated the regulation known as the “biogenic deferral rule.” On October 31, 2014, the state requested that EPA withdraw their request to approve the definition of anaerobic lagoon.
This direct final rule will be effective March 13, 2015 without further notice, unless EPA receives adverse comment by February 11, 2015. If EPA receives adverse comment, we will publish a timely withdrawal of the direct final rule in the
Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R07-OAR-2014-0163, by one of the following methods:
1.
2.
3.
Heather Hamilton, Environmental Protection Agency, Air Planning and Development Branch, 11201 Renner Boulevard, Lenexa, Kansas 66219 at (913) 551-7039, or by email at
Throughout this document “we,” “us,” or “our” refer to EPA. This section provides additional information by addressing the following questions:
The State of Iowa has requested EPA approval of revisions to the local agency's rules and regulations, chapter V, “Air Pollution,” as a revision to the SIP. In order for the local program's “Air Pollution” rules to be incorporated into the Federally-enforceable SIP, on behalf of the local agency, the state must submit the formally adopted regulations and control strategies, which are consistent with the state and Federal requirements, to EPA for inclusion in the SIP. The regulation adoption process generally includes public notice, a public comment period and a public hearing, and formal adoption of the rule by the state authorized rulemaking body. In this case, that rulemaking body is the local agency. After the local agency formally adopts the rule, the local agency submits the rulemaking to the state, and then the state submits the rulemaking to EPA for consideration for formal action (inclusion of the rulemaking into the SIP). EPA must provide public notice and seek additional public comment regarding the proposed Federal action on the state's submission.
EPA received the request from the state to adopt revisions to the local air agency rules into the SIP on September 20, 2013. The revisions were adopted by the local agency on July 30, 2013, and became effective on August 5, 2013. EPA is approving the requested revisions to the Iowa SIP relating to the following:
• Article I. In General, Section 5-1. Purpose and Ambient Air Quality Standards;
• Article I. In General, Section 5-2. Definitions;
• Article II. Authority, Section 5-3. Duties of Health Officer;
• Article II. Authority, Section 5-4. Powers of Health Officer;
• Article III. Incinerator and Open Burning, Section 5-7. Open Burning Prohibited;
• Article VII. Performance Test for Stack Emission Test, Section 5-18. Testing and Sampling of New and Existing Equipment;
• Article X. Permits, Division 1. Construction Permits, Section 5-31. Issuance of Permit;
• Article X. Permits, Division 1. Construction Permits, Section 5-33. Exemptions from Permit Requirements;
• Article X. Permits, Division 1. Construction Permits, Section 5-34. Construction Permit Filing/Review Fees;
• Article X. Permits, Division 1. Construction Permits, Section 5-35.1. Annual/Operating Permit Fees;
• Article X. Permits, Division 2. Operating Permits, Section 5-39. Exemptions from Permit Requirement;
• Article X. Permits, Division 2. Operating Permits, Section 5-50. Evidence used in establishing that a violation has or is occurring;
• Article XI. Compliance Schedules, Section 5-56. Compliance Schedules Required;
• Article XI. Compliance Schedules, Section 5-57. Progress Reports Required.
EPA's action does not cover revisions to:
• Article I. In General, Section 5-2. Definitions; Anaerobic Lagoon and Greenhouse Gases;
• Article III. Incineration and Open Burning, Section 5-7(d), Variance Application;
• Article VI. Sections 5-16(n), (o), and (p) which pertain to New Source Performance Standards (NSPS);
• Article VIII. which pertain to National Emission Standards Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAPS);
• Article X. Permits, Division 1. Construction permits, Section 5-35. Operating Permit Required.
On April 15, 2014, the state amended their request and notified EPA that it is withdrawing their requests to approve section 5-1 of article I to adopt greenhouse gases definition and section 5-35(b)(5) of article X relating to greenhouse gas emissions. This withdrawal request is in recognition of the July 12, 2013 U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia decision which vacated the regulation known as
The state submission has met the public notice requirements for SIP submissions in accordance with 40 CFR 51.102. The submission also satisfied the completeness criteria of 40 CFR part 51, appendix V.
We are taking direct final action to approve the amendments to the Polk County Board of Health Rules and Regulations, Chapter V, “Air Pollution.” The local agency routinely revises its “Air Pollution” regulations to be consistent with the Federally-approved Iowa Administrative Code. The state amended their request and notified EPA that it is withdrawing their requests to approve section 5-1 of article I to adopt greenhouse gases definition and section 5-35(b)(5) of article X relating to greenhouse gas emissions. This withdrawal request is in recognition of the July 12, 2013, U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia decision which vacated the regulation known as the “biogenic deferral rule” (No. 11-1101 (D.C. Cir., July 12, 2013)). On October 31, 2014, the state requested that EPA withdraw their request to approve the definition of anaerobic lagoon.
The local agency's “Air Pollution” rules are consistent with state and Federal regulations and are revised as follows:
Article I, section 5-1(c) is revised to cite the cross reference to state-approved rules at (455B). Definitions are added to section 5-2 as follows: Country grain elevator; Department; Director or his designee; Emergency generator; Grain processing; Grain storage elevator, and Maximum achievable control technology (MACT) floor. The definitions to EPA reference method; Particulate matter, and Potential to emit are revised.
Article II, sections 5-3 and 5-4, addresses the duties and powers of the health officer and is revised to change the term “board of health” to “health officer.”
Article III addresses incineration and open burning, and is reorganized to include the headings “prohibition,” “burn permits,” and “exemptions.” Section 5-7(b) “burn permits” is revised to include an expanded explanation of training fires, and the conditions that must be met to prior to conducting such a fire. Section 5-7(c) “exemptions” is revised to include the exemption of fireplaces or grills, outdoor patio heaters, and recreational bonfires, fireplaces and grills.
Article VII, section 5-18 revises performance test for stack emission test as it relates to new and existing equipment, and details testing procedures. Reference methods are amended to reflect the most current Federal revisions.
Article X, division 1, Construction Permits, section 5-31 language is revised to state each permit shall not be transferable from one piece of equipment to another. A paragraph is added to provide detailed information with regard to written notification prior to transferring equipment to a new location.
Article X, section 5-33, Exemptions from Permit Requirements amends equipment used for cultivating land, harvesting crops, or raising livestock other than anaerobic lagoons; incinerators and paint hook burn-off ovens with a manufacturer's design capacity less than 25 pounds per hour; internal combustion engine burning exclusively natural gas or propane with a brake horsepower rating of less than 100 measures at the shaft; production welding, and new or modified welding operation limitations for solder containing lead.
The final revision in article X, division I, is in section 5-34, Construction Permit filing/review fees, revises the accurate name of the Air Quality Division and states that permit fees will become part of the Air Quality Enterprise fund. A paragraph is being added to describe the circumstances investigation fees are paid for work that has commenced prior to obtaining a permit.
Article X, Permits, division 2, Operating Permits, section 5-35.1, Annual/Operating Permit Fees, removes the exemption for certain applicants and accurately identifies who to pay fees to, as well as stating the fees will become part of the Air Quality Enterprise fund.
Article X, section 5-39, amends subparagraph (a)(1) which refers to incinerators, and is revised to remove pyrolysis cleaning furnaces and add paint hook burn-off ovens. Incinerators installed in a single family dwelling is removed and a sentence is added to state that combustible material shall not contain lead. Subparagraph (a)(43) Production Welding, is revised to acceptable specifications for Gas Metal Arc Welding to 12,500 pounds per year, and Shielded Metal Arc Welding to 1,600 pounds per year. Subparagraph (a)(44) is amended to add that new or modified welding operations will be limited to 37,000 pounds per year of lead-containing solder. Two new paragraphs are added as exemptions at (a)(51), equipment used for cultivating land, harvesting crops, or raising livestock other than anaerobic lagoons, and (a)(52) internal combustion engine burning exclusively natural gas or propane with a brake horsepower rating of less than 100 measures at the shaft.
Article X, section 5-50, is amended to add two new subsections. The first subsection addresses methods of presumptively credible evidence of whether a violation has occurred at a source that includes a monitoring method approved for the source and incorporated in an operating permit; compliance test methods, and, testing or monitoring methods approved for the source in an issued construction permit. The second subsection addresses presumptively credible testing, monitoring or information-gathering methods that include any monitoring or testing methods provided in the Polk County rules, or, other testing, monitoring or information-gathering methods that produce information comparable to that produced by any above.
Article XI, Compliance Schedules, section 5-56, Compliance Schedules Required is amended to clarify the time (30 days) in which the health officer determines in writing that satisfactory progress towards the elimination or prevention of air pollution is made. Administrative changes are also made to this section.
Article XI, section 5-57, is amended to make administrative changes and to add that on the determination of unsatisfactory progress, the health office may deny or suspend the compliance schedule and institute appropriate legal proceedings to enforce this chapter (referring to Polk County Board of Health Rules and Regulations, Chapter V, Air Pollution). Additional information on the details of the Polk County revisions, which are being approved, is found in the Technical Support Document in the docket of this rulemaking.
We are publishing this rule without a prior proposed rule because we view this as a noncontroversial amendment and anticipate no adverse comment because the revisions are largely administrative and consistent with Federal regulations. However, in the “Proposed Rules” section of this
If EPA receives adverse comment, we will publish a timely withdrawal in the
Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, this action:
• Is not a “significant regulatory action” under the terms of Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and is therefore not subject to review under Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011).
• Does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501
• Is certified as not having a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
• Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
• Does not have Federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
• Is not an economically significant regulatory action based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);
• Is not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
• Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the CAA; and
• Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
The SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the rule does not have tribal implications as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), nor will it impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.
The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801
Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by March 13, 2015. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. Parties with objections to this direct final rule are encouraged to file a comment in response to the parallel notice of proposed rulemaking for this action published in the proposed rules section of this
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Intergovernmental relations, Incorporation by reference, Lead, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, the Environmental Protection Agency amends 40 CFR part 52 as set forth below:
42 U.S.C. 7401
(c) * * *
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Petition for rulemaking; notice of docketing, and request for comment.
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) has received a petition for rulemaking (PRM) from Sandra Gavutis on behalf of C-10 Research and Education Foundation (C-10 or the petitioner), dated September 25, 2014, requesting that the NRC amend its regulations to provide improved identification techniques against Alkali-Silica Reaction (ASR) concrete degradation at nuclear power plants. The petition was docketed by the NRC on October 8, 2014, and has been assigned Docket No. PRM-50-109. The NRC is requesting public comments on this petition for rulemaking.
Submit comments by March 30, 2015. Comments received after this date will be considered if it is practical to do so, but the NRC is able to assure consideration only for comments received on or before this date.
You may submit comments by any of the following methods (unless this document describes a different method for submitting comments on a specific subject):
•
•
•
•
•
Jessica Kratchman, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001; telephone: 301-415-5112, email:
Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2014-0257 when contacting the NRC about the availability of information for this action. You may obtain publicly-available information related to this action by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
Please include Docket ID NRC-2014-0257 in the subject line of your comment submission, in order to ensure that the NRC is able to make your comment submission available to the public in this docket.
The NRC cautions you not to include identifying or contact information in comment submissions that you do not want to be publicly disclosed in your comment submission. The NRC will post all comment submissions at
If you are requesting or aggregating comments from other persons for submission to the NRC, then you should inform those persons not to include identifying or contact information that they do not want to be publicly disclosed in their comment submission. Your request should state that the NRC does not routinely edit comment submissions to remove such information before making the comment submissions available to the public or entering the comment into ADAMS.
The petition states that C-10 is a non-profit organization that “evolved from”
Sandra Gavutis, Executive Director, submitted a PRM on behalf of C-10, dated September 25, 2014 (ADAMS Accession No. ML14281A124), requesting that the NRC amend its
At an NRC public meeting at Seabrook Station on June 24, 2014, the petitioner asked the NRC if the agency was investigating the U.S. nuclear fleet for ASR concrete degradation. The NRC staff responded that ASR concrete degradation could be adequately indicated through visual examination. However, an NRC position paper, “In Situ Monitoring of ASR-affected Concrete,” November 2012 (ADAMS Accession No. ML13108A047), states, “ASR can exist in concrete without indications of pattern cracking,” and that for “. . . structures exposed to ASR, internal damage occurs through the depth of the section but visible cracking is suppressed by heavy reinforcement. . . .” When NextEra determined 131 locations with “assumed” ASR visual signs within multiple power-block structures at Seabrook Station during 2012, further engineering evaluations were not required by the NRC.
The petitioner requests that the NRC amend its regulations to improve identification techniques against ASR concrete degradation at U.S. nuclear power plants. The petitioner suggests that the reliance on a visual inspection does not “adequately identify Alkali-Silica Reaction (ASR), does not confirm ASR, or provide the current state of ASR damage (if present) without petrographic analysis under current existing code.” The petitioner asserts that codes and standards exist that are capable of detecting ASR and determining the key material properties needed to evaluate the degree and severity of ASR damage. American Concrete Institute (ACI) Standard 349.3R, “Evaluation of Existing Nuclear Safety-Related Concrete Structures,” for instance, has been endorsed by the NRC (ADAMS Accession No. ML112241029) as an acceptable method of protecting against excessive ASR concrete degradation, but is not a regulatory requirement. The petitioner requests that the NRC amend its regulations to require that all licensees comply with industry codes and standards that have “already been endorsed by the agency,” and identified two standards for which the NRC's regulations should require compliance: (1) ACI Standard 349.3R; and (2) American Society for Testing & Materials (ASTM) C856-11, “Standard Practice for Petrographic Examination of Hardened Concrete.”
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Department of Energy.
Extension of public comment period.
On December 10, 2014, the Department of Energy (DOE) published a notice of data availability (NODA) which presented a provisional analysis that estimates the potential economic impacts and energy savings that could result from promulgating a regulatory energy conservation standard for commercial and industrial fans and blowers. DOE did not propose any energy conservation standard for commercial and industrial fans and blowers. However, DOE published its analysis and the underlying assumptions and calculations, which may ultimately support a proposed standard, for stakeholder review. In response to requests by stakeholders, the comment period for the NODA is being extended to February 25, 2015.
The comment period for the notice of data availability relating to commercial and industrial fan and blower equipment is extended to February 25, 2015.
Interested persons may submit comments, identified by docket number EERE-2013-BT-STD-0006 and/or Regulation Identification Number (RIN) 1904-AC55, by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
Mr. Ron Majette, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Building Technologies, EE-5B, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585-0121. Telephone: (202) 586-7935. Email:
Mr. Peter Cochran, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of the General Counsel, GC-33, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585-0121. Telephone: (202) 586-9496. Email:
For further information on how to submit a comment and review other public comments and the docket, contact Ms. Brenda Edwards at (202) 586-2945 or by email:
On December 10, 2014, DOE published a
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, DOE.
Notice of proposed rulemaking; notice of extension of time.
On December 12, 2014, pursuant to authority delegated to the Director, Office of Energy Policy and Innovation, a data request was issued to each ISO and RTO regarding the effect on the reliable and efficient operations of natural gas-fired generators of the current 9 a.m. CCT start to the Gas Day. The requests seek data from the ISOs/RTOs with respect to derates by natural gas generators during the morning ramp period. This notice extends the deadline to submit answers in response to these data requests.
Responses to the data request must be filed on or before January 22, 2015 in Docket No. RM14-2-000. Comments on the responses to the data request must be filed in the same docket within 10 days of the data request response, on or before February 2, 2015.
Responses and Comments, identified by docket number, may be filed in the following ways:
• Electronic Filing through
• Mail/Hand Delivery: Those unable to file electronically may mail or hand-deliver comments to: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Secretary of the Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426.
Anna Fernandez (Legal Information), Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Office of the General Counsel, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426, 202-502-6682.
Caroline Daly Wozniak (Technical Information), Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Office of Energy Policy and Innovation, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426, 202-502-8931.
On January 5, 2015, the ISO/RTO Council (IRC) filed a motion requesting a 10-day extension of time (motion) until January 22, 2015 to submit answers to the data requests issued on December 12, 2014, as requested by the Office of Energy Policy and Innovation, in the above-referenced proceeding.
Upon consideration, notice is hereby given to all parties that IRC's motion is granted, extending the deadline to submit answers to and including January 22, 2015; and to submit comments in response to those answers, to and including February 2, 2015.
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notification of public meeting.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or we) has made available for public review and comment the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the proposed rule establishing standards for the growing, harvesting, packing, and holding of produce for human consumption. The document is available in Docket No. FDA-2014-N-2244. FDA is also announcing a public meeting to discuss the Draft EIS. The purpose of the public meeting is to inform the public of the findings in the Draft EIS, to provide information about the EIS process (including how to submit comments, data, and other information to the docket), to solicit oral stakeholder and public comments on the Draft EIS, and to provide clarification, as needed, about the contents of the Draft EIS.
See section II, “How to Participate in the Public Meeting” in the
You may submit comments by any of the following methods.
Submit electronic comments in the following way:
•
Submit written submissions in the following ways:
•
The FDA Food Safety Modernization Act (FSMA) (Public Law 111-353), signed into law by President Obama on January 4, 2011, enables FDA to better protect public health by helping to ensure the safety and security of the food supply. FSMA amends the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the FD&C Act) to establish the foundation of a modernized, prevention-based food safety system. As part of our implementation of FSMA, we published the Proposed Rule: Standards for the Growing, Harvesting, Packing, and Holding of Produce for Human Consumption (hereafter referred to as “the 2013 proposed rule”) to establish science-based minimum standards for the safe growing, harvesting, packing, and holding of produce (78 FR 3504, January 16, 2013). On September 29, 2014, FDA issued a supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking (“the supplemental proposed rule”), amending certain specific provisions of the 2013 proposed rule (79 FR 58434). Taken together, these publications constitute FDA's proposed standards for the growing, harvesting, packing, and holding of produce for human consumption (“the Produce Safety Proposed Rule”).
FDA announced a “Notice of Intent” (NOI) to prepare an EIS to evaluate the potential environmental effects of the Produce Safety Proposed Rule in the
In the Produce Safety Proposed Rule, FDA proposed science-based minimum standards for the safe production and harvesting of produce. As discussed in the Draft EIS (Ref. 1), out of these standards, we identified four provisions that could potentially significantly affect the quality of the human environment, if finalized (hereinafter referred to as “potentially significant provisions”). For each of the potentially significant provisions, FDA then identified alternative provisions to consider. The potentially significant provisions are: (1) Standards directed to agricultural water, (2) standards directed to biological soil amendments (BSA) of animal origin, (3) standards directed to domesticated and wild animals, and (4) general provisions (
For standards directed to agricultural water, we considered the following alternatives: (1) As proposed by FDA,
For standards directed to BSAs of animal origin, FDA considered standards for both untreated and treated BSAs. For untreated BSAs of animal origin, the alternatives considered included a range of minimal application intervals (the time between application and harvest) when the BSA is applied in a manner that does not contact covered produce during application and minimizes the potential for contact with covered produce after application. The alternative application intervals evaluated were: (1) 9 months, (2) 0 months, (3) 90 and 120 days, consistent with the National Organic Programs' regulations in 7 CFR 205.203(c)(1), (4) 6 months, and (5) 12 months. For standards directed to treated BSAs, the alternatives considered included a range of application intervals when the BSA is composted in accordance with the requirements proposed in § 112.54(c) and applied in a manner that minimizes the potential for contact with covered produce during and after application. The application intervals evaluated were: (1) As proposed by FDA, 0 days (proposed § 112.56(a)(4)(i)), (2) 45 days, and (3) 90 days.
For standards directed at domesticated animals, we considered alternatives under which, if working animals are used in a growing area
The cumulative impacts of the proposed rule were considered using a range of alternatives to the general provision in proposed § 112.4, which would specify the farms that would be covered under the rule based on the farm's annual sales of produce. The alternatives evaluated were to cover those farms that have: (1) As proposed by FDA, an average annual monetary value of produce sold during the previous 3-year period of more than $25,000 (on a rolling basis) (proposed § 112.4); (2) an average annual monetary value of food sold during the previous 3-year period of more than $50,000 (on a rolling basis); (3) an average annual monetary value of food sold during the previous 3-year period of more than $100,000 (on a rolling basis); and (4) an average annual monetary value of covered produce sold during the previous 3-year period of more than $25,000 (on a rolling basis).
FDA has made this Draft EIS available for public review and comment in Docket No. FDA-2014-N-2244 (See Ref. 1).
FDA is holding the public meeting on February 10, 2015, from 1 p.m. until 4 p.m., at Wiley Auditorium, Harvey W. Wiley Federal Bldg., 5100 Paint Branch Pkwy., College Park, MD 20740, to discuss the Draft EIS for the proposed rule to establish standards for growing, harvesting, packing and holding of produce for human consumption. Due to limited space and time, FDA encourages all persons who wish to attend the meetings to register early and in advance of the meeting. There is no fee to register for the public meeting, and registration will be on a first-come, first-served basis. Onsite registration will be accepted, as space permits, after all preregistered attendees are seated.
Those requesting an opportunity to make an oral presentation during the time allotted for public comment at the meeting are asked to submit a request in advance and to provide information about the specific topic or issue to be addressed. Due to the anticipated high level of interest in presenting public comments and the limited time available, FDA is allocating 4 minutes to each speaker to make an oral presentation. FDA will provide opportunities to submit written comments at the meeting; there will not be an opportunity to display materials such as slide shows, videos, or other media during the meeting. If time permits, individuals or organizations that did not register in advance may be granted the opportunity to make an oral presentation. FDA would like to maximize the number of individuals who make a presentation at the meeting and will do our best to accommodate all persons who wish to make a presentation or express their opinions at the meeting.
FDA encourages persons and groups who have similar interests to consolidate their information for presentation by a single representative. After reviewing the presentation requests, FDA will notify each participant before the meeting of the approximate time their presentation is scheduled to begin, and remind them of the presentation format (
While oral presentations from specific individuals and organizations will be necessarily limited due to time constraints during the public meeting, stakeholders may submit electronic or written comments discussing any issues of concern to the administrative record (the docket). All relevant data and documentation should be submitted with the comments to Docket No. FDA-2014-N-2244.
Table 1 provides information on participation in the public meeting:
Information and data submitted voluntarily to FDA during the public meeting will become part of the administrative record and will be accessible to the public at
1.
Environmental Protection Agency.
Proposed rule.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve revisions to the State Implementation Plan (SIP) for the State of Iowa. The purpose of these revisions is to update the Polk County Board of Health Rules and Regulations, Chapter V, Air Pollution. These proposed revisions reflect updates to the Iowa statewide rules previously approved by EPA and will ensure consistency between the applicable local agency rules and Federally-approved rules. On April 15, 2014, the state amended their request and notified EPA that it is withdrawing their requests to approve to adopt greenhouse gases definition and sections relating to greenhouse gas emissions. This withdrawal request is in recognition of the July 12, 2013, U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia decision which vacated the regulation known as the “biogenic deferral rule”. On October 31, 2014, the state requested that EPA withdraw their request to approve the definition of anaerobic lagoon.
Comments on this proposed action must be received in writing by February 11, 2015.
Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R07-OAR-2014-0163 by mail to: Heather Hamilton, Environmental Protection Agency, Air Planning and Development Branch, 11201 Renner Boulevard, Lenexa, Kansas 66219. Comments may also be submitted electronically or through hand delivery/courier by following the detailed instructions in the
Heather Hamilton at (913) 551-7039, or by email at
In the final rules section of this
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Intergovernmental relations, Incorporation by reference, Lead, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, the Environmental Protection Agency proposes to amend 40 CFR part 52 as set forth below:
42 U.S.C. 7401
(c) * * *
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Proposed rule.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to reclassify the San Joaquin Valley (SJV) Moderate nonattainment area, including areas of Indian country within it, as a Serious nonattainment area for the 1997 PM
Comments must arrive by February 11, 2015.
Submit comments, identified by docket number EPA-R09-OAR-2014-0813, by one of the following methods:
•
•
•
Anita Lee, Air Planning Office (AIR-2), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 9, (415) 972-3958,
Throughout this document, “we,” “us” and “our” refer to EPA.
On July 18, 1997, EPA established new national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) for PM
Epidemiological studies have shown statistically significant correlations between elevated PM
PM
Following promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS, EPA is required by Clean Air Act (CAA) section 107(d) to designate areas throughout the nation as attaining or not attaining the NAAQS. On January 5, 2005, EPA published initial air quality designations for the 1997 annual and 24-hour PM
The SJV PM
Between 2007 and 2011, California made six SIP submittals to address nonattainment area planning requirements for the 1997 PM
On January 4, 2013, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit issued its decision in a challenge by the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) to EPA's 2007 PM
Consistent with the
Under section 188(b)(1) of the CAA, prior to an area's attainment date, EPA has discretionary authority to reclassify as a Serious nonattainment area “any area that the Administrator determines cannot practicably attain” the PM
A determination of whether an area's air quality currently meets the PM
Under EPA regulations in 40 CFR 50.7 and in accordance with part 50, appendix N, the 1997 annual PM
Ambient annual and 24-hour PM
In its September 25, 2014 letter to EPA, the District provided ambient air quality data showing that the SJV area cannot attain the 1997 PM
EPA also independently evaluated preliminary 2014 PM
If 2014 monitoring data is timely certified by May 1, 2015 (
In sum, air quality data for the 2003-2014 period indicate that it is not practicable for the Bakersfield-Planz monitoring site to show an annual PM
The District's September 25, 2014 letter did not specifically address the SJV area's ability to attain the 24-hour PM
Table 4 shows the 98th percentile 24-hour average PM
If 2014 monitoring data is timely certified by May 1, 2015 (
In sum, air quality data for the 2003-2014 period indicate that it is not practicable for the two Bakersfield monitoring sites to show a 24-hour PM
Section 188 of the Act outlines the process for classification of PM
Under the plain meaning of the terms of section 188(b)(1) of the Act, EPA has general authority to reclassify at any time before the applicable attainment date any area that EPA determines cannot practicably attain the standard by such date. Accordingly, section 188(b)(1) of the Act is a general expression of delegated rulemaking authority. In addition, subparagraphs (A) and (B) of section 188(b)(1) mandate that EPA reclassify “appropriate” PM
Under section 188(c)(2) of the Act, the attainment date for a Serious area “shall be as expeditiously as practicable but no later than the end of the tenth calendar year beginning after the area's designation as nonattainment. . . .” The SJV area was designated nonattainment for the 1997 PM
Under section 188(e) of the Act, a state may apply to EPA for a single extension of the Serious area attainment date by up to 5 years, which EPA may grant if the State satisfies certain conditions. Before EPA may extend the attainment date for a Serious area under section 188(e), the State must: (1) Apply for an extension of the attainment date beyond the statutory attainment date; (2) demonstrate that attainment by the statutory attainment date is impracticable; (3) have complied with all requirements and commitments pertaining to the area in the implementation plan; (4) demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Administrator that the plan for the area includes the most stringent measures that are included in the implementation plan of any State or are achieved in practice in any State, and can feasibly be implemented in the area; and (5) submit a demonstration of attainment by the most expeditious alternative date practicable.
Eight Indian tribes are located within the boundaries of the San Joaquin Valley PM
We have considered the relevance of our proposal to reclassify the SJV nonattainment area as Serious for the 1997 PM
Elevated PM
Uniformity of classification throughout a nonattainment area is thus a guiding principle and premise when an area is being reclassified. Equally, if EPA believes it is likely that a given nonattainment area will not attain the PM
In light of the considerations outlined above that support retention of a uniformly-classified PM
The effect of reclassification would be to lower the applicable “major source” emissions threshold for purposes of the nonattainment new source review program and the Title V operating permit program from its current level of 100 tpy to 70 tpy (CAA sections 189(b)(3) and 501(2)(B)) thus subjecting more new or modified stationary sources to these requirements. The reclassification may also lower the
Given the potential implications of the reclassification, EPA has contacted tribal officials to invite government-to-government consultation on this rulemaking effort.
Upon reclassification as a Serious nonattainment area for the 1997 PM
The Serious area SIP elements that California will be required to submit are as follows:
1. Provisions to assure that the best available control measures (BACM), including best available control technology (BACT) for stationary sources, for the control of direct PM
2. a demonstration (including air quality modeling) that the plan provides for attainment as expeditiously as practicable but no later than December 31, 2015, or where the State is seeking an extension of the attainment date under section 188(e), a demonstration that attainment by December 31, 2015 is impracticable and that the plan provides for attainment by the most expeditious
3. plan provisions that require reasonable further progress (RFP) (CAA section 172(c)(2));
4. quantitative milestones which are to be achieved every 3 years until the area is redesignated attainment and which demonstrate RFP toward attainment by the applicable date (CAA section 189(c));
5. provisions to assure that control requirements applicable to major stationary sources of PM
6. a comprehensive, accurate, current inventory of actual emissions from all sources of PM
7. contingency measures to be implemented if the area fails to meet RFP or to attain by the applicable attainment date (CAA section 172(c)(9)); and
8. a revision to the nonattainment new source review (NSR) program to lower the applicable “major stationary source”
Section 189(b)(2) states, in relevant part, that the State must submit the required BACM provisions “no later than 18 months after reclassification of the area as a Serious Area” and must submit the required attainment demonstration “no later than 4 years after reclassification of the area to Serious.” Thus, if a final reclassification of the area to Serious becomes effective in early 2015, the Act provides the State with up to 18 months after this date (
Additionally, in light of the available ambient air quality data and the short amount of time available before the December 31, 2015 attainment date under CAA section 188(c)(2), EPA anticipates that California may choose to submit a request for an extension of the Serious area attainment date pursuant to section 188(e) simultaneously with its submittal of a Serious area plan for the area. If California fails to submit a request for an extension of the Serious area attainment date that satisfies the requirements of section 188(e) and the SJV area fails to attain the 1997 PM
The Act does not specify a deadline for the State's submittal of nonattainment NSR program revisions to lower the “major stationary source” threshold from 100 tons per year (tpy) to 70 tpy (CAA section 189(b)(3)) following reclassification of a Moderate PM
Given the short amount of time available for California's development of these SIP submittals, EPA anticipates that the Serious area attainment demonstration for the SJV area may rely to some extent on existing photochemical modeling analyses developed for previous PM
EPA is currently developing a proposed rulemaking to provide guidance to states on the attainment planning requirements in subparts 1 and 4 of part D, title I of the Act that apply to areas designated nonattainment for PM
Pursuant to section 188(b)(1) of the Act, EPA is proposing to reclassify the SJV nonattainment area from Moderate to Serious nonattainment for the 1997 annual and 24-hour PM
In addition, because EPA is proposing to similarly reclassify areas of Indian country within the SJV PM
EPA is requesting public comment on this proposed action.
Additional information about these statutes and Executive Orders can be found at
This action is not a significant regulatory action under the terms of Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and Executive Order 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011), and therefore was not submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review. Reclassification does not itself create any new requirements, and does not impose a materially adverse impact under Executive Order 12866. With respect to lands under state jurisdiction, this proposed reclassification would trigger statutory deadlines for the state to submit Serious area plan elements. With respect to Indian country, reclassifications do not establish deadlines for air quality plans or plan revisions because tribes are not subject to implementation plan submittal deadlines that apply to states as a result of reclassifications.
This action does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501-3521) because it does not contain any information collection activities.
I certify that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 601-612. This action will not impose any requirements on small entities. The proposed rule would require the state to adopt and submit SIP revisions to satisfy the statutory requirements that apply to Serious areas, and would not itself directly regulate any small entities. We continue to be interested in the potential impacts of the proposed rule on small entities and welcome comments on issues related to such impacts.
This action does not contain any unfunded mandate of $100 million or more and does not significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538). This action itself imposes no enforceable duty on any state, local, or tribal governments, or the private sector. The proposed action would reclassify the SJV nonattainment area as Serious nonattainment for the 1997 PM
This action does not have federalism implications. It will not have substantial direct effects on the states, on the relationship between the national government and the states, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999). The requirement to submit SIP revisions to meet the 1997 PM
In the spirit of Executive Order 13132 and consistent with EPA policy to promote communications between EPA and state and local governments, EPA specifically solicits comments on this proposed action from state and local officials.
Executive Order 13175, entitled “Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments” (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure “meaningful and timely input by tribal officials in the development of regulatory policies that have tribal implications.” “Policies that have Tribal implications” is defined in the Executive Order to include regulations that have “substantial direct effects on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal government and the Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal government and Indian Tribes.”
Eight Indian tribes are located within the boundaries of the SJV nonattainment area for the 1997 PM
EPA has concluded that this proposed rule might have tribal implications for the purposes of Executive Order 13175, but that it would not impose substantial direct compliance costs upon the tribes, nor would it preempt tribal law. We note that none of the tribes located in the SJV nonattainment area has requested eligibility to administer programs under the Clean Air Act. The proposed rule would affect EPA's implementation of the new source review program because of the lower “major source” threshold triggered by reclassification (70 tons per year for direct PM
Given these potential implications, EPA contacted tribal officials during the process of developing this proposed rule to provide an opportunity for the tribes to have meaningful and timely input into its development. On September 30, 2014, we sent letters to leaders of the
EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) as applying only to those regulatory actions that concern environmental health or safety risks that EPA has reason to believe may disproportionately affect children, per the definition of “covered regulatory action” in section 2-202 of the Executive Order. This proposed action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it proposes only to reclassify the SJV nonattainment area as Serious nonattainment for the 1997 PM
This proposed rule is not subject to Executive Order 13211, “Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use” (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001) because it is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.
This action is not subject to the requirements of Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because it does not involve technical standards.
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, Feb. 16, 1994) establishes federal executive policy on environmental justice. Its main provision directs federal agencies, to the greatest extent practicable and permitted by law, to make environmental justice part of their mission by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects of their programs, policies, and activities on minority populations and low-income populations in the United States.
EPA has determined that this action will not have disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority or low-income populations because it does not affect the level of protection provided to human health or the environment. This proposed action would only reclassify the SJV nonattainment area as Serious nonattainment for the 1997 PM
Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference.
42 U.S.C. 7401
Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
Proposed rule; reopening of public comment period and notice of public hearings.
We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), recently published a proposed listing for 21 plant and animal species from the Mariana Islands (U.S. Territory of Guam and the U.S. Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands) as endangered species and 2 plant species from the Mariana Islands as threatened species under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act), and announced a 60-day public comment period on the proposed actions, ending December 1, 2014. We now reopen the public comment period for an additional 30 days, and announce two public hearings and four public information meetings on our proposed rule. We are taking these actions to allow all interested parties additional time and opportunity to comment on the proposed rule.
(1)
(2)
We request that you send comments only by the methods described above. We will post all comments on
People needing reasonable accommodation in order to attend and participate in either public hearing should contact Kristi Young, Deputy Field Supervisor, Pacific Islands Fish and Wildlife Office, as soon as possible (see
Kristi Young, Deputy Field Supervisor, Pacific Islands Fish and Wildlife Office, 300 Ala Moana Boulevard, Honolulu, HI 96850; telephone 808-792-9400; or facsimile 808-792-9581. Persons who use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 800-877-8339.
We are reopening the public comment period for 30 days on our proposed rule to list 23 Mariana Islands species that was published in the
For details on specific information we are requesting, please see the Information Requested section of our proposed rule (79 FR 59364; October 1, 2014).
You may submit your comments and materials concerning the proposed rule by one of the methods listed in
If you submit a comment via
Comments and materials we receive, as well as supporting documentation we used in preparing the proposed rule, will be available for public inspection on
The authority for this action is the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531
The Department of Agriculture has submitted the following information collection requirement(s) to Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. Comments regarding (a) whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of burden including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information to be collected; (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology should be addressed to: Desk Officer for Agriculture, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, New Executive Office Building, 725 17th Street NW., Washington, DC 20502. Commenters are encouraged to submit their comments to OMB via email to:
An agency may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a currently valid OMB control number and the agency informs potential persons who are to respond to the collection of information that such persons are not required to respond to the collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
The Department of Agriculture has submitted the following information collection requirement(s) to OMB for review and clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. Comments regarding (a) whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of burden including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information to be collected; (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Comments regarding this information collection received by February 11, 2015 will be considered. Written comments should be addressed to: Desk Officer for Agriculture, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget (OMB), New Executive Office Building, 725 17th Street NW., Washington, DC 20503. Commenters are encouraged to submit their comments to OMB via email to:
An agency may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a currently valid OMB control number and the agency informs potential persons who are to respond to the collection of information that such persons are not required to respond to the collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
The Sensors and Instrumentation Technical Advisory Committee (SITAC) will meet on January 27, 2015, 9:30 a.m., in the Herbert C. Hoover Building, Room 6087B, 14th Street between Constitution and Pennsylvania Avenues NW., Washington, DC. The Committee advises the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Export Administration on technical questions that affect the level of export controls applicable to sensors and instrumentation equipment and technology.
Public Session:
1. Welcome and Introductions.
2. Remarks from the Bureau of Industry and Security Management.
3. Industry Presentations.
4. New Business.
The open session will be accessible via teleconference to 20 participants on a first come, first serve basis. To join the conference, submit inquiries to Ms. Yvette Springer at
A limited number of seats will be available during the public session of the meeting.
Reservations are not accepted. To the extent that time permits, members of the public may present oral statements to the Committee. The public may submit written statements at any time before or after the meeting. However, to facilitate distribution of public presentation materials to the Committee members, the Committee suggests that the materials be forwarded before the meeting to Ms. Springer.
For more information contact Yvette Springer on (202) 482-2813.
The Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled.
Proposed Deletions from the Procurement List.
The Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled is proposing to delete products from the Procurement List that were furnished by nonprofit agencies employing persons who are blind or have other severe disabilities.
The Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled, 1401 S. Clark Street, Suite 10800, Arlington, Virginia 22202-4149.
This notice is published pursuant to 41 U.S.C. 8503 (a)(2) and 41 CFR 51-2.3. Its purpose is to provide interested persons an opportunity to submit comments on the proposed actions.
The following products are proposed for deletion from the Procurement List:
Federal Student Aid, Department of Education.
Notice.
The Secretary announces the 2015-2016 award year deadline dates for the submission of requests and documents from postsecondary institutions for the Federal Perkins Loan, Federal Work-Study (FWS), and Federal Supplemental Educational Opportunity Grant (FSEOG) programs (collectively, the “campus-based programs”).
Pat Stephenson, Manager, Campus-Based Programs, U.S. Department of Education, Federal Student Aid, 830 First Street NE., Union Center Plaza, Room 64F2, Washington, DC 20202-5453. Telephone: (202) 377-3782 or via email:
If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) or a text telephone (TTY), call the Federal Relay Service, toll free, at 1-800-877-8339.
The Federal Perkins Loan program encourages institutions to make low-interest, long-term loans to needy undergraduate and graduate students to help pay for their education.
The FWS program encourages the part-time employment of needy undergraduate and graduate students to help pay for their education and to involve the students in community service activities.
The FSEOG program encourages institutions to provide grants to exceptionally needy undergraduate students to help pay for their education.
The Federal Perkins Loan, FWS, and FSEOG programs are authorized by parts E and C, and part A, subpart 3, respectively, of title IV of the Higher Education Act of 1965, as amended.
Throughout the year, in its “Electronic Announcements,” the Department will continue to provide additional information for the individual deadline dates listed in the table under the DEADLINE DATES section of this notice. You will also find the information on the Information for Financial Aid Professionals (IFAP) Web site at:
If you submit paper documents when permitted by mail or by hand delivery (or from a commercial courier), we accept as proof one of the following:
(1) A legible mail receipt with the date of mailing stamped by the U.S. Postal Service.
(2) A legibly dated U.S. Postal Service postmark.
(3) A legibly dated shipping label, invoice, or receipt from a commercial courier.
(4) Other proof of mailing or delivery acceptable to the Secretary.
If you mail your paper documents through the U.S. Postal Service, we do not accept either of the following as proof of mailing:
(1) A private metered postmark.
(2) A mail receipt that is not dated by the U.S. Postal Service.
An institution should note that the U.S. Postal Service does not uniformly provide a dated postmark. Before relying on this method, an institution should check with its local post office. All institutions are encouraged to use certified or at least first-class mail.
The Department accepts hand deliveries from you or a commercial courier between 8:00:00 a.m. and 4:30:00 p.m., Washington, DC time, Monday through Friday except Federal holidays.
A more detailed discussion of each request for funds or waiver is provided in specific “Electronic Announcements,” which are posted on the Department's IFAP Web site (
(1) Student Assistance General Provisions, 34 CFR part 668.
(2) General Provisions for the Federal Perkins Loan Program, Federal Work-Study Program, and Federal Supplemental Educational Opportunity Grant Program, 34 CFR part 673.
(3) Federal Perkins Loan Program, 34 CFR part 674.
(4) Federal Work-Study Programs, 34 CFR part 675.
(5) Federal Supplemental Educational Opportunity Grant Program, 34 CFR part 676.
(6) Institutional Eligibility under the Higher Education Act of 1965, as amended, 34 CFR part 600.
(7) New Restrictions on Lobbying, 34 CFR part 82.
(8) Governmentwide Requirements for Drug-Free Workplace (Financial Assistance), 34 CFR part 84.
(9) Governmentwide Debarment and Suspension (Nonprocurement), 2 CFR part 3485.
(10) Drug and Alcohol Abuse Prevention, 34 CFR part 86.
You may also access documents of the Department published in the
20 U.S.C. 1070b
Take notice that the following hydroelectric application has been filed with the Commission and is available for public inspection:
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
h.
i.
j.
All documents may be filed electronically via the Internet. See 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's Web site at
The Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure require all intervenors filing documents with the Commission to serve a copy of that document on each person whose name appears on the official service list for the project. Further, if an intervenor files comments or documents with the Commission relating to the merits of an issue that may affect the responsibilities of a particular resource agency, they must also serve a copy of the document on that resource agency.
k. Description of Request: The licensee proposes to renovate and repair the Pardee Recreation Area Recreational Vehicle (RV) Park to bring the park up to current State of California codes and to replace the sanitary sewer system in the recreation area. The filing requests to amend the project recreation plan to reduce the total number of RV spaces in the RV Park from a total of 87 spaces to a total of 56 spaces. The new spaces will be larger and the re-built RV Park will feature new road alignments, utilities with increased capacity, roadway and site lighting, drought resistant landscaping, hardscaping, and required fire safety clearances.
l. Locations of the Application: A copy of the application is available for inspection and reproduction at the Commission's Public Reference Room, located at 888 First Street NE., Room 2A, Washington, DC 20426, or by calling (202) 502-8371. This filing may also be viewed on the Commission's Web site at
m. Individuals desiring to be included on the Commission's mailing list should so indicate by writing to the Secretary of the Commission.
n. Comments, Protests, or Motions to Intervene: Anyone may submit comments, a protest, or a motion to intervene in accordance with the requirements of Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.210, .211, .214, respectively. In determining the appropriate action to take, the Commission will consider all protests or other comments filed, but only those who file a motion to intervene in accordance with the Commission's Rules may become a party to the proceeding. Any comments, protests, or motions to intervene must be received on or before the specified comment date for the particular application.
o. Filing and Service of Documents: Any filing must (1) bear in all capital letters the title “COMMENTS”, “PROTEST”, or “MOTION TO INTERVENE” as applicable; (2) set forth in the heading the name of the applicant and the project number of the application to which the filing responds; (3) furnish the name, address, and telephone number of the person commenting, protesting or intervening; and (4) otherwise comply with the requirements of 18 CFR 385.2001 through 385.2005. All comments, motions to intervene, or protests must set forth their evidentiary basis. Any filing made by an intervenor must be accompanied by proof of service on all persons listed in the service list prepared by the Commission in this proceeding, in accordance with 18 CFR 385.2010.
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric rate filings:
Take notice that the Commission received the following land acquisition reports:
The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.
eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at:
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric rate filings:
The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.
eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at:
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric rate filings:
The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.
eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at:
Take notice that on December 16, 2014, pursuant to section 206 of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's (Commission) Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.206 and sections 206 and 306 of the Federal Power Act, 16 U.S.C. 824(e) and 825(e), TDI USA Holding Corp. (Complainant) filed a formal complaint against the New York Independent System Operator, Inc. (Respondent) alleging that certain tariff provisions impose buyer-side mitigation on Complainant's Champlain Hudson Power Express Project. Complainant asserts that such imposition is unjust and unreasonable, as more fully explained in the complaint.
The Complainant certifies that copies of the complaint were served on the contacts for the Respondent as listed on the Commission's list of Corporate Officials.
Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. The Respondent's answer and all interventions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date. The Respondent's answer, motions to
The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the “eFiling” link at
This filing is accessible on-line at
On December 31, 2014, the Commission issued an order in Docket No. ER15-303-000, pursuant to section 206 of the Federal Power Act (FPA), 16 U.S.C. 824e (2012), instituting an investigation into the justness and reasonableness of American Transmission Systems, Inc.'s (ATSI) 12.38 percent return on equity in conjunction with ATSI's October 31, 2014 section 205 filing proposing revisions to its with transmission formula rate and Protocols.
The refund effective date in Docket No. ER15-303-000, established pursuant to section 206(b) of the FPA, will be the date of publication of this notice in the
As announced in the Notice of Technical Conferences issued on December 9, 2014,
Following the National Overview technical conference, the Commission will hold three regional technical conferences on the following dates:
The National
Registration for the National Overview technical conference is available at
The Commission will post information on the technical conferences on the Calendar of Events on the Commission's Web site,
Commission conferences are accessible under section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. For accessibility accommodations, please send an email to
For more information about the technical conferences, please contact:
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice.
This document announces the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) responses to Agency Clearance Requests, in compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501
Courtney Kerwin (202) 566-1669, or email at
EPA ICR Number 2380.02; Renewable Fuels Standard Program (RFS2-Supplemental) (Renewal); 40 CFR part 80, and 40 CFR 80.1450(b)(1) and 80.1450(b)(2) ; was approved on 10/20/2014; OMB Number 2060-0637; expires on 10/31/2017; Approved with change.
EPA ICR Number 2333.03; Renewable Fuels Standard (RFS2) (Renewal); 40 CFR part 80, subpart M; was approved on 10/20/2014; OMB Number 2060-0640; expires on 10/31/2017; Approved with change.
EPA ICR Number 2060.07; Cooling Water Intake Structures at Existing Facilities (Final Rule); 40 CFR parts 122 and 125; was approved on 10/15/2014; OMB Number 2040-0257; expires on 10/31/2017; Approved with change.
EPA ICR Number 1907.08; Recordkeeping and Reporting Requirements Regarding the Sulfur Content of Motor Vehicle Gasoline Under the Tier 2 Rule (40 CFR part 80, subpart H) (Proposed Rule for Tier 3)); in 40 CFR part 80, subpart O; and 40 CFR 80.210; 80.270; 80.330; 80.340; 80.370; 80.380; 80.400; and 80.415. OMB filed comment on 10/28/2014.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice.
The Environmental Protection Agency has submitted an information collection request (ICR), “Air Stationary Source Compliance and Enforcement Information Reporting” (EPA ICR No. 0107.11, OMB Control No. 2060-0096) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501
Additional comments may be submitted on or before February 11, 2015.
Submit your comments, referencing Docket ID Number EPA-HQ-OECA-2014-0523, to (1) EPA online using
EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the public
David A. Meredith, Enforcement Targeting and Data Division, Office of Compliance, (2222A), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone number: (202) 564-4152; email address:
Supporting documents, which explain in detail the information that the EPA will be collecting, are available in the public docket for this ICR. The docket can be viewed online at
Federal Election Commission.
Thursday, January 15, 2015 At 10:00 a.m.
999 E Street NW., Washington, DC (Ninth Floor).
This meeting will be open to the public.
Individuals who plan to attend and require special assistance, such as sign language interpretation or other reasonable accommodations, should contact Shawn Woodhead Werth, Secretary and Clerk, at (202) 694-1040, at least 72 hours prior to the meeting date.
Judith Ingram, Press Officer, Telephone: (202) 694-1220.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has submitted the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The notice for the proposed information collection is published to obtain comments from the public and affected agencies.
Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies concerning the proposed collection of information are encouraged. Your comments should address any of the following: (a) Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (b) Evaluate the accuracy of the agencies estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (c) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; (d) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
To request additional information on the proposed project or to obtain a copy of the information collection plan and instruments, call (404) 639-7570 or send an email to
A Comprehensive Evaluation of a Paid Social Media and Mass Media Gynecologic Cancer Campaign—New—National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion (NCCDPHP), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).
As authorized by The Gynecologic Cancer Education and Awareness Act, CDC currently manages the “Inside Knowledge: Get the Facts About Gynecologic Cancer” media campaign. The campaign seeks to increase women's intentions to seek medical attention for symptoms that could be indicative of gynecologic cancer.
CDC plans to conduct an evaluation of the Inside Knowledge (IK) campaign by collecting information from the target audience of women ages 40-65 in four cities (Milwaukee, Wisconsin; Cincinnati, Ohio; Las Vegas, Nevada and San Antonio, Texas). In two of the cities (Milwaukee and San Antonio), the national IK campaign will be augmented by an additional paid media campaign. Evaluation information will be collected at two time points in each city (a pre-campaign survey plus one additional post-campaign survey after the media intervention). Separate cross-sectional samples of new respondents will participate at each point in time. This will allow CDC to assess exposure to campaign messages as a function of media “dose” and to assess whether women who reside in cities with additional paid media have higher awareness of the campaign, higher knowledge of gynecological cancers, and greater intentions to seek medical attention for gynecologic cancer symptoms and/or to discuss symptoms with their doctor. CDC initially considered a more complex evaluation strategy that involved four waves of data collection in each city coinciding with the release of various combinations of digital media and traditional media. The current campaign evaluation strategy is based on a simplified design that allows CDC to assess main campaign effects with a smaller number of respondents.
Respondents will be recruited from a national opt-in online survey panel that prescreens participants and increases the likelihood that they meet eligibility criteria and live within the cities where the media campaigns are implemented. The total number of respondents in each study location is approximately 606 (303 respondents who participate in the pre-campaign information collection, and 303 respondents who participate in the post-campaign information collection). The target number of completed responses for the overall campaign evaluation study is 2,424. The estimated number of incomplete responses (individuals who drop out during or after completion of the Screening Section of the survey) is 606.
Potential respondents will receive an email invitation that describes the study and provides a link to the survey Web site. Information will then be collected through self-administered, Web-based surveys. Survey items will include measures of audience recall of the campaign; perceptions of campaign messages; gynecologic health related knowledge, attitudes, and beliefs; intentions to seek care for symptoms associated gynecologic cancers; and sociodemographic characteristics.
Results of this evaluation study will be used to inform CDC, policymakers, prevention practitioners, researchers, and the general U.S. population about the reach and impact of the Inside Knowledge gynecologic health awareness campaign, and to inform the development and implementation of future health communication efforts.
OMB approval is requested for one year. The same survey instrument will be used for all information collection. Participation is voluntary and there are no costs to respondents other than their time. The total estimated burden hours are 838.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), as part of its continuing effort to reduce public burden and maximize the utility of government information, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. To request more information on the below proposed project or to obtain a copy of the information collection plan and instruments, call 404-639-7570 or send comments to LeRoy Richardson, 1600 Clifton Road, MS-D74, Atlanta, GA 30333 or send an email to
Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/or included in the request for Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approval. Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and (e) estimates of capital or start-up costs and costs of operation, maintenance, and purchase of services to provide information. Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time needed to review instructions; to develop, acquire, install and utilize technology and systems for the purpose of collecting, validating and verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information; to train personnel and to be able to respond to a collection of information, to search data sources, to complete and review the collection of information; and to transmit or otherwise disclose the information. Written comments should be received within 60 days of this notice.
Environmental Health Specialists Network (EHS-NET) Program (OMB No. 0920-0792, expires 2/28/2015)—Revision—National Center for Environmental Health (NCEH), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).
The CDC is requesting OMB approval for three additional years to use this generic clearance for a research program focused on identifying the environmental causes of foodborne illness.
To date, EHS-Net has conducted four studies under this generic clearance. The first study collected data on improper cooling of hot foods, a food handling practice associated with foodborne illness and outbreaks. The second study collected data on the relationship between kitchen manager food safety certification and foodborne illness risk factors in restaurants. Public health agencies are increasingly encouraging or requiring certification as a foodborne illness prevention measure, yet little is known about its effectiveness. The third study collected data on the environmental factors associated with contamination of the retail deli environment with
The data from the first two studies have been disseminated to environmental public health/food safety regulatory programs and the food industry in the form of presentations at conferences and meetings, scientific journal publications, and Web site postings. We will continue to analyze and present the data from all four studies, and expect that they will continue to provide valuable and useful data about environmental factors associated with foodborne illness outbreaks and food safety issues.
This revision will provide OMB clearance for EHS-Net data collections conducted in 2015 through 2018 (approximately one per year). The program is revising the generic information collection request (ICR) in the following ways:
(1) Because of the re-announcement and re-competition of the EHS-Net cooperative agreement in 2015, it is likely that the sites in which data will be collected will differ from the sites in which data were collected previously.
(2) We revised the estimated study sample size and burden downward. Thus, the estimated burden has been reduced.
(3) We have eliminated proposed sample weighting analyses.
Reducing foodborne illness first requires identification and understanding of the environmental factors that cause these illnesses. We need to know how and why food becomes contaminated with foodborne illness pathogens. This information can then be used to determine effective food safety prevention methods. Ultimately, these actions can lead to increased regulatory program effectiveness and decreased foodborne illness. The purpose of this food safety research program is to identify and understand environmental factors associated with foodborne illness and outbreaks. This program is conducted by the Environmental Health Specialists Network (EHS-Net), a collaborative project of CDC, FDA, USDA, and local and state sites.
Environmental factors associated with foodborne illness include both food safety practices (
For each data collection, we will collect data in approximately 47 retail food establishments per site. Thus, there will be approximately 376 establishments per data collection (an estimated 8 sites × 47 establishments). We expect a manager/establishment
For each data collection, we will recruit a worker from each participating establishment to provide interview/survey data. Each worker will respond to the recruiting script only once for approximately 3 minutes. Thus, the maximum burden for the worker recruiting attempts will be 18.8 hours (376 workers × 3 minutes). We expect a worker response rate of 90 percent (339 workers). Each worker will respond only once for approximately 10 minutes. Thus, the maximum burden for the worker interview/survey will be 56.5 hours (339 workers × 10 minutes). In total, the average burden per worker response will be 75.3 hours (18.8 hours for recruiting + 56.5 hours for the interview/survey).
There is no cost to respondents other than their time. The total estimated annual burden for the data collection will be 295 hours.
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing an opportunity for public comment on the proposed collection of certain information by the Agency. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (the PRA), Federal Agencies are required to publish notice in the
Submit electronic or written comments on the collection of information by March 13, 2015.
Submit electronic comments on the collection of information to
FDA PRA Staff, Office of Operations, Food and Drug Administration, 8455 Colesville Rd., COLE-14526, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002,
Under the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), Federal Agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. “Collection of information” is defined in 44 U.S.C. 3502(3) and 5 CFR 1320.3(c) and includes Agency requests or requirements that members of the public submit reports, keep records, or provide information to a third party. Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)) requires Federal Agencies to provide a 60-day notice in the
With respect to the following collection of information, FDA invites comments on these topics: (1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of FDA's functions, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of FDA's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques, when appropriate, and other forms of information technology.
In the
The Generic Animal Drug and Patent Term Registration Act of 1988 (Pub. L. 100-670) permitted generic drug manufacturers to copy those pioneer drug products that were no longer subject to patent or other marketing exclusivity protection. The approval for marketing these generic products is based, in part, upon a demonstration of bioequivalence between the generic product and pioneer product. This guidance clarifies circumstances under which FDA believes the demonstration of bioequivalence required by the statute does not need to be established on the basis of in vivo studies for soluble powder oral dosage form products and Type A medicated articles. The data submitted in support of the waiver request are necessary to validate the waiver decision. The requirement to establish bioequivalence through in vivo studies (blood level bioequivalence or clinical endpoint bioequivalence) may be waived for soluble powder oral dosage form products or Type A medicated articles in either of two alternative ways. A biowaiver may be granted if it can be shown that the generic soluble powder oral dosage form product or Type A medicated article contains the same active and inactive ingredient(s) and is produced using the same manufacturing processes as the approved comparator product or article. Alternatively, a biowaiver may be granted without direct comparison to the pioneer product's formulation and manufacturing process if it can be shown that the active pharmaceutical ingredient(s) (API) is the same as the pioneer product, is soluble, and that there are no ingredients in the formulation likely to cause adverse pharmacologic effects. For the purpose of evaluating soluble powder oral dosage form products and Type A medicated articles, solubility can be demonstrated in one of two ways: “USP definition” approach or “Dosage adjusted” approach. The respondents for this collection of information are pharmaceutical companies manufacturing animal drugs. FDA estimates the burden for this collection of information as shown in tables 1 and 2 of this document. The source of the data is records of generic drug applications over the past 10 years.
FDA estimates the burden of this collection of information as follows:
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing that a collection of information entitled “Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements for Human Food and Cosmetics Manufactured From, Processed With, or Otherwise Containing, Material From Cattle” has been approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
FDA PRA Staff, Office of Operations, Food and Drug Administration, 8455
On September 30, 2014, the Agency submitted a proposed collection of information entitled “Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements for Human Food and Cosmetics Manufactured From, Processed With, or Otherwise Containing, Material From Cattle” to OMB for review and clearance under 44 U.S.C. 3507. An Agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. OMB has now approved the information collection and has assigned OMB control number 0910-0623. The approval expires on November 30, 2017. A copy of the supporting statement for this information collection is available on the Internet at
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing the availability of a Study Data Technical Conformance Guide, Version 2.0 (Guide), and an update to the Data Standards Catalog (Catalog). The Guide supplements the final guidance for industry entitled “Providing Regulatory Submissions in Electronic Format—Standardized Study Data” (eStudy Data guidance) and provides specifications and recommendations for, as well as general considerations on, submitting standardized study data using FDA-supported data standards specified in the Catalog. The Guide is intended to complement and promote interactions between sponsors and FDA review divisions.
Submit either electronic or written comments on these documents at any time.
Submit written requests for a copy of the Study Data Technical Conformance Guide and the Data Standards Catalog to the Division of Drug Information, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 51, Rm. 2201, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002. Send one self-addressed adhesive label to assist that office in processing your requests.
Submit electronic comments on the guidance to
Ron Fitzmartin, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 51, Rm. 1192, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 301-796-5333,
FDA is announcing the availability of Version 2.0 of the Guide and an update to the Catalog. The Guide supplements the final guidance for industry entitled “Providing Regulatory Submissions in Electronic Format—Standardized Study Data” (available at
The Guide is intended to complement and promote interactions between sponsors and FDA review divisions. It is not intended to replace the need for sponsors to communicate directly with review divisions regarding data standards implementation approaches or issues.
The Guide is organized as follows:
Section 1: “Introduction”—provides information on regulatory policy and guidance background, purpose, and document control.
Section 2: “Planning and Providing Standardized Study Data”—recommends and provides details on preparing an overall study data standardization plan, a study data reviewer's guide, and an analysis data reviewer's guide.
Section 3: “Exchange Format—Electronic Submissions”—presents the specifications, considerations, and recommendations for the file formats currently supported by FDA.
Section 4: “Study Data Submission Format: Clinical and Nonclinical”—presents general considerations and specifications for sponsors using, for example, the following standards for the submission of study data: Study Data Tabulation Model (SDTM), Analysis Data Model (ADaM), and Standard for Exchange of Nonclinical Data (SEND).
Section 5: “Therapeutic Area Standards”—presents supplemental considerations and specific recommendations when sponsors submit study data using FDA-supported therapeutic area standards.
Section 6: “Terminology”—presents general considerations and specific recommendations when using controlled terminologies/vocabularies for clinical trial data.
Section 7: “Electronic Submission Format”—provides specifications and recommendations on submitting study data using the electronic Common Technical Document format.
Section 8: “Data Validation and Traceability”—provides general recommendations on conformance to standards, data validation rules, data traceability expectations, and legacy data conversion.
In the
Section 2: Added a subsection to include an Analysis Data Reviewer's Guide.
Section 3: Clarified dataset sizes, column lengths, special characters for variables, and datasets.
Section 4: Clarified general considerations and domain specifications for SDTM and ADaM.
Section 6: Clarified a number of subsections, including controlled terminology, medications, pharmacologic class, and indication, and added a World Health Organization Drug Dictionary.
Section 7: Clarified the electronic submission format and the folder structure for study datasets.
Section 8: Renamed the section “Data Validation and Traceability” from “Data Fitness” and clarified several of the subsections, including Traceability Issues and Legacy Data Conversion.
Interested persons may submit either electronic comments regarding this document to
Persons with access to the Internet may obtain the Guide and the Catalog at either
U.S. Customs and Border Protection; Department of Homeland Security.
General notice.
U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) has established the Global Entry international trusted traveler program at most major U.S. airports. Global Entry allows pre-approved, low-risk participants expedited entry into the United States using Global Entry kiosks located at designated airports. Currently, eligibility for participation in Global Entry is limited to U.S. citizens, U.S. nationals, U.S. lawful permanent residents, Mexican nationals, and certain eligible citizens of the Netherlands, the Republic of Korea, the Federal Republic of Germany, the State of Qatar, and the United Kingdom. Additionally, participants in the NEXUS trusted traveler program and certain participants in the Secure Electronic Network for Travelers Rapid Inspection (SENTRI) trusted traveler program are permitted to use the Global Entry kiosks as part of their membership in those programs.
The expansion of eligibility to citizens of the Republic of Panama will occur on January 12, 2015. Applications will be accepted from citizens of the Republic of Panama beginning January 12, 2015.
Larry Panetta, Office of Field Operations, (202) 344-1253,
Global Entry is a voluntary program that allows for the expedited clearance of pre-approved, low-risk travelers arriving in the United States at Global Entry kiosks located at designated airports. CBP issued the final rule that promulgated the regulation to establish Global Entry as an ongoing voluntary regulatory program in the
Eligibility for participation in Global Entry is limited to U.S. citizens, U.S. nationals, U.S. lawful permanent residents, and certain nonimmigrant aliens from countries that have entered into arrangements with CBP regarding international trusted traveler programs. Specifically, the regulation provides that certain nonimmigrant aliens from countries that have entered into arrangements with CBP concerning international trusted traveler programs may be eligible to apply for participation in Global Entry after CBP announces the arrangement by publication of a notice in the
In a notice published in the
This document announces the further expansion of the Global Entry trusted
On February 29, 2012, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, CBP and the Ministry of Public Security of the Republic of Panama signed a Joint Statement regarding the development of an international trusted traveler initiative. As CBP and the Republic of Panama have negotiated the operational details and completed the necessary infrastructure updates, CBP is now ready to announce that, based on the Joint Statement, citizens of the Republic of Panama are eligible to apply for participation in Global Entry.
In order to participate, citizens of the Republic of Panama who apply for Global Entry will be required to complete the on-line application located on the GOES Web site, pay the non-refundable Global Entry fee, and satisfy all the requirements of Global Entry. These applicants will be permitted to participate in Global Entry only upon successful completion of a thorough risk assessment by both CBP and the Republic of Panama's Ministry of Public Security and completion of an interview with CBP. The vetting criteria were mutually developed and are consistent with each agency's applicable domestic laws and policies. Once the risk assessment has been completed, CBP will notify the applicants regarding whether or not they have been accepted into Global Entry.
Applicants may be denied enrollment in the Global Entry program for various reasons. An individual who is inadmissible to the United States under U.S. immigration law or has, at any time, been granted a waiver of inadmissibility or parole is ineligible to participate in Global Entry. Applications from such individuals will automatically be rejected. Applications for Global Entry may also be rejected if the applicant has ever been arrested for, or convicted of, a criminal offense, or if the individual has ever been found in violation of customs or immigration laws, or of any criminal law. Additionally, an applicant will not be accepted for participation in Global Entry if CBP determines that the applicant presents a potential risk of terrorism, or criminality (including smuggling), or if CBP cannot sufficiently determine that the applicant meets all the program eligibility criteria. The eligibility criteria are set forth in more detail in the Global Entry final rule and 8 CFR 235.12.
Pursuant to the Joint Statement, U.S. citizens who are Global Entry participants or U.S. citizens who can utilize Global Entry kiosks as NEXUS or SENTRI participants have the option to apply for Panama Global Pass membership. Panama Global Pass is a trusted traveler program in the Republic of Panama that uses self-service kiosks to offer expedited processing for air travelers through clearance formalities when entering the Republic of Panama. All U.S. applicants must apply for Panama Global Pass directly with the Government of Panama, be thoroughly vetted by both CBP and the Republic of Panama and be interviewed by the National Immigration Service of Panama in the Republic of Panama to complete the enrollment process. U.S. applicants are required to pay the Panama Global Pass non-refundable $100 fee for a five-year membership. The Republic of Panama will notify the U.S. applicant directly about whether he or she was approved for Panama Global Pass. More information about how to apply for Panama Global Pass membership is available at
U.S. Customs and Border Protection; Department of Homeland Security.
General notice.
The Global Entry international trusted traveler program allows pre-approved, low-risk participants expedited entry into the United States using Global Entry kiosks located at designated airports. U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) previously announced in the
Global Entry will be available at all seven airport locations on or before July 13, 2015. The exact starting date for each airport location will be announced on the CBP Global Entry Web site,
Larry Panetta, Office of Field Operations, (202) 344-1253,
Global Entry is a voluntary program that allows for the expedited clearance of pre-approved, low-risk travelers arriving in the United States at Global Entry kiosks located at designated airports. The Global Entry final rule, published in the
The thirty-two airports previously designated for Global Entry, listed alphabetically by state, and then city, include:
• Phoenix Sky Harbor International Airport, Phoenix, Arizona (PHX);
• Los Angeles International Airport, Los Angeles, California (LAX);
• San Diego International Airport, San Diego, California (SAN);
• San Francisco International Airport, San Francisco, California (SFO);
• John Wayne Airport, Santa Ana, California (SNA);
• Denver International Airport, Denver, Colorado (DEN);
• Ft. Lauderdale Hollywood International Airport, Fort Lauderdale, Florida (FLL), including the General Aviation Facility private aircraft terminal;
• Miami International Airport, Miami, Florida (MIA);
• Orlando International Airport, Orlando, Florida (MCO);
• Sanford-Orlando International Airport, Sanford, Florida (SFB);
• Tampa International Airport, Tampa, Florida (TPA);
• Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International Airport, Atlanta, Georgia (ATL);
• Honolulu International Airport, Honolulu, Hawaii (HNL);
• Chicago O'Hare International Airport, Chicago, Illinois (ORD);
• Baltimore/Washington International Thurgood Marshall Airport, Baltimore, Maryland (BWI);
• Boston-Logan International Airport, Boston, Massachusetts (BOS);
• Detroit Metropolitan Wayne County Airport, Romulus, Michigan (DTW);
• Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport, Minneapolis, Minnesota (MSP);
• Las Vegas-McCarran International Airport, Las Vegas, Nevada (LAS);
• Newark Liberty International Airport, Newark, New Jersey (EWR);
• John F. Kennedy International Airport, Jamaica, New York (JFK);
• Charlotte Douglas International Airport, Charlotte, North Carolina (CLT);
• Raleigh-Durham International Airport, Morrisville, North Carolina (RDU);
• Portland International Airport, Portland, Oregon (PDX);
• Philadelphia International Airport, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania (PHL);
• San Juan-Luis Munoz Marin International Airport, San Juan, Puerto Rico (SJU);
• Dallas Fort Worth International Airport, Dallas, Texas (DFW);
• George Bush Intercontinental Airport, Houston, Texas (IAH);
• San Antonio International Airport, San Antonio, Texas (SAT);
• Salt Lake City International Airport, Salt Lake City, Utah (SLC);
• Washington Dulles International Airport, Sterling, Virginia (IAD);
• Seattle-Tacoma International Airport-SEATAC, Seattle, Washington (SEA).
The preamble to the Global Entry final rule states that when CBP is ready to expand Global Entry to additional airports and has selected the airports, CBP will publish an announcement in the
CBP is designating seven additional airports for Global Entry. Each of these airports will have Global Entry kiosks for the use of participants. The additional airports, listed alphabetically by state, are:
• Ted Stevens Anchorage International Airport, Anchorage, Alaska (ANC);
• Chicago Midway International Airport, Chicago, Illinois (MDW);
• Cincinnati/Northern Kentucky International Airport, Hebron, Kentucky (CVG);
• Cleveland Hopkins International Airport, Cleveland, Ohio (CLE);
• Pittsburgh International Airport, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania (PIT);
• Austin-Bergstrom International Airport, Austin, Texas (AUS);
• General Mitchell International Airport, Milwaukee, Wisconsin (MKE).
Global Entry will become operational at all seven airports on or before July 13, 2015. The exact starting dates of Global Entry at each airport location will be announced on the Web site,
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Policy Development and Research, HUD.
Notice of Final Fiscal Year (FY) 2015 Fair Market Rents (FMRs), Update.
Today's notice updates the FY 2015 FMRs for Seattle-Belleview, WA, HUD Metro FMR Area (HMFA), based on surveys conducted in October 2014 by the area public housing agencies (PHAs). The FY 2015 FMRs for these areas reflect the estimated 40th percentile rent levels trended to April 1, 2015.
For technical information on the methodology used to develop FMRs or a listing of all FMRs, please call the HUD USER information line at 800-245-2691 or access the information on the HUD USER Web site:
Questions related to use of FMRs or voucher payment standards should be directed to the respective local HUD program staff. Questions on how to conduct FMR surveys or concerning further methodological explanations may be addressed to Marie L. Lihn or Peter B. Kahn, Economic and Market Analysis Division, Office of Economic Affairs, Office of Policy Development and Research, telephone 202-708-0590. Persons with hearing or speech impairments may access this number through TTY by calling the toll-free Federal Relay Service at 800-877-8339. (Other than the HUD USER information line and TDD numbers, telephone numbers are not toll-free.)
The FMRs appearing in the following table supersede the values found in Schedule B that became effective on October 1, 2014, and were printed in the October 3, 2014 (79 FR 59786)
The FMRs for the affected area are revised as follows:
Interior.
Notice of Intent.
Under the Oil Pollution Act (OPA), Federal and State trustees for natural resources are authorized to assess natural resource injuries resulting from an oil discharge or the substantial threat of discharge, as well those injuries that result from response activities. The trustees develop and implement a restoration plan to identify and quantify injuries to natural resources and the restoration required to compensate for those injuries. This notice announces the intent of the Federal and State trustees to conduct restoration planning regarding the discharge of oil from the Kirby Barge 27706 resulting from the collision with an inbound bulk carrier, the M/V SUMMER WIND, an incident that occurred in the Houston Ship Channel near Texas City, Texas on March 22, 2014.
Benjamin Tuggle, Regional Director, Southwest Region, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, ((505) 248-6911).
The Texas City Y Oil Spill occurred on March 22, 2014, in Galveston Bay in the vicinity of the Houston Ship Channel near Texas City, Texas, when the inbound bulk carrier M/V SUMMER WIND collided with the oil tank-barge KIRBY 27706. At the time of the collision, the M/V MISS SUSAN was towing the oil tank-barges KIRBY 27705 and KIRBY 27706. As a result of the collision, the number 2 starboard tank of KIRBY 27706 was punctured discharging approximately 168,000 gallons (4,000 barrels) of intermediate fuel oil (IFO-380) into Galveston Bay and subsequently entered the waters of the Gulf of Mexico (referred to as the “Texas City Incident”).
Pursuant to Section 1006 of the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (OPA), 33 U.S.C. 2706, Federal and State trustees for natural resources are authorized to (1) assess natural resource injuries resulting from a discharge of oil or the substantial threat of a discharge and from response activities, and (2) develop and implement a plan for restoration of such injured resources and their services. The Federal trustees are designated pursuant to the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP) (40 CFR 300.600) and Executive Order 12777. State trustees are designated by the governors of each State pursuant to the NCP, 40 CFR 300.605, OPA 33 U.S.C. 2706(b)(3), Clean Water Act (CWA), 33 U.S.C. 1321(f)(5), and the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA; 42 U.S.C. 9607(f)(2)(B)). The following agencies are designated natural resources trustees under OPA and are currently acting as trustees for this Incident: The United States Department of the Interior (DOI), as represented by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Park Service; the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) on behalf of the United States Department of Commerce; and the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department (TPWD), Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) and Texas General Land Office (GLO) for the State of Texas (collectively, the Trustees). In addition to acting as Trustees for this Incident under OPA, the State of Texas is also acting pursuant to its applicable state laws and authorities, including the Texas Oil Spill Prevention and Response Act of 1991, Tex. Nat. Res. Code Chapter 40.
The Responsible Party (RP) identified for this Incident thus far is Kirby Inland Marine, LP (“Kirby”), owner of the M/V MISS SUSAN, KIRBY 27705 and KIRBY 27706. Pursuant to 15 CFR 990.14(c), the Trustees have invited the RP identified above to participate in a cooperative Natural Resource Damage Assessment (NRDA) process. To date, the Trustees have coordinated with Kirby representatives on activities undertaken as part of the NRDAR process.
The Trustees initiated the Preassessment Phase of the NRDA in accordance with 15 CFR 990.40 to determine if they have jurisdiction to pursue restoration under OPA and, if so, whether it is appropriate to do so. During the Preassessment Phase, the Trustees collected and analyzed the following: (1) Data reasonably expected to be necessary to make a determination of jurisdiction and a determination to conduct restoration planning, (2) ephemeral data, and (3) information needed for assessment activities as part of the Restoration Planning Phase. The collection and analysis of the data and information listed above continues to date.
Under the NRDA regulations applicable to OPA, 15 CFR part 990 (NRDA regulations), the Trustees prepare and issue a notice of intent to conduct restoration planning (notice) to demonstrate that conditions have been met that establish that the Trustees have jurisdiction over this matter and that restoration of natural resources is feasible and appropriate.
Pursuant to 15 CFR 990.44, this notice announces that the Trustees have determined to proceed with restoration planning to fully evaluate, assess, quantify and develop plans for restoring, replacing or acquiring the equivalent of injured natural resources and services losses resulting from the Texas City Y Incident. The restoration planning process will include collection of information for evaluating and quantifying injuries, and use of that information to determine the need for, and type and scale of restoration actions.
The Trustees have made the following findings pursuant to 15 CFR 990.41:
1. The Texas City Y Incident resulted in discharges of oil into and upon navigable waters of the United States, including the Gulf of Mexico, as well as adjoining shorelines, all of which constitute an “incident” within the meaning of 15 CFR 990.30.
2. The discharge(s) are not permitted pursuant to federal, state, or local law; are not from a public vessel; and are not from an onshore facility subject to the Trans-Alaska Pipeline Authority Act, (43 U.S.C. 1651
3. Natural resources under the trusteeship of the Trustees have been and continue to be injured or threatened as a result of discharged oil and associated removal efforts. The discharged oil is harmful to natural resources exposed to the oil, including aquatic organisms, birds, wildlife, vegetation, and habitats. Discharged oil and the response activities to address the discharges of oil have resulted in adverse effects on natural resources in and around the coastal waters of Texas and along its adjoining shorelines, and impaired services that those resources provide. The full extent of potential injuries is currently unknown; however current natural resources and resource services that have been impacted due to the discharged oil include but are not limited to the following:
• Over 160 miles of shoreline habitats, including salt marshes, sandy beaches, and mangroves.
• A variety of wildlife, including birds, and marine mammals.
• Lost human use opportunities associated with various natural resources in the Gulf region, including fishing, swimming, beach-going, and viewing of birds and wildlife.
• Waters of the Gulf of Mexico and adjoining coastal waters of the State.
• Various other biota, including benthic communities and fish.
• Water column habitat.
1. The Trustees have made the following findings pursuant to 15 CFR 990.42. Observations and data collected pursuant to 15 CFR 990.43 demonstrate that injuries to natural resources and the services they provide have resulted from the Texas City Y incident; however, the nature and extent of such injuries has not been fully determined at this time. The Trustees have identified numerous categories of impacted and potentially impacted resources, including marine mammals and birds, as well as their habitats. Potentially or actually impacted habitats include but are not limited to wetlands, marshes, sand beaches, bottom sediments and the water. Impacts to these resources have or are anticipated to affect human use of these affected resources or habitats. The Trustees have been conducting, and continue to conduct, activities to evaluate injuries and potential injuries within these categories. More information on these resource categories, including assessment work plans developed jointly by the Trustees and the RP, if any, and information gathered during the Preassessment Phase, will be available in the Administrative Record (AR), as discussed below. The full nature and extent of injuries will be determined during the injury assessment conducted as part of the Restoration Planning Phase.
2. Response actions employed for this spill included containment, skimming of oil and other removal operations. These response actions have not addressed and are not expected to address all injuries resulting from the discharges of oil. Although response actions were initiated soon after the spill, they were unable to prevent injuries to many natural resources. In addition, some of these response actions have caused or are likely to cause injuries to natural resources and the services they provide, including the impairment of sensitive marshes, beaches, and other habitats and impacts to human uses of the resources. While injured natural resources may eventually recover naturally to the condition they would have been in had the discharges not occurred, interim losses did occur and will persist until baseline conditions are achieved. In addition, there have been losses of and diminution of human uses of the resources resulting from the impacts to the natural resources and from the response actions themselves.
3. Feasible restoration actions exist to address the natural resource injuries and losses, including lost human uses, resulting from the discharges of oil. Assessment procedures are available to scale the appropriate amount of restoration required to offset these ecological and human use service losses. During the restoration planning phase, the Trustees will evaluate potential projects, determine the scale of restoration actions needed to make the environment and the public whole, and release a draft Restoration Plan for public review and comment.
Based upon these determinations, the Trustees intend to proceed with restoration planning for the Texas City Y Incident.
The Department of the Interior, acting on behalf of the Trustees, has opened an Administrative Record (AR) in compliance with 15 CFR 990.45 and applicable state authorities. The AR is publicly accessible and includes documents considered by the Trustees during the NRDA and restoration planning performed in connection with the Incident. The AR will be augmented with additional information over the course of the NRDA process. The administrative record is available through the following location in electronic format:
In accordance with 15 CFR 990.14(d) and state authorities, the Trustees will provide opportunities for public involvement in the restoration planning for the Incident. The opportunities for public involvement will be addressed in future notices and announcements.
The primary author of this notice is Chip Wood.
The authority of this action is the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (33 U.S.C. 2701 et seq.) and the implementing Natural Resource Damage Assessment found at 15 CFR part 990.
Bureau of Land Management, Interior.
Notice.
Pursuant to the Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, as amended by the Federal Coal Leasing Amendments Act of 1976, and to Bureau of Land Management (BLM) regulations, all interested parties are hereby invited to participate with Black Butte Coal Company on a pro rata cost-sharing basis, in a program for the exploration of coal deposits owned by the United States of America in Sweetwater County, Wyoming.
This notice of invitation was published in the
Copies of the exploration plan submitted by Black Butte Coal Company (serialized under number WYW183863) are available for review during normal business hours in the following offices: BLM, Wyoming State Office, 5353 Yellowstone Road, Cheyenne, Wyoming 82009; and, BLM, Rock Springs Field Office, 280 Highway 191 North, Rock Springs, Wyoming 82901. Any party electing to participate in this exploration shall send written notice to the following addresses: Black Butte Coal Company, c/o Ambre Energy North America, Inc., Attn: Jeremey Kerly, 170 South Main St., Ste. 700, Salt Lake City, UT 84101 and the BLM Wyoming State Office, Branch of Solid Minerals, Attn: Jackie Madson, P.O. Box 1828, Cheyenne, WY 82003.
Jackie Madson, Land Law Examiner, at
Black Butte Coal Company has applied to the BLM for a coal exploration license on public lands in the Salt Wells area near the existing Black Butte Coal Mine located near Point of Rocks, Wyoming. The purpose of the exploration program is to obtain geologic knowledge of the coal underlying the exploration area for the purpose of assessing the coal resources there. The BLM regulations at 43 CFR 3410 require the publication of an invitation to participate in the coal exploration in the
The areas described aggregate 23,232.28 acres.
The proposed exploration program is fully described and will be conducted pursuant to an exploration plan to be approved by the BLM. The plan may be modified to accommodate the legitimate exploration needs of persons seeking to participate.
43 CFR 3410.2-1(c)(1)
Bureau of Land Management, Interior.
Notice.
Pursuant to the Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, as amended by the Federal Coal Leasing Amendments Act of 1976, and to Bureau of Land Management (BLM) regulations, all interested parties are hereby invited to participate with Black Butte Coal Company on a pro rata cost-sharing basis, in a program for the exploration of coal deposits owned by the United States of America in Sweetwater County, Wyoming.
This notice of invitation was published in the
Copies of the exploration plan submitted by Black Butte Coal Company (serialized under number WYW183864) are available for review during normal business hours in the following offices: BLM, Wyoming State Office, 5353 Yellowstone Road, Cheyenne, Wyoming 82009; and, BLM, Rock Springs Field Office, 280 Highway 191 North, Rock Springs, Wyoming 82901. Any party electing to participate in this exploration program shall send written notice to the following addresses: Black Butte Coal Company, c/o Ambre Energy North America, Inc., Attn: Jeremey Kerly, 170 South Main St., Ste. 700, Salt Lake City, UT 84101 and the BLM Wyoming State Office, Branch of Solid Minerals, Attn: Jackie Madson, P.O. Box 1828, Cheyenne, WY 82003.
Jackie Madson, Land Law Examiner, at 307-775-6258. Persons who use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1-800-877-8339 to contact the above individual during normal business hours. The FIRS is available 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, to leave a message or question with the above individual. You will receive a reply during normal business hours.
Black Butte Coal Company has applied to the BLM for a coal exploration license on public lands near the Black Butte Coal Mine located near Point of Rocks, Wyoming. The purpose of the exploration program is to obtain geologic knowledge of the coal underlying the exploration area for the purpose of assessing the coal resources there. The BLM regulations at 43 CFR 3410 require the publication of an invitation to participate in the coal exploration in the
The areas described aggregate 11,468.77 acres.
43 CFR 3410.2-1(c)(1).
Bureau of Land Management, Interior.
Notice.
This notice restricts motorized use on 10 popular vehicle routes located on public land used by
This notice is effective upon publication and shall remain in effect for the length of the Red Rock 4-Wheelers SRP, which expires on December 31, 2022.
Rock Smith, Recreation Branch Chief, BLM-Moab Field Office, 82 East Dogwood Avenue, Moab, Utah 84532, or telephone 435-259-2100. Also see the Moab Field Office Web site at:
On December 28, 2012, the Decision Record authorizing the Jeep Safari SRP was signed. This permit authorizes the Red Rock 4-Wheelers to utilize a set of 38 routes known as the Jeep Safari routes, for 9 days per year during an annual organized group event. The event traditionally includes Easter Sunday and the previous 8 days. The permit is authorized from 2013 through 2022. The Environmental Assessment analyzing these routes (EA #DOI-BLM-UT-Y010-2011-0189) concluded that allowing permitted motorized users exclusive use of 7 of the more popular routes listed in the below summary, and managing for one-way travel on the 3 additional routes listed in the below summary for the 9-day period of the Moab Jeep Safari, would mitigate environmental damage by lessening the amount of traffic concentrated on these narrow dirt routes. These routes receive the most intense and concentrated use during the annual 9-day event. The following two components of the action apply only to the use of motorized vehicles.
Exclusive motorized use of seven of the more popular routes listed above, by permittees only, would minimize damage to wilderness study areas, water quality, soils, visual resources and vegetation by reducing the amount of travel. In addition, restricting motorized use of these routes reduces user conflicts and provides for a more enjoyable experience during the well-attended annual Jeep Safari.
One-way use of three routes listed above would reduce impacts to water quality, soils, visual resources, and vegetation by eliminating passing, which results in road widening along these narrow routes. In addition, one-way travel mitigates crowding along these three routes, reduces user conflict and provides for a more enjoyable experience for event participants.
This action will be posted at the BLM-Moab Field Office as well as on the Moab Field Office Web site at:
The use of motorized vehicles for emergency, official United States military and law enforcement purposes, or for official duties, or as otherwise authorized by the BLM are exempt from these restrictions. Use of motorized wheelchairs is also exempt.
43 CFR 8364.1.
Bureau of Land Management, Interior.
Notice.
The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Pahrump Field Office has examined and proposes to change the use of a 400-acre Recreation and Public Purposes (R&PP) Lease from a buffer zone to a landfill located in Nye County, Nevada. The land has been leased by the Nevada Division of State Lands (NDSL) since 1962, and it surrounds an existing 80-acre landfill. The conveyance would be offered pursuant to the Recreation and Public Purposes (R&PP) Act of 1926. The NDSL proposes to use the land for a Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) Subtitle C landfill and disposal site.
Interested persons may submit written comments regarding the proposed change of use, Environmental Assessment (EA) and conveyance of public lands until February 26, 2015.
Send written comments to the BLM, Pahrump Field Office, 4701 N. Torrey Pines Drive, Las Vegas, NV 89130.
Erica Pionke, Realty Specialist, by telephone at 702-515-5059, or by email at
The parcel of public land that is proposed for the change of use and conveyance of an R&PP Lease is described as:
The area described contains 400 acres more or less.
Upon publication of this notice, only written comments submitted within 45 days from publication will be considered properly filed.
The BLM has prepared EA, DOI-BLM-NV-S030-2014-0012-EA for the proposed change of use and conveyance of the public lands. The NEPA review period will run consecutively with this notice. Comments to this notice and the above referenced EA will be addressed in the final EA. The EA is available for review at the Southern Nevada District Office Web site at:
The NDSL has not applied for more than the 640-acre annual limitation for public purposes other than recreation use, and has submitted a statement in compliance with regulation at 43 CFR 2741.4(b). The NDSL is a qualified applicant under the R&PP Act.
A conveyance will be subject to the provisions of the R&PP Act and applicable regulations set by the Secretary of the Interior, including but not limited to the terms required by 43 CFR 2741.9.
1. A reservation to the United States for ditches and canals constructed by the authority of the United State pursuant to the Act of August 30, 1890 (43 U.S.C. 945);
2. A reservation to the United States for all minerals shall be reserved to the United States, together with the right to prospect for, mine, and remove such deposits from the same under applicable law and such regulations as the Secretary of the Interior may prescribe;
3. Conveyance of the public land shall be subject to valid existing rights and reservation of record;
4. An appropriate indemnification clause protecting the United States from claims arising out of the patentee's use, occupancy, or operations on the patented lands;
5. No portion of the land patented shall revert back to the United States under any circumstance. In addition, the patentee will comply with all Federal and State law applicable to the disposal, placement, or release of hazardous substances (substance as defined in 40 CFR part 302); and
6. Any other reservations that the authorized officer determines appropriate to ensure public access and proper management of Federal land and interests therein. Subject to limitations prescribed by law and regulations, prior to conveyance, a holder of any right-of-way (ROW) within the lease area may be given the opportunity to amend the ROW for conversion to a new term, including perpetuity, if applicable.
Detailed information about this R&PP Lease change of use and conveyance, including, but not limited to documentation relating to compliance with applicable environmental and cultural resource laws, is available for review at the BLM Pahrump Field Office at the address above.
Upon publication of this notice in the
Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment including any personal identifying information may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.
Any adverse comments regarding the proposed conveyance will be reviewed by the BLM Nevada State Director or other authorized official of the Department of the Interior, who may sustain, vacate, or modify this realty action. In the absence of timely filed objections, this realty action will become the final determination of the Department of the Interior.
United States International Trade Commission.
January 12, 2015.
Room 101, 500 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20436, Telephone: (202) 205-2000.
Open to the public.
In accordance with 19 CFR 201.35(d)(2)(i), the Commission hereby gives notice the correct investigation number for the meeting of January 12, 2015 at 11:00 a.m. is 731-TA-1153 (Review) and the correct title is Certain Tow-Behind Lawn Groomers and Parts Thereof from China.
In accordance with Commission policy, subject matter listed above, not disposed of at the scheduled meeting, may be carried over to the agenda of the following meeting. Earlier notification of this change was not possible.
By order of the Commission:
Issued: January 8, 2015.
Federal Bureau of Investigation, Department of Justice.
30-Day notice.
As part of a Federal Government-wide effort to streamline the process to seek feedback from the public on service delivery, Department of Justice will be submitting a Generic Information Collection Request (Generic ICR): “Generic Clearance for the Collection of Qualitative Feedback on Agency Service Delivery” to OMB for approval under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501
The purpose of this notice is to allow for an additional 30 days for public comment until February 11, 2015.
If you have additional comments especially on the estimated public burden or associated response time, suggestions, or need a copy of the proposed information collection instrument with instructions or additional information, please contact John Kane, National Data Exchange (N-DEx) Program Office, FBI-Criminal Justice Information Services (CJIS) Division, at 1 (304) 625-3568, or email
Feedback collected under this generic clearance will provide useful information, but it will not yield data that can be generalized to the overall population. This type of generic clearance for qualitative information will not be used for quantitative information collections that are designed to yield reliably actionable results, such as monitoring trends over time or documenting program performance. Such data uses require more rigorous designs that address: the target population to which generalizations will be made, the sampling frame, the sample design (including stratification and clustering), the precision requirements or power calculations that justify the proposed sample size, the expected response rate, methods for assessing potential non-response bias, the protocols for data collection, and any testing procedures that were or will be undertaken prior fielding the study. Depending on the degree of influence the results are likely to have, such collections may still be eligible for submission for other generic mechanisms that are designed to yield quantitative results.
The Agency received no comments in response to the 60-day notice published in the
Below we provide Federal Bureau of Investigation's projected average estimates for the next three years:
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid Office of Management and Budget control number.
If additional information is required contact: Jerri Murray, Department Clearance Officer, United States Department of Justice, Justice Management Division, Policy and Planning Staff, Two Constitution Square, 145 N Street NE., Room 3E-405B, Washington, DC 20530.
8:30 a.m., Thursday, January 15, 2015.
Board Room, 7th Floor, Room 7047, 1775 Duke Street, Alexandria, VA 22314-3428.
Closed.
1. Proposed Merger under NCUA's Rules and Regulations. Closed pursuant to Exemption (8).
2. Creditor Claim Appeal. Closed pursuant to Exemption (6).
3. Consideration of Personnel Matters and Supervisory Activities. Closed pursuant to Exemptions (6) and (8).
9:45 a.m.
10:00 a.m., Thursday, January 15, 2015.
Board Room, 7th Floor, Room 7047, 1775 Duke Street (All visitors must use Diagonal Road Entrance), Alexandria, VA 22314-3428.
Open.
1. NCUA's 2015-2016 Annual Performance Plan.
2. NCUA's Rules and Regulations, Capital Planning and Stress Testing Schedules.
3. Community Charter Request, 360 Federal Credit Union (Windsor Locks, CT).
4. NCUA's Rules and Regulations, Prompt Corrective Action and Risk-Based Capital Measures.
Gerard Poliquin, Secretary of the Board, Telephone: 703-518-6304.
Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation.
Notice of request for OMB approval of revised collection of information.
The Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (PBGC) is modifying the collection of information under its regulation on Payment of Premiums (OMB control number 1212-0009; expires April 30, 2017) and is requesting that the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approve the revised collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act for three years. This notice informs the public of PBGC's request and solicits public comment on the collection of information.
Comments must be submitted by February 11, 2015.
Comments should be sent to the Office of Information and Regulatory
The OMB submission (including the collection of information, comments, and supporting statement) will be posted at
Deborah C. Murphy, Deputy Assistant General Counsel for Regulatory Affairs, Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation, 1200 K Street NW., Washington, DC 20005-4026; 202-326-4024. (TTY/TDD users may call the Federal relay service toll-free at 1-800-877-8339 and ask to be connected to 202-326-4024.)
Section 4007 of Title IV of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) requires pension plans covered under Title IV pension insurance programs to pay premiums to PBGC. All plans covered by Title IV pay a flat-rate per-participant premium. An underfunded single-employer plan also pays a variable-rate premium based on the value of the plan's unfunded vested benefits.
Pursuant to section 4007, PBGC has issued its regulation on Payment of Premiums (29 CFR part 4007). Under § 4007.3 of the premium payment regulation, the plan administrator of each pension plan covered by Title IV of ERISA is required to file a premium payment and information prescribed by PBGC for each premium payment year. Premium information must be filed electronically using “My Plan Administration Account” (“My PAA”) through PBGC's Web site except to the extent PBGC grants an exemption for good cause in appropriate circumstances, in which case the information must be filed using an approved PBGC form. Under § 4007.10 of the premium payment regulation, plan administrators are required to retain records about premiums and information submitted in premium filings.
Premium filings report (i) the flat-rate premium and related data (all plans), (ii) the variable-rate premium and related data (single-employer plans), and (iii) additional data such as identifying information and miscellaneous plan-related or filing-related data (all plans). PBGC needs this information to identify the plans for which premiums are paid, to verify whether the amounts paid are correct, to help PBGC determine the magnitude of its exposure in the event of plan termination, to help track the creation of new plans and transfer of participants and plan assets and liabilities among plans, and to keep PBGC's insured-plan inventory up to date. That information and the retained records are also needed for audit purposes.
PBGC is revising the 2015 filing procedures and instructions to require after-the-fact reporting of certain risk transfers through lump sum windows and annuity purchases. Risk transfers can substantially reduce the premiums that plans otherwise would pay to PBGC. Because PBGC premiums and the investment income earned on them are a major source of income for PBGC, information about risk transfers is critical to PBGC's ability to assess its future financial condition. There is currently no available comprehensive, detailed, and reliable source for information on risk transfers.
PBGC is also changing certain premium declaration certification procedures, offering the option for a plan to provide a telephone number specifically for inclusion in PBGC's Search Plan List on PBGC's Web site, updating the premium rates (including to reflect the Consolidated and Further Continuing Appropriations Act, 2015, Pub. L. 113-235), and making conforming, clarifying, and editorial changes.
On September 23, 2014 (at 79 FR 56831), PBGC gave public notice that it intended to submit the revised procedures and instructions to OMB for review. PBGC received nine comment letters from representatives of employers, pension practitioners, annuity providers, and participants.
The collection of information under the regulation has been approved through April 30, 2017, by OMB under control number 1212-0009. PBGC intends to request that OMB approve the revised collection of information for three years. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
PBGC estimates that it will receive 25,700 premium filings per year from 25,700 plan administrators under this collection of information. PBGC further estimates that the average annual burden of this collection of information is approximately 8,000 hours and $53,200,000.
Notice is hereby given that pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Commission”) is soliciting comments on the collection of information summarized below. The Commission plans to submit this existing collection of information to the Office of Management and Budget (“OMB”) for extension and approval.
Section 11(a) of the Investment Company Act of 1940 (“Act”) (15 U.S.C. 80a-11(a)) provides that it is unlawful for a registered open-end investment company (“fund”) or its underwriter to make an offer to the fund's shareholders or the shareholders of any other fund to exchange the fund's securities for securities of the same or another fund
Rule 11a-3 (17 CFR 270.11a-3) under the Act is an exemptive rule that permits open-end investment companies (“funds”), other than insurance company separate accounts, and funds' principal underwriters, to make certain exchange offers to fund shareholders and shareholders of other funds in the same group of investment companies. The rule requires a fund, among other things, (i) to disclose in its prospectus and advertising literature the amount of any administrative or redemption fee imposed on an exchange transaction, (ii) if the fund imposes an administrative fee on exchange transactions, other than a nominal one, to maintain and preserve records with respect to the actual costs incurred in connection with exchanges for at least six years, and (iii) give the fund's shareholders a sixty day notice of a termination of an exchange offer or any material amendment to the terms of an exchange offer (unless the only material effect of an amendment is to reduce or eliminate an administrative fee, sales load or redemption fee payable at the time of an exchange).
The rule's requirements are designed to protect investors against abuses associated with exchange offers, provide fund shareholders with information necessary to evaluate exchange offers and certain material changes in the terms of exchange offers, and enable the Commission staff to monitor funds' use of administrative fees charged in connection with exchange transactions.
The staff estimates that there are approximately 1,633 active open-end investment companies registered with the Commission as of March 2014. The staff estimates that 25 percent (or 408) of these funds impose a non-nominal administrative fee on exchange transactions. The staff estimates that the recordkeeping requirement of the rule requires approximately 1 hour annually of clerical time per fund, for a total of 408 hours for all funds.
The staff estimates that 5 percent of these 1,633 funds (or 82) terminate an exchange offer or make a material change to the terms of their exchange offer each year, requiring the fund to comply with the notice requirement of the rule. The staff estimates that complying with the notice requirement of the rule requires approximately 1 hour of attorney time and 2 hours of clerical time per fund, for a total of approximately 246 hours for all funds to comply with the notice requirement.
The estimate of average burden hours is made solely for the purposes of the Paperwork Reduction Act, and is not derived from a comprehensive or even a representative survey or study of the costs of Commission rules and forms. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
Written comments are requested on: (a) Whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information has practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the Commission's estimate of the burden(s) of the collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Consideration will be given to comments and suggestions submitted in writing within 60 days of this publication.
Please direct your written comments to Pamela Dyson, Acting Director/Chief Information Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission, C/O Remi Pavlik-Simon, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549; or send an email to:
Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”).
Notice of an application under section 6(c) of the Investment Company Act of 1940 (“Act”) for an exemption from section 15(a) of the Act and rule 18f-2 under the Act, as well as from certain disclosure requirements.
Applicants request an order that would permit them to enter into and materially amend subadvisory agreements without shareholder approval and would grant relief from certain disclosure requirements.
Context Capital Advisers, LLC (“Context Capital” or the “Adviser”) and Context Capital Funds (the “Trust” and collectively with Context Capital, the “Applicants”).
The application was filed January 14, 2014 and amended on May 21, 2014 and September 19, 2014.
An order granting the application will be issued unless the Commission orders a hearing. Interested persons may request a hearing by writing to the Commission's Secretary and serving applicants with a copy of the request, personally or by mail. Hearing requests should be received by the Commission by 5:30 p.m. on February 2, 2015 and should be accompanied by proof of service on the applicants, in the form of an affidavit or, for lawyers, a certificate of service. Pursuant to rule 0-5 under the Act, hearing requests should state the nature of the writer's interest, any facts bearing upon the desirability of a
Secretary, U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090. Applicants: Context Capital Funds, Three Canal Plaza, Suite 600, Portland, Maine 04101; Jason A. Myers, Context Capital Advisers, LLC, 401 City Avenue, Suite 800, Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004.
Barbara T. Heussler, Senior Counsel, at (202) 551-6990, or James M. Curtis, Branch Chief, at (202) 551-6712 (Division of Investment Management, Chief Counsel's Office).
The following is a summary of the application. The complete application may be obtained via the Commission's Web site by searching for the file number, or an applicant using the Company name box, at
1. The Trust is organized as a Delaware statutory trust and is registered under the Act as an open-end management investment company. Currently, the Trust is comprised of one series, the Context Alternative Strategies Fund (“Alternative Strategies Fund”).
2. Context Capital, a Delaware limited liability company, is registered as an investment adviser with the Commission under the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 (“Advisers Act”). Any future Adviser also will also be registered with the Commission as an investment adviser under the Advisers Act. Context Capital serves as the investment adviser of the Alternative Strategies Fund pursuant to an investment advisory agreement with the Trust (the “Advisory Agreement”).
3. Under the terms of the Advisory Agreement, and subject to the oversight of the Board, Context Capital is responsible for the overall management of the Alternative Strategies Fund's business affairs and selecting investments according to its investment objective, policies, and restrictions. For the investment management services that it provides to the Alternative Strategies Fund, Context Capital receives the fee specified in the Advisory Agreement based on average daily net assets. In addition, under the Advisory Agreement, Context Capital may retain one or more subadvisers, at Context Capital's own cost and expense, subject to approval of the Board, including approval by a majority of the Independent Trustees and the shareholders of the Fund (if required by applicable law), for the purpose of managing the investment of all or a portion of the assets of the Alternative Strategies Fund. Context Capital has entered into subadvisory agreements with eight subadvisers to provide investment advisory services to the Alternative Strategies Fund.
4. Applicants request an order to permit the Adviser, subject to approval of the Board, including a majority of the Independent Trustees, to do the following without obtaining shareholder approval: (a) Select an unaffiliated investment subadviser or subadvisers (each a “Subadviser”) to manage all or a portion of the assets of the Alternative Strategies Fund or any other Fund pursuant to an investment subadvisory agreement with a Subadviser (each a “Subadvisory Agreement”), and (b) materially amend Subadvisory Agreements. The requested relief will not extend to any subadviser that is an affiliated person, as defined in section 2(a)(3) of the Act, of the Trust, a Fund or the Adviser, other than by reason of serving as a subadviser to one or more of the Funds (“Affiliated Subadviser”).
5. If a new Subadviser is hired, the Fund will inform shareholders of the hiring of a new Subadviser pursuant to the following procedures (“Modified Notice and Access Procedures”): (a) Within 90 days after a new Subadviser is hired for any Fund, that Fund will send its shareholders either a Multi-manager Notice or a Multi-manager Notice and Multi-manager Information Statement;
6. Applicants also request an order exempting the Fund from certain disclosure provisions described below that may require the Applicants to disclose fees paid to each Subadviser by the Adviser. Applicants seek an order to permit each Fund to disclose (both as a dollar amount and a percentage of a Fund's net assets): (a) Aggregate fees paid to the Adviser and Affiliated Subadvisers; and (b) aggregate fees paid to Subadvisers other than Affiliated Subadvisers (“Aggregate Fee Disclosure”). For any Fund that employs Affiliated Subadvisers, the Fund will provide separate disclosure of any fees paid to such Affiliated Subadvisers.
1. Section 15(a) of the Act provides, in relevant part, that it is unlawful for any person to act as an investment adviser of a registered investment company except pursuant to a written contract that has been approved by the vote of a majority of the company's outstanding voting securities of such registered company. Rule 18f-2 under the Act provides that each series or class of stock in a series investment company affected by a matter must approve that matter if the Act requires shareholder approval.
2. Form N-1A is the registration statement used by open-end investment companies. Item 19(a)(3) of Form N-1A requires disclosure of the method and amount of the investment adviser's compensation.
3. Rule 20a-1 under the Act requires proxies solicited with respect to a registered investment company to comply with Schedule 14A under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“1934 Act”). Items 22(c)(1)(ii), 22(c)(1)(iii), 22(c)(8) and 22(c)(9) of Schedule 14A, taken together, require a proxy statement for a shareholder meeting at which the advisory contract will be voted upon to include the “rate of compensation of the investment adviser,” the “aggregate amount of the investment adviser's fees,” a description of the “terms of the contract to be acted upon,” and, if a change in the advisory fee is proposed, the existing and proposed fees and the difference between the two fees.
4. Regulation S-X sets forth the requirements for financial statements required to be included as part of a registered investment company's registration statement and shareholder reports filed with the Commission. Sections 6-07(2)(a), (b) and (c) of Regulation S-X require a registered investment company to include in its financial statement information about investment advisory fees.
5. Section 6(c) of the Act provides that the Commission may exempt any person, security, or transaction or any class or classes of persons, securities, or transactions from any provisions of the Act, or from any rule thereunder, if such exemption is necessary or appropriate in the public interest and consistent with the protection of investors and the purposes fairly intended by the policy and provisions of the Act. Applicants state that the requested relief meets this standard for the reasons discussed below.
6. Applicants assert that the shareholders expect the Adviser, subject to the review and approval of the Board, to select the Subadvisers who are best suited to achieve each Fund's investment objective. Applicants assert that, from the perspective of the shareholder, the role of the Subadvisers is substantially equivalent to the role of the individual portfolio managers employed by an investment adviser to a traditional investment company. Applicants state that requiring shareholder approval of each Subadvisory Agreement would impose unnecessary delays and expenses on the Funds and may preclude the Funds from acting promptly when the Adviser and Board consider it appropriate to hire Subadvisers or amend Subadvisory Agreements. Applicants note that the Advisory Agreements and Subadvisory Agreements with Affiliated Subadvisers (if any) will remain subject to the shareholder approval requirements of section 15(a) of the Act and rule 18f-2 under the Act.
7. Applicants assert that the requested disclosure relief will benefit shareholders to the extent that it will facilitate lower overall investment advisory fees. Applicants state that if the Adviser is not required to disclose the Subadvisers' fees to the public, the Adviser may be able to negotiate rates that are below a Subadviser's “posted” amounts. Applicants state that the requested relief will encourage Subadvisers to negotiate lower advisory fees with the Adviser if the lower fees are not required to be made public.
Applicants agree that any order granting the requested relief will be subject to the following conditions:
1. Before a Fund may rely on the requested order, the operation of the Fund in the manner described in the Application will be approved by a majority of the Fund's outstanding voting securities, as defined in the Act, or in the case of a Fund whose public shareholders purchase shares on the basis of a prospectus containing the disclosure contemplated by condition 2 below, by the initial shareholder(s) before offering shares of that Fund to the public.
2. The prospectus for each Fund will disclose the existence, substance, and effect of any order granted pursuant to the Application. Each Fund will hold itself out to the public as utilizing the Manager of Managers Structure. The prospectus will prominently disclose that the Adviser has ultimate responsibility (subject to oversight by the Board) to oversee the Subadvisers and recommend their hiring, termination, and replacement.
3. Funds will inform shareholders of the hiring of a new Subadviser within 90 days after the hiring of the new Subadviser, pursuant to the Modified Notice and Access Procedures.
4. The Adviser will not enter into a subadvisory agreement with any Affiliated Subadviser without such agreement, including the compensation to be paid thereunder, being approved by the shareholders of the applicable Fund.
5. At all times, at least a majority of the Board will be Independent Trustees, and the selection and nomination of new or additional Independent Trustees will be placed within the discretion of the then-existing Independent Trustees.
6. Whenever a subadviser change is proposed for a Fund with an Affiliated Subadviser, the Board, including a majority of the Independent Trustees, will make a separate finding, reflected
7. Independent legal counsel, as defined in rule 0-1(a)(6) under the Act, will be engaged to represent the Independent Trustees. The selection of such counsel will be within the discretion of the then-existing Independent Trustees.
8. The Adviser will provide the Board, no less frequently than quarterly, with information about the profitability of the Adviser on a per Fund basis. The information will reflect the impact on profitability of the hiring or termination of any Subadviser during the applicable quarter.
9. Whenever a Subadviser is hired or terminated, the Adviser will provide the Board with information showing the expected impact on the profitability of the Adviser.
10. The Adviser will provide general management services to each Fund, including overall supervisory responsibility for the general management and investment of each Fund's assets, and, subject to review and approval of the Board, will: (a) Set each Fund's overall investment strategies; (b) evaluate, select, and recommend Subadvisers to manage all or a portion of the each Fund's assets; (c) allocate and, when appropriate, reallocate each Fund's assets among one or more Subadvisers; (d) monitor and evaluate the performance of Subadvisers; and (e) implement procedures reasonably designed to ensure that Subadvisers comply with each Fund's investment objective, policies and restrictions.
11. No trustee or officer of the Trust or a Fund, or director, manager or officer of the Adviser, will own, directly or indirectly (other than through a pooled investment vehicle that is not controlled by such person), any interest in a Subadviser, except for (a) ownership of interests in the Adviser or any entity that controls, is controlled by, or is under common control with the Adviser; or (b) ownership of less than 1% of the outstanding securities of any class of equity or debt of any publicly traded company that is either a Subadviser or an entity that controls, is controlled by or is under common control with a Subadviser.
12. In the event the Commission adopts a rule under the Act providing substantially similar relief to that in the order requested in the Application, the requested order will expire on the effective date of that rule.
13. Each Fund will disclose the Aggregate Fee Disclosure in its registration statement.
14. Any new Subadvisory Agreement or any amendment to a Fund's existing Advisory Agreement or Subadvisory Agreement that directly or indirectly results in an increase in the aggregate advisory rate payable by the Fund will be submitted to the Fund's shareholders for approval.
For the Commission, by the Division of Investment Management, under delegated authority.
Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”).
Notice of an application for an order under section 12(d)(1)(J) of the Investment Company Act of 1940 (the “1940 Act”) for exemptions from sections 12(d)(1)(A), (B), and (C) of the 1940 Act, under sections 6(c) and 17(b) of the 1940 Act for an exemption from section 17(a) of the 1940 Act, and under section 6(c) of the 1940 Act for an exemption from rule 12d1-2(a) under the 1940 Act.
Applicants request an order that would (a) permit certain registered open-end management investment companies that operate as “funds of funds” to acquire shares of certain registered open-end management investment companies, registered closed-end management investment companies, business development companies as defined by section 2(a)(48) of the 1940 Act (“business development companies”), and registered unit investment trusts that are within or outside the same group of investment companies as the acquiring investment companies and (b) permit certain registered open-end management investment companies relying on rule 12d1-2 under the 1940 Act to invest in certain financial instruments.
Forum Funds II (“Trust”), Full Circle Advisors, LLC (“Initial Advisor”) and Foreside Fund Services, LLC (the “Distributor”).
The application was filed August 29, 2014, and amended on November 4, 2014, November 12, 2014, December 17, 2014, and December 24, 2014.
An order granting the requested relief will be issued unless the Commission orders a hearing. Interested persons may request a hearing by writing to the Commission's Secretary and serving applicants with a copy of the request, personally or by mail. Hearing requests should be received by the Commission by 5:30 p.m. on February 2, 2015, and should be accompanied by proof of service on applicants, in the form of an affidavit or, for lawyers, a certificate of service. Pursuant to rule 0-5 under the 1940 Act, hearing requests should state the nature of the writer's interest, any facts bearing upon the desirability of a hearing on the matter, the reason for the request, and the issues contested. Persons who wish to be notified of a hearing may request notification by writing to the Commission's Secretary.
Secretary, U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090. Applicants: Forum Funds II, Three Canal Plaza, Suite 600, Portland, Maine 04101; Full Circle Advisors, LLC, 102 Greenwich Avenue, 2nd Floor, Greenwich, CT 06830; Foreside Fund Services LLC, Three Canal Plaza, Suite 300, Portland, ME 04101.
Jill Ehrlich, Senior Counsel, at (202) 551-6819, or David P. Bartels, Branch Chief, at (202) 551-6821 (Division of Investment Management, Chief Counsel's Office).
The following is a summary of the application. The complete application may be obtained via the Commission's Web site by searching for the file number, or for an applicant using the “Company” name box, at
1. The Trust is an open-end management company registered under the 1940 Act and organized as a Delaware statutory trust. The Trust may offer multiple series.
2. The Initial Advisor, a Delaware limited liability company, is a registered investment adviser under the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 (the “Advisers Act”). The Initial Advisor, or an entity controlling, controlled by, or under common control with the Initial Advisor, serves, or will serve, as the investment adviser to each of the Funds.
3. Applicants request relief to the extent necessary to permit: (a) Each Fund (each, a “Fund of Funds,” and collectively, the “Funds of Funds”) to acquire shares of registered open-end management investment companies (each an “Unaffiliated Open-End Investment Company”), registered closed-end management investment companies, business development companies (each registered closed-end management investment company and each business development company, an “Unaffiliated Closed-End Investment Company” and, together with the Unaffiliated Open-End Investment Companies, the “Unaffiliated Investment Companies”), and registered unit investment trusts (“UITs”) (the “Unaffiliated Trusts,” collectively with the Unaffiliated Investment Companies, the “Unaffiliated Funds”), in each case, that are not part of the same “group of investment companies” as the Funds of Funds;
4. Applicants also request an exemption under section 6(c) from rule 12d1-2 under the 1940 Act to permit any existing or future Fund of Funds that relies on section 12(d)(1)(G) of the 1940 Act (“Section 12(d)(1)(G) Fund of Funds”) and that otherwise complies with rule 12d1-2 under the 1940 Act, to also invest, to the extent consistent with its investment objective(s), policies, strategies and limitations, in other financial instruments that may not be securities within the meaning of section 2(a)(36) of the 1940 Act (“Other Investments”).
1. Section 12(d)(1)(A) of the 1940 Act, in relevant part, prohibits a registered investment company from acquiring shares of an investment company if the securities represent more than 3% of the total outstanding voting stock of the acquired company, more than 5% of the total assets of the acquiring company, or, together with the securities of any other investment companies, more than 10% of the total assets of the acquiring company. Section 12(d)(1)(B) of the 1940 Act prohibits a registered open-end investment company, its principal underwriter, and any Broker from selling the investment company's shares to another investment company if the sale will cause the acquiring company to own more than 3% of the acquired company's voting stock, or if the sale will cause more than 10% of the acquired company's voting stock to be owned by investment companies generally. Section 12(d)(1)(C) prohibits an investment company from acquiring any security issued by a registered closed-end investment company if such acquisition would result in the acquiring company, any other investment companies having the same investment adviser, and companies controlled by such investment companies, collectively, owning more than 10% of the outstanding voting stock of the registered closed-end investment company.
2. Section 12(d)(1)(J) of the 1940 Act provides that the Commission may exempt any person, security, or transaction, or any class or classes of persons, securities or transactions, from any provision of section 12(d)(1) if the exemption is consistent with the public interest and the protection of investors. Applicants request an exemption under section 12(d)(1)(J) of the 1940 Act from the limitations of sections 12(d)(1)(A), (B) and (C) to the extent necessary to permit: (i) The Funds of Funds to acquire shares of Underlying Funds in excess of the limits set forth in section 12(d)(1)(A) and (C) of the 1940 Act; and (ii) the Underlying Funds, their principal underwriters and any Broker to sell shares of the Underlying Funds to the Funds of Funds in excess of the limits set forth in section 12(d)(1)(B) of the 1940 Act.
3. Applicants state that the proposed arrangement will not give rise to the policy concerns underlying sections
4. Applicants submit that the proposed structure will not result in the exercise of undue influence by a Fund of Funds or its affiliated persons over the Underlying Funds. Applicants assert that the concern about undue influence does not arise in connection with a Fund of Funds' investment in the Affiliated Funds because they are part of the same group of investment companies. To limit the control a Fund of Funds or Fund of Funds Affiliate
5. With respect to closed-end Underlying Funds, applicants note that although closed-end funds may not be unduly influenced by a holder's right of redemption, closed-end Underlying Funds may be unduly influenced by a holder's ability to vote a large block of stock. To address this concern, applicants submit that, with respect to a Fund's investment in an Unaffiliated Closed-End Investment Company, (i) each member of the Group or Sub-Adviser Group that is an investment company or an issuer that would be an investment company but for section 3(c)(1) or 3(c)(7) of the 1940 Act will vote its shares of the Unaffiliated Closed-End Investment Company in the manner prescribed by section 12(d)(1)(E) of the 1940 Act and (ii) each other member of the Group or Sub-Adviser Group will vote its shares of the Unaffiliated Closed-End Investment Company in the same proportion as the vote of all other holders of the same type of such Unaffiliated Closed-End Investment Company's shares. Applicants state that, in this way, an Unaffiliated Closed-End Investment Company will be protected from undue influence by a Fund of Funds through the voting of the Unaffiliated Closed-End Investment Company's shares.
6. Applicants propose other conditions to limit the potential for undue influence over the Unaffiliated Funds, including that no Fund of Funds or Fund of Funds Affiliate (except to the extent it is acting in its capacity as an investment adviser to an Unaffiliated Investment Company or sponsor to an Unaffiliated Trust) will cause an Unaffiliated Fund to purchase a security in an offering of securities during the existence of any underwriting or selling syndicate of which a principal underwriter is an Underwriting Affiliate (“Affiliated Underwriting”).
7. To further ensure that an Unaffiliated Investment Company understands the implications of a Fund of Funds' investment under the requested exemptive relief, prior to its investment in the shares of an Unaffiliated Investment Company in excess of the limit of section 12(d)(1)(A)(i) of the 1940 Act, a Fund of Funds and the Unaffiliated Investment Company will execute an agreement stating, without limitation, that each of their boards of directors or trustees (for any entity, the “Board”) and their investment advisers understand the terms and conditions of the order and agree to fulfill their responsibilities under the order (the “Participation Agreement”). Applicants note that an Unaffiliated Investment Company (including an ETF or an Unaffiliated Closed-End Investment Company) would also retain its right to reject any initial investment by a Fund of Funds in excess of the limits in section 12(d)(1)(A)(i) of the 1940 Act by declining to execute the Participation Agreement with the Fund of Funds. In addition, an Unaffiliated Investment Company (other than an ETF or closed-end fund whose shares are purchased by a Fund of Funds in the secondary market) will retain its right at all times to reject any investment by a Fund of Funds. Finally, subject solely to the giving of notice to a Fund of Funds and the passage of a reasonable notice period, an Unaffiliated Fund (including an ETF or an Unaffiliated Closed-End Investment Company) could terminate a Participation Agreement with the Fund of Funds.
8. Applicants state that they do not believe that the proposed arrangement will result in excessive layering of fees. The Board of each Fund of Funds, including a majority of the trustees who are not “interested persons” within the meaning of section 2(a)(19) of the 1940 Act (the “Independent Trustees”), will find that the management or advisory fees charged under a Fund of Funds' advisory contract are based on services provided that are in addition to, rather than duplicative of, services provided under the advisory contract(s) of any Underlying Fund in which the Fund of Funds may invest. In addition, the Advisor will waive fees otherwise payable to it by a Fund of Funds in an amount at least equal to any compensation (including fees received pursuant to any plan adopted by an Unaffiliated Investment Company under rule 12b-1 under the 1940 Act) received from an Unaffiliated Fund by the Advisor, or an affiliated person of the Advisor, other than any advisory fees paid to the Advisor or an affiliated person of the Advisor by the Unaffiliated Investment Company, in connection with the investment by the Fund of Funds in the Unaffiliated Fund.
9. Applicants further state that any sales charges and/or service fees charged with respect to shares of a Fund of Funds will not exceed the limits applicable to funds of funds set forth in in rule 2830 of the Conduct Rules of the NASD (“NASD Conduct Rule 2830”).
10. Applicants submit that the proposed arrangement will not create an overly complex fund structure. Applicants note that no Underlying Fund will acquire securities of any other investment company or company relying on section 3(c)(1) or 3(c)(7) of
1. Section 17(a) of the 1940 Act generally prohibits sales or purchases of securities between a registered investment company and any affiliated person of the company. Section 2(a)(3) of the 1940 Act defines an “affiliated person” of another person to include (a) any person directly or indirectly owning, controlling, or holding with power to vote, 5% or more of the outstanding voting securities of the other person; (b) any person 5% or more of whose outstanding voting securities are directly or indirectly owned, controlled, or held with power to vote by the other person; and (c) any person directly or indirectly controlling, controlled by, or under common control with the other person.
2. Applicants state that the Funds of Funds and the Affiliated Funds may be deemed to be under the common control of the Advisor and, therefore, affiliated persons of one another. Applicants also state that the Funds of Funds and the Underlying Funds may also be deemed to be affiliated persons of one another if a Fund of Funds owns 5% or more of the outstanding voting securities of one or more of such Underlying Funds. Applicants state that the sale of shares by the Underlying Open-End Investment Companies or Underlying UITs to the Funds of Funds and the purchase of those shares from the Funds of Funds by the Underlying Open-End Investment Companies or Underlying UITs (through redemptions) could be deemed to violate section 17(a).
3. Section 17(b) of the 1940 Act authorizes the Commission to grant an order permitting a transaction otherwise prohibited by section 17(a) if it finds that (i) the terms of the proposed transaction are fair and reasonable and do not involve overreaching on the part of any person concerned; (ii) the proposed transaction is consistent with the policies of each registered investment company concerned; and (iii) the proposed transaction is consistent with the general purposes of the 1940 Act. Section 6(c) of the 1940 Act permits the Commission to exempt any person or transactions from any provision of the 1940 Act if such exemption is necessary or appropriate in the public interest and consistent with the protection of investors and the purposes fairly intended by the policy and provisions of the 1940 Act.
4. Applicants submit that the proposed transactions satisfy the standards for relief under sections 17(b) and 6(c) of the 1940 Act. Applicants state that the terms of the transactions are reasonable and fair and do not involve overreaching. Applicants state that the terms upon which an Underlying Fund will sell its shares to or purchase its shares from a Fund of Funds will be in accordance with the rules and regulations under the 1940 Act.
1. Section 12(d)(1)(G) of the 1940 Act provides that section 12(d)(1) will not apply to securities of an acquired company purchased by an acquiring company if: (i) The acquiring company and acquired company are part of the same “group of investment companies,” as defined in section 12(d)(1)(G)(ii) of the 1940 Act; (ii) the acquiring company holds only securities of acquired companies that are part of the same “group of investment companies,” as defined in section 12(d)(1)(G)(ii) of the 1940 Act, government securities, and short-term paper; (iii) the aggregate sales loads and distribution-related fees of the acquiring company and the acquired company are not excessive under rules adopted pursuant to section 22(b) or section 22(c) of the 1940 Act by a securities association registered under section 15A of the 1934 Act or by the Commission; and (iv) the acquired company has a policy that prohibits it from acquiring securities of registered open-end management investment companies or registered UITs in reliance on section 12(d)(1)(F) or (G) of the 1940 Act.
2. Rule 12d1-2 under the 1940 Act permits a registered open-end investment company or a registered UIT that relies on section 12(d)(1)(G) of the 1940 Act to acquire, in addition to securities issued by another registered investment company in the same group of investment companies, government securities, and short-term paper: (1) Securities issued by an investment company that is not in the same group of investment companies, when the acquisition is in reliance on section 12(d)(1)(A) or 12(d)(1)(F) of the 1940 Act; (2) securities (other than securities issued by an investment company); and (3) securities issued by a money market fund, when the investment is in reliance on rule 12d1-1 under the 1940 Act. For the purposes of rule 12d1-2, “securities” means any security as defined in section 2(a)(36) of the 1940 Act.
3. Applicants state that the proposed arrangement would comply with rule 12d1-2 under the 1940 Act, but for the fact that the Section 12(d)(1)(G) Funds of Funds may invest a portion of their assets in Other Investments. Applicants request an order under section 6(c) of the 1940 Act for an exemption from rule 12d1-2(a) to allow the Section 12(d)(1)(G) Funds of Funds to invest in Other Investments. Applicants assert that permitting a Section 12(d)(1)(G) Fund of Funds to invest in Other Investments as described in the application would not raise any of the concerns that section 12(d)(1) of the 1940 Act was intended to address.
4. Consistent with its fiduciary obligations under the 1940 Act, a Section 12(d)(1)(G) Fund of Funds' Board will review the advisory fees charged by the Section 12(d)(1)(G) Fund of Funds' investment adviser(s) to ensure that the fees are based on services provided that are in addition to, rather than duplicative of, services provided pursuant to the advisory agreement of any investment company in which the Section 12(d)(1)(G) Fund of Funds may invest.
Applicants agree that the order granting the requested relief to permit Funds of Funds to invest in Underlying Funds shall be subject to the following conditions:
1. The members of the Group will not control (individually or in the aggregate) an Unaffiliated Fund within the meaning of section 2(a)(9) of the 1940 Act. The members of a Sub-Adviser Group will not control (individually or in the aggregate) an Unaffiliated Fund within the meaning of section 2(a)(9) of the 1940 Act. With respect to a Fund's investment in an Unaffiliated Closed-End Investment Company, (i) each member of the Group or Sub-Adviser Group that is an investment company or an issuer that would be an investment company but for section 3(c)(1) or 3(c)(7) of the 1940 Act will vote its shares of the Unaffiliated Closed-End Investment Company in the manner prescribed by section 12(d)(1)(E) of the 1940 Act and (ii) each other member of the Group or Sub-Adviser Group will vote its shares of the Unaffiliated Closed-End Investment Company in the same proportion as the vote of all other holders of the same type of such Unaffiliated Closed-End Investment Company's shares. If, as a result of a decrease in the outstanding voting securities of any other Unaffiliated Fund, the Group or a Sub-Adviser Group, each in the aggregate, becomes a holder of more than 25 percent of the outstanding voting securities of such Unaffiliated Fund, then the Group or the Sub-Adviser Group will vote its shares of the Unaffiliated Fund in the same proportion as the vote of all other holders of the Unaffiliated Fund's shares. This condition will not apply to a Sub-Adviser Group with respect to an Unaffiliated Fund for which the Sub-Adviser or a person controlling, controlled by, or under common control with the Sub-Adviser acts as the investment adviser within the meaning of section 2(a)(20)(A) of the 1940 Act (in the case of an Unaffiliated Investment Company) or as the sponsor (in the case of an Unaffiliated Trust).
2. No Fund of Funds or Fund of Funds Affiliate will cause any existing or potential investment by the Fund of Funds in an Unaffiliated Fund to influence the terms of any services or transactions between the Fund of Funds or a Fund of Funds Affiliate and the Unaffiliated Fund or an Unaffiliated Fund Affiliate.
3. The Board of each Fund of Funds, including a majority of the Independent Trustees, will adopt procedures reasonably designed to ensure that the Advisor and any Sub-Adviser to the Fund of Funds is conducting the investment program of the Fund of Funds without taking into account any consideration received by the Fund of Funds or Fund of Funds Affiliate from an Unaffiliated Fund or an Unaffiliated Fund Affiliate in connection with any services or transactions.
4. Once an investment by a Fund of Funds in the securities of an Unaffiliated Investment Company exceeds the limit of section 12(d)(1)(A)(i) of the 1940 Act, the Board of the Unaffiliated Investment Company, including a majority of the Independent Trustees, will determine that any consideration paid by the Unaffiliated Investment Company to a Fund of Funds or a Fund of Funds Affiliate in connection with any services or transactions: (a) Is fair and reasonable in relation to the nature and quality of the services and benefits received by the Unaffiliated Investment Company; (b) is within the range of consideration that the Unaffiliated Investment Company would be required to pay to another unaffiliated entity in connection with the same services or transactions; and (c) does not involve overreaching on the part of any person concerned. This condition does not apply with respect to any services or transactions between an Unaffiliated Investment Company and its investment adviser(s), or any person controlling, controlled by, or under common control with such investment adviser(s).
5. No Fund of Funds or Fund of Funds Affiliate (except to the extent it is acting in its capacity as an investment adviser to an Unaffiliated Investment Company or sponsor to an Unaffiliated Trust) will cause an Unaffiliated Fund to purchase a security in any Affiliated Underwriting.
6. The Board of an Unaffiliated Investment Company, including a majority of the Independent Trustees, will adopt procedures reasonably designed to monitor any purchases of securities by the Unaffiliated Investment Company in an Affiliated Underwriting once an investment by a Fund of Funds in the securities of the Unaffiliated Investment Company exceeds the limit of section 12(d)(1)(A)(i) of the 1940 Act, including any purchases made directly from an Underwriting Affiliate. The Board of the Unaffiliated Investment Company will review these purchases periodically, but no less frequently than annually, to determine whether the purchases were influenced by the investment by the Fund of Funds in the Unaffiliated Investment Company. The Board of the Unaffiliated Investment Company will consider, among other things: (a) Whether the purchases were consistent with the investment objectives and policies of the Unaffiliated Investment Company; (b) how the performance of securities purchased in an Affiliated Underwriting compares to the performance of comparable securities purchased during a comparable period of time in underwritings other than Affiliated Underwritings or to a benchmark such as a comparable market index; and (c) whether the amount of securities purchased by the Unaffiliated Investment Company in Affiliated Underwritings and the amount purchased directly from an Underwriting Affiliate have changed significantly from prior years. The Board of the Unaffiliated Investment Company will take any appropriate actions based on its review, including, if appropriate, the institution of procedures designed to ensure that purchases of securities in Affiliated Underwritings are in the best interest of shareholders.
7. Each Unaffiliated Investment Company will maintain and preserve permanently, in an easily accessible place, a written copy of the procedures described in the preceding condition, and any modifications to such procedures, and will maintain and preserve for a period of not less than six years from the end of the fiscal year in which any purchase in an Affiliated Underwriting occurred, the first two years in an easily accessible place, a written record of each purchase of securities in an Affiliated Underwriting once an investment by a Fund of Funds in the securities of an Unaffiliated Investment Company exceeds the limit of section 12(d)(1)(A)(i) of the 1940 Act, setting forth (1) the party from whom the securities were acquired, (2) the identity of the underwriting syndicate's members, (3) the terms of the purchase, and (4) the information or materials upon which the determinations of the Board of the Unaffiliated Investment Company were made.
8. Prior to its investment in shares of an Unaffiliated Investment Company in excess of the limit set forth in section 12(d)(1)(A)(i) of the 1940 Act, the Fund of Funds and the Unaffiliated Investment Company will execute a Participation Agreement stating, without limitation, that their Boards and their investment advisers understand the terms and conditions of the order and agree to fulfill their responsibilities under the order. At the time of its investment in shares of an Unaffiliated Investment Company in excess of the limit set forth in section 12(d)(1)(A)(i), a Fund of Funds will notify the Unaffiliated Investment Company of the investment. At such time, the Fund of Funds will also transmit to the Unaffiliated Investment Company a list of the names of each Fund of Funds Affiliate and Underwriting Affiliate. The Fund of Funds will notify the
9. Before approving any advisory contract under section 15 of the 1940 Act, the Board of each Fund of Funds, including a majority of the Independent Trustees, shall find that the advisory fees charged under the advisory contract are based on services provided that are in addition to, rather than duplicative of, services provided under the advisory contract(s) of any Underlying Fund in which the Fund of Funds may invest. Such finding, and the basis upon which the finding was made, will be recorded fully in the minute books of the appropriate Fund of Funds.
10. The Advisor will waive fees otherwise payable to it by a Fund of Funds in an amount at least equal to any compensation (including fees received pursuant to any plan adopted by an Unaffiliated Investment Company pursuant to rule 12b-1 under the 1940 Act) received from an Unaffiliated Fund by the Advisor, or an affiliated person of the Advisor, other than any advisory fees paid to the Advisor or its affiliated person by the Unaffiliated Investment Company, in connection with the investment by the Fund of Funds in the Unaffiliated Fund. Any Sub-Adviser will waive fees otherwise payable to the Sub-Adviser, directly or indirectly, by the Fund of Funds in an amount at least equal to any compensation received by the Sub-Adviser, or an affiliated person of the Sub-Adviser, from an Unaffiliated Fund, other than any advisory fees paid to the Sub-Adviser or its affiliated person by the Unaffiliated Investment Company in connection with the investment by the Fund of Funds in the Unaffiliated Fund made at the direction of the Sub-Adviser. In the event that the Sub-Adviser waives fees, the benefit of the waiver will be passed through to the Fund of Funds.
11. Any sales charges and/or service fees charged with respect to shares of a Fund of Funds will not exceed the limits applicable to funds of funds set forth in NASD Conduct Rule 2830.
12. No Underlying Fund will acquire securities of any other investment company or company relying on section 3(c)(1) or 3(c)(7) of the 1940 Act, in excess of the limits contained in section 12(d)(1)(A) of the 1940 Act, except to the extent that such Underlying Fund: (a) Acquires such securities in compliance with section 12(d)(1)(E) of the 1940 Act and is either an Affiliated Fund or is in the same “group of investment companies” as its corresponding master fund; (b) receives securities of another investment company as a dividend or as a result of a plan of reorganization of a company (other than a plan devised for the purpose of evading section 12(d)(1) of the 1940 Act); or (c) acquires (or is deemed to have acquired) securities of another investment company pursuant to exemptive relief from the Commission permitting such Underlying Fund to: (i) Acquire securities of one or more investment companies for short-term cash management purposes or (ii) engage in inter-fund borrowing and lending transactions.
In addition, Applicants agree that the order granting the requested relief to permit Section 12(d)(1)(G) Funds of Funds to invest in Other Investments shall be subject to the following condition:
13. Applicants will comply with all provisions of rule 12d1-2 under the 1940 Act, except for paragraph (a)(2) to the extent that it restricts any Section 12(d)(1)(G) Fund of Funds from investing in Other Investments as described in the application.
For the Commission, by the Division of Investment Management, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”),
The Exchange proposes to amend the fees for NYSE Arca Integrated Feed to establish eligibility requirements for redistribution on a managed non-display basis and to establish an access fee for managed non-display data recipients, operative on January 1, 2015. The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Web site at
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.
The Exchange proposes to amend the fees for NYSE Arca Integrated Feed, as set forth on the NYSE Arca Equities Proprietary Market Data Fees Schedule (“Fee Schedule”), to establish eligibility requirements for redistribution of market data on a Managed Non-Display basis and establish an access fee for Managed Non-Display data recipients, operative on January 1, 2015.
Non-Display Use of NYSE Arca market data means accessing, processing, or consuming NYSE Arca market data delivered via direct and/or Redistributor
A Redistributor approved for Managed Non-Display Services is required to report to the Exchange on a monthly basis the data recipients that are receiving NYSE Arca Integrated Feed through the Redistributor's Managed Non-Display Service. A data recipient receiving NYSE Arca Integrated Feed through a Redistributor's Managed Non-Display Service does not have any reporting requirements.
Currently, to be approved for Managed Non-Display Services, a Redistributor of the Managed Non-Display Services must be approved under the Unit-of-Count policy.
The Exchange is proposing to retire the Unit-of-Count Policy, and as a result, eligibility for Managed Non-Display Services of NYSE Arca Integrated Feed would no longer be based on eligibility under the Unit-of-Count Policy. The Exchange proposes instead to establish eligibility requirements specifically for the redistribution of market data for Managed Non-Display Services. The Exchange also proposes to add an access fee that would apply to a data recipient that receives NYSE Arca Integrated Feed from an approved Redistributor of Managed Non-Display Services.
The proposed eligibility requirements for the provision of Managed Non-Display Services would be similar to the eligibility requirements for the Unit-of-Count Policy in that they would require the Redistributor to manage and control the access to NYSE Arca Integrated Feed for data recipients' non-display applications and not allow for further internal distribution or external redistribution of the information by data recipients. In addition, to be eligible to provide Managed Non-Display Services, the Redistributor would be required to (a) host the data recipients' non-display applications in equipment located in the Redistributor's data center and/or hosted space/cage and (b) offer NYSE Arca Integrated Feed in the Redistributor's own messaging formats (rather than using raw NYSE message formats) by reformatting and/or altering NYSE Arca Integrated Feed prior to retransmission without affecting the integrity of NYSE Arca Integrated Feed and without rendering NYSE Arca Integrated Feed inaccurate, unfair, uninformative, fictitious, misleading or discriminatory. The proposed eligibility requirements are similar to data distribution models currently in use and align the Exchange with other markets.
The reporting requirements associated with the Managed Non-Display Service would not change. A Redistributor approved for Managed Non-Display Service would be required to report to the Exchange on a monthly basis the data recipients that are receiving NYSE Arca Integrated Feed through the Redistributor's Managed Non-Display Service. A data recipient receiving NYSE Arca Integrated Feed through a Redistributor's Managed Non-Display Service would continue not to have any reporting requirements.
In addition, the Exchange proposes to adopt an Access Fee of $1,500/month applicable only to data recipients that receive NYSE Arca Integrated Feed from an approved Redistributor of Managed Non-Display Services, operative January 1, 2015. Currently, data recipients, including recipients of Managed Non-Display Services, are required to pay an Access Fee of $3,000/month to receive NYSE Arca Integrated Feed. Because the purpose of an access fee is to charge data recipients for access to the Exchange's proprietary market data, the Exchange believes it is appropriate to charge an access fee to all data recipients, including recipients of Managed Non-Display Services.
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the provisions of Section 6 of the Act,
The Exchange believes that revising the eligibility requirements for Managed Non-Display Services so that the requirements are more closely aligned with the nature of the services being provided is reasonable. The proposed additional requirements for hosting in the Redistributor's data center and for reformatting and/or altering the market data prior to retransmission are also consistent with similar requirements of other markets for the provision of managed data.
The Exchange believes that the proposed Access Fee for Managed Non-Display Services is reasonable, because the data is of value to recipients, and it is reasonable to charge them a lower access fee because they are receiving the data through a Redistributor in a controlled form rather than from the Exchange in raw form. The Exchange believes that the proposed fee directly and appropriately reflects the significant value of using non-display data in a wide range of computer-automated functions relating to both trading and non-trading activities and that the number and range of these functions continue to grow through innovation
The fees are also equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because they will apply to all data recipients that choose to subscribe to the feeds.
The Exchange notes that NYSE Arca Integrated Feed is entirely optional. The Exchange is not required to make NYSE Arca Integrated Feed available or to offer any specific pricing alternatives to any customers, nor is any firm required to purchase NYSE Arca Integrated Feed. Firms that do purchase NYSE Arca Integrated Feed do so for the primary goals of using it to increase revenues, reduce expenses, and in some instances compete directly with the Exchange (including for order flow); those firms are able to determine for themselves whether NYSE Arca Integrated Feed or any other similar products are attractively priced or not.
Firms that do not wish to purchase NYSE Arca Integrated Feed at the new prices have a variety of alternative market data products from which to choose,
The decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in
In fact, the legislative history indicates that the Congress intended that the market system `evolve through the interplay of competitive forces as unnecessary regulatory restrictions are removed' and that the SEC wield its regulatory power `in those situations where competition may not be sufficient,' such as in the creation of a `consolidated transactional reporting system.'
As explained below in the Exchange's Statement on Burden on Competition, the Exchange believes that there is substantial evidence of competition in the marketplace for proprietary market data and that the Commission can rely upon such evidence in concluding that the fees established in this filing are the product of competition and therefore satisfy the relevant statutory standards. In addition, the existence of alternatives to these data products, such as consolidated data and proprietary data from other sources, as described below, further ensures that the Exchange cannot set unreasonable fees, or fees that are unreasonably discriminatory, when vendors and subscribers can select such alternatives.
As the
For these reasons, the Exchange believes that the proposed fees are reasonable, equitable, and not unfairly discriminatory.
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. An exchange's ability to price its proprietary market data feed products is constrained by actual competition for the sale of proprietary market data products, the joint product nature of exchange platforms, and the existence of alternatives to the Exchange's proprietary data.
The market for proprietary data products is currently competitive and inherently contestable because there is fierce competition for the inputs necessary for the creation of proprietary data and strict pricing discipline for the proprietary products themselves. Numerous exchanges compete with one another for listings and order flow and sales of market data itself, providing ample opportunities for entrepreneurs who wish to compete in any or all of those areas, including producing and distributing their own market data. Proprietary data products are produced and distributed by each individual exchange, as well as other entities, in a vigorously competitive market. Indeed,
Moreover, competitive markets for listings, order flow, executions, and transaction reports provide pricing discipline for the inputs of proprietary data products and therefore constrain markets from overpricing proprietary market data. Broker-dealers send their order flow and transaction reports to multiple venues, rather than providing them all to a single venue, which in turn reinforces this competitive constraint. As a 2010 Commission Concept Release noted, the “current market structure can be described as dispersed and complex” with “trading volume . . . dispersed among many highly automated trading centers that compete for order flow in the same stocks” and “trading centers offer[ing] a wide range of services that are designed to attract different types of market participants with varying trading needs.”
If an exchange succeeds in its competition for quotations, order flow, and trade executions, then it earns trading revenues and increases the value of its proprietary market data products because they will contain greater quote and trade information. Conversely, if an exchange is less successful in attracting quotes, order flow, and trade executions, then its market data products may be less desirable to customers using them in support of order routing and trading decisions in light of the diminished content; data products offered by competing venues may become correspondingly more attractive. Thus, competition for quotations, order flow, and trade executions puts significant pressure on an exchange to maintain both execution and data fees at reasonable levels.
In addition, in the case of products that are also redistributed through market data vendors, such as Bloomberg and Thompson Reuters, the vendors themselves provide additional price discipline for proprietary data products because they control the primary means of access to certain end users. These vendors impose price discipline based upon their business models. For example, vendors that assess a surcharge on data they sell are able to refuse to offer proprietary products that their end users do not or will not purchase in sufficient numbers. Vendors will not elect to make available NYSE Arca Integrated Feed unless their customers request it, and customers will not elect to pay the proposed fees unless NYSE Arca Integrated Feed can provide value by sufficiently increasing revenues or reducing costs in the customer's business in a manner that will offset the fees. All of these factors operate as constraints on pricing proprietary data products.
Transaction execution and proprietary data products are complementary in that market data is both an input and a byproduct of the execution service. In fact, proprietary market data and trade executions are a paradigmatic example of joint products with joint costs. The decision of whether and on which platform to post an order will depend on the attributes of the platforms where the order can be posted, including the execution fees, data availability and quality, and price and distribution of data products. Without a platform to post quotations, receive orders, and execute trades, exchange data products would not exist.
The costs of producing market data include not only the costs of the data distribution infrastructure, but also the costs of designing, maintaining, and operating the exchange's platform for posting quotes, accepting orders, and executing transactions and the cost of regulating the exchange to ensure its fair operation and maintain investor confidence. The total return that a trading platform earns reflects the revenues it receives from both products and the joint costs it incurs.
Moreover, an exchange's broker-dealer customers generally view the costs of transaction executions and market data as a unified cost of doing business with the exchange. A broker-dealer will only choose to direct orders to an exchange if the revenue from the transaction exceeds its cost, including the cost of any market data that the broker-dealer chooses to buy in support of its order routing and trading decisions. If the costs of the transaction are not offset by its value, then the broker-dealer may choose instead not to purchase the product and trade away from that exchange. There is substantial evidence of the strong correlation between order flow and market data purchases. For example, in November 2014 more than 80% of the transaction volume on each of NYSE Arca and NYSE Arca's affiliates New York Stock Exchange LLC (“NYSE”) and NYSE MKT, LLC (“NYSE MKT”) was executed by market participants that purchased one or more proprietary market data products (the 20 firms were not the same for each market). A supra-competitive increase in the fees for either executions or market data would create a risk of reducing an exchange's revenues from both products.
Other market participants have noted that proprietary market data and trade executions are joint products of a joint platform and have common costs.
Analyzing the cost of market data product production and distribution in isolation from the cost of all of the inputs supporting the creation of market data and market data products will inevitably underestimate the cost of the data and data products because it is impossible to obtain the data inputs to create market data products without a fast, technologically robust, and well-regulated execution system, and system and regulatory costs affect the price of both obtaining the market data itself and creating and distributing market data products. It would be equally misleading, however, to attribute all of an exchange's costs to the market data portion of an exchange's joint products. Rather, all of an exchange's costs are incurred for the unified purposes of attracting order flow, executing and/or routing orders, and generating and selling data about market activity. The total return that an exchange earns reflects the revenues it receives from the joint products and the total costs of the joint products.
As noted above, the level of competition and contestability in the market is evident in the numerous alternative venues that compete for order flow, including 12 equities self-regulatory organization (“SRO”) markets, as well as various forms of ATSs, including dark pools and electronic communication networks (“ECNs”), and internalizing broker-dealers. SRO markets compete to attract order flow and produce transaction reports via trade executions, and two FINRA-regulated Trade Reporting Facilities compete to attract transaction reports from the non-SRO venues.
Competition among trading platforms can be expected to constrain the aggregate return that each platform earns from the sale of its joint products, but different trading platforms may choose from a range of possible, and equally reasonable, pricing strategies as the means of recovering total costs. For example, some platforms may choose to pay rebates to attract orders, charge relatively low prices for market data products (or provide market data products free of charge), and charge relatively high prices for accessing posted liquidity. Other platforms may choose a strategy of paying lower rebates (or no rebates) to attract orders, setting relatively high prices for market data products, and setting relatively low prices for accessing posted liquidity. For example, BATS and Direct Edge, which previously operated as ATSs and obtained exchange status in 2008 and 2010, respectively, have provided certain market data at no charge on their Web sites in order to attract more order flow, and use revenue rebates from resulting additional executions to maintain low execution charges for their users.
The large number of SROs, ATSs, and internalizing broker-dealers that currently produce proprietary data or are currently capable of producing it provides further pricing discipline for proprietary data products. Each SRO, ATS, and broker-dealer is currently permitted to produce and sell proprietary data products, and many currently do or have announced plans to do so, including but not limited to the Exchange, NYSE, NYSE MKT, NASDAQ OMX, BATS, and Direct Edge.
The fact that proprietary data from ATSs, internalizing broker-dealers, and vendors can bypass SROs is significant in two respects. First, non-SROs can compete directly with SROs for the production and sale of proprietary data products. By way of example, BATS and NYSE Arca both published proprietary data on the Internet before registering as exchanges. Second, because a single order or transaction report can appear in an SRO proprietary product, a non-SRO proprietary product, or both, the amount of data available via proprietary products is greater in size than the actual number of orders and transaction reports that exist in the marketplace. With respect to NYSE Arca Integrated Feed, competitors offer similar products.
Those competitive pressures imposed by available alternatives are evident in the Exchange's proposed pricing.
In addition to the competition and price discipline described above, the market for proprietary data products is also highly contestable because market entry is rapid and inexpensive. The history of electronic trading is replete with examples of entrants that swiftly grew into some of the largest electronic trading platforms and proprietary data producers: Archipelago, Bloomberg Tradebook, Island, RediBook, Attain, TrackECN, BATS Trading and Direct Edge. As noted above, BATS launched as an ATS in 2006 and became an exchange in 2008, while Direct Edge began operations in 2007 and obtained exchange status in 2010. As noted above, LavaFlow ECN provides market data to its subscribers at no charge.
In setting the proposed fees, the Exchange considered the competitiveness of the market for proprietary data and all of the implications of that competition. The Exchange believes that it has considered all relevant factors and has not considered irrelevant factors in order to establish fair, reasonable, and not unreasonably discriminatory fees and an equitable allocation of fees among all users. The existence of numerous alternatives to the Exchange's products, including proprietary data from other sources, ensures that the Exchange cannot set unreasonable fees, or fees that are unreasonably discriminatory, when vendors and subscribers can elect these alternatives or choose not to purchase a specific proprietary data product if the attendant fees are not justified by the returns that any particular vendor or data recipient would achieve through the purchase.
No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the proposed rule change.
The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act
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:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”)
The Exchange is filing a proposal to amend its Fee Schedule.
The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Web site at
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.
The Exchange proposes to amend its current MIAX Market Maker
The sliding scale for MIAX Market Maker transaction fees is based on the substantially similar fees of the Chicago Board Options Exchange, Incorporated (“CBOE”).
The sliding scale would apply to all MIAX Market Makers for transactions in all products except mini-options. By
The Exchange believes the proposed sliding scale is objective in that the fee reductions are based solely on reaching stated volume thresholds. The specific volume thresholds of the tiers were set based upon business determinations and an analysis of current volume levels. The specific volume thresholds and rates were set in order to encourage MIAX Market Makers to reach for higher tiers. The Exchange believes that the proposed changes to the tiered fee schedule may incent firms to display their orders on the Exchange and increase the volume of contracts traded here.
As mentioned above, the Exchange notes that the proposed sliding fee scale for MIAX Market Makers structured on contract volume thresholds is based on the substantially similar fees of the CBOE.
The Exchange also proposes to add an additional tier to the rebate incentive for Priority Customer orders. The Exchange offers MIAX Market Makers the opportunity to reduce transaction fees by $0.02 per contract in standard options if the Member or its affiliates of at least 75% common ownership between the firms as reflected on each firm's Form BD, Schedule A, qualifies in a given month for Priority Customer Rebate Program volume tiers 3, 4, or 5 in the Fee Schedule. The Exchange proposes to amend the rebate incentive for Priority Customer orders in order to extend the rebate incentive to the new volume tier of the MIAX Market Maker sliding scale. As proposed, any Member or its affiliates of at least 75% common ownership between the firms as reflected on each firm's Form BD, Schedule A, that qualifies for Priority Customer Rebate Program volume tiers 3, 4, or 5 and is a MIAX Market Maker will be assessed $0.21 per contract for tier 1, $0.15 per contract for tier 2, $0.10 per contract for tier 3, $0.05 per contract for tier 4, and $0.03 per contract for tier 5 for transactions in standard options in lieu of the applicable transaction fees in the Market Maker sliding scale.
The Exchange believes that these incentives will encourage MIAX Market Makers to transact a greater number of orders on the Exchange.
The proposed changes will become operative on January 1, 2015.
The Exchange believes that its proposal to amend its fee schedule is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act
The proposed volume based discount fee structure is not discriminatory in that all MIAX Market Makers are eligible to submit (or not submit) liquidity, and may do so at their discretion in the daily volumes they choose during the course of the billing period. All similarly situated MIAX Market Makers are subject to the same fee structure, and access to the Exchange is offered on terms that are not unfairly discriminatory. Volume based discounts have been widely adopted by options and equities markets, and are equitable because they are open to all MIAX Market Makers on an equal basis and provide discounts that are reasonably related to the value of an exchange's market quality associated with higher volumes. The proposed fee levels and volume thresholds are reasonably designed to be comparable to those of other options exchanges employing similar fee programs, and also to attract additional liquidity and order flow to the Exchange.
The Exchange's proposal to offer an additional tier to provide MIAX Market Makers the opportunity to reduce transaction fees by $0.02 per contract in standard options, provided certain criteria are met, is reasonable because the Exchange desires to offer all such market participants an opportunity to lower their transaction fees. The Exchange's proposal to offer MIAX Market Makers the opportunity to reduce transaction fees by $0.02 per contract in standard options, provided certain criteria are met, is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because the Exchange offers all market participants, excluding Priority Customers, a means to reduce transaction fees by qualifying for volume tiers in the Priority Customer Rebate Program. The Exchange believes that offering all such market participants the opportunity to lower transaction fees by incentivizing them to transact Priority Customer order flow in turn benefits all market participants.
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The Exchange notes that it operates in a highly competitive market in which market participants can readily favor competing venues if they deem fee levels at a particular venue to be excessive. In such an environment, the Exchange must continually adjust its fees to remain competitive with other exchanges and to attract order flow. The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change reflects this competitive environment because it modifies the Exchange's fees in a manner that encourages market participants to provide liquidity and to send order flow to the Exchange.
Written comments were neither solicited nor received.
The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act.
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:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form
• Send an email
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Brent J. Fields, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.
All submissions should refer to File Number SR-MIAX-2014-70 and should be submitted on or before February 2, 2015. For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1)
The Exchange proposes to amend its Price List related to fees for trading licenses to extend the current fee schedule to February 27, 2015 and to implement new trading license fees effective March 1, 2015. The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Web site at
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.
The Exchange proposes to amend its Price List to extend the current fee schedule to February 27, 2015 and to implement new trading license fees effective March 1, 2015.
NYSE Rule 300(b) provides that, in each annual offering, up to 1,366 trading licenses for the following calendar year will be sold annually at a price per trading license to be established each year by the Exchange pursuant to a rule filing submitted to the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”) and that the price per trading license will be published each year in the Exchange's Price List. Currently, the Exchange charges an annual fee of $40,000 per license for the first two trading licenses held by a member organization and $25,000 for each additional trading license. For trading licenses issued after July 1, 2013, fees are prorated for the portion of the calendar year that the trading license is outstanding.
For 2015, the Exchange proposes to extend the current fee schedule relating to trading license fees through February 27, 2015 and amend the trading license fees effective March 1, 2015.
For the period between January 2, 2015 and February 27, 2015, the Exchange proposes to retain the current fee schedule relating to trading licenses, including the fee relief for additional licenses. As a result, an annual fee would not apply to the number of trading licenses issued to a member organization between July 3, 2013 and February 27, 2015 that exceeds the total number of trading licenses held by the member organization on July 1, 2013. The Exchange proposes to maintain July 1, 2013 as the baseline date so that a consistent point in time would be used to determine how many trading licenses for which a member organization would be charged. The fee calculation for new or merged member organizations would also be extended. Thus, for any firm that becomes a member organization after July 1, 2013, the firm would be considered to have one trading license as of July 1, 2013 and charged a fee for that one license through February 27, 2015. The Exchange proposes to extend the current fee schedule for the first two months of 2015 in order to maintain the existing fee schedule relating to trading licenses and provide member organizations with advance notice of the trading license fee changes that the Exchange proposes to introduce on March 1, 2015.
Effective March 1, 2015, the Exchange proposes to charge an annual fee of $50,000 for the first license held by a member organization and $15,000 for each additional license. The Exchange proposes to eliminate the existing fee relief for additional licenses and delete the relevant text from current footnote 15.
The Exchange also proposes to introduce a $25,000 annual administrative fee for member organizations that do not own a trading license and agree to be regulated by the Exchange pursuant to Rule 2(b)(ii) (“Regulated Only Members”) to offset the costs of this membership category.
The Exchange proposes to continue prorating license fees for any portion of the year that a license may be outstanding, including the administrative fee for Regulated Only members.
The Exchange also proposes to correct a typographical error in the heading of the Price List where the word “Licenses” is misspelled.
The proposed change is not otherwise intended to address any other issues, and the Exchange is not aware of any problems that members and member organizations would have in complying with the proposed change.
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act,
The Exchange believes that the proposed change is reasonable because maintaining the current fee structure through February 27, 2014[sic], including fee relief for the number of trading licenses that exceeds the total number of trading licenses held by the member organization on July 1, 2013, would maintain the existing fee schedule relating to trading licenses while at the same time providing member organizations with a reasonable period to assess the impact of the new permanent fees the Exchange proposes for March 1, 2015 and effectuate an orderly transition to the new fee schedule. The Exchange believes that maintaining the current fee structure for the first two months of 2015 would also continue to encourage member organizations to hold additional trading licenses during that time, which would increase the number of market participants trading on the floor of the Exchange, thereby promoting liquidity, price discovery and the opportunity for price improvement for the benefit of all market participants. The Exchange also believes that it is reasonable to maintain July 1, 2013 as the applicable baseline date so that a consistent point in time would be used to determine how many trading licenses for which a member organization would be charged, which would continue to provide member organizations with greater flexibility in managing their personnel.
The Exchange further believes that the proposal to maintain the current fee schedule through February 27, 2015 is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because all similarly situated member organizations would continue to be subject to the same trading license fee structure and because access to the Exchange's market would continue to be offered on fair and nondiscriminatory terms. The Exchange also believes that the proposal to maintain the current fee schedule is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because all member organizations would continue to have the opportunity to enjoy the benefits of the fee relief with respect to additional trading licenses. The Exchange believes that it is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory to continue to assign new member organizations a baseline of one trading license because this will continue to encourage firms to become member organizations, thereby encouraging trading activity on the Exchange, which benefits all market participants.
The Exchange believes that the proposal to institute a new fee structure on March 1, 2015, which would eliminate fee relief for additional licenses and introduce a simpler model, is reasonable because member organizations would be able to purchase the initial license for slightly more than the current rate and add unlimited additional licenses at a significantly lower rate. The Exchange believes that the proposed trading license change would encourage additional firms to become member organizations on the Exchange, which would contribute to the quality of the Exchange's market and increase the number of market participants trading on the floor of the
The Exchange further believes that the proposed new fee schedule is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because all similarly situated member organizations would continue to be subject to the same trading license fee structure and because access to the Exchange's market would continue to be offered on fair and nondiscriminatory terms. The Exchange further believes that the proposal to introduce a $25,000 annual administrative fee for Regulated Only Members is reasonable, equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because all member organizations that seek this status under Rule 2(b)(ii) would be subject to the same fee. The Exchange also believes that it is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory to subject Regulated Only Members to an administrative fee because such member organizations are subject to the same membership costs as non-Regulated Only Members.
The Exchange also believes that correcting a typographical error on the Price List is consistent with the Act because it would add greater clarity for member organizations.
For these reasons, the Exchange believes that the proposal is consistent with the Act.
In accordance with Section 6(b)(8) of the Act,
Finally, the Exchange notes that it operates in a highly competitive market in which market participants can readily favor competing venues if they deem fee levels at a particular venue to be excessive or rebate opportunities available at other venues to be more favorable. In such an environment, the Exchange must continually adjust its fees and rebates to remain competitive with other exchanges and with alternative trading systems that have been exempted from compliance with the statutory standards applicable to exchanges. 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 believes that the degree to which fee changes in this market may impose any burden on competition is extremely limited. As a result of all of these considerations, the Exchange does not believe that the proposed changes will impair the ability of member organizations or competing order execution venues to maintain their competitive standing in the financial markets.
No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the proposed rule change.
The foregoing rule change is effective upon filing pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)
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)
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:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”)
The Exchange is filing a proposal to amend its Fee Schedule.
The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Web site at
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.
The Exchange proposes to amend its current Priority Customer Rebate Program (the “Program”) to modify the volume thresholds of tiers 3 and 4.
The Exchange will aggregate the contracts resulting from Priority Customer orders transmitted and executed electronically on the Exchange from affiliated Members for purposes of the thresholds above, provided there is at least 75% common ownership between the firms as reflected on each firm's Form BD, Schedule A. In the event of a MIAX System outage or other interruption of electronic trading on MIAX, the Exchange will adjust the national customer volume in multiply-listed options for the duration of the outage. A Member may request to receive its credit under the Priority Customer Rebate Program as a separate direct payment.
In addition, the rebate payments will be calculated from the first executed contract at the applicable threshold per contract credit with the rebate payments made at the highest achieved volume tier for each contract traded in that month. For example, if Member Firm XYZ, Inc. (“XYZ”) has enough Priority Customer contracts to achieve 2.75% of the national customer volume in multiply-listed option contracts during the month of October, XYZ will receive a credit of $0.18 for each Priority Customer contract executed in the month of October.
The purpose of the Program is to encourage Members to direct greater Priority Customer trade volume to the
The specific volume thresholds of the Program's tiers were set based upon business determinations and an analysis of current volume levels. The volume thresholds are intended to incentivize firms that route some Priority Customer orders to the Exchange to increase the number of orders that are sent to the Exchange to achieve the next threshold and to incent new participants to send Priority Customer orders as well. Increasing the number of orders sent to the Exchange will in turn provide tighter and more liquid markets, and therefore attract more business overall. Similarly, the different credit rates at the different tier levels were based on an analysis of revenue and volume levels and are intended to provide increasing “rewards” for increasing the volume of trades sent to the Exchange. The specific amounts of the tiers and rates were set in order to encourage suppliers of Priority Customer order flow to reach for higher tiers.
The credits paid out as part of the program will be drawn from the general revenues of the Exchange.
The proposed changes will become operative on January 1, 2015.
The Exchange believes that its proposal to amend its fee schedule is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act
The Exchange believes that the proposed Priority Customer Rebate Program is fair, equitable and not unreasonably discriminatory. The Program is reasonably designed because it will incent providers of Priority Customer order flow to send that Priority Customer order flow to the Exchange in order to receive a credit in a manner that enables the Exchange to improve its overall competitiveness and strengthen its market quality for all market participants. The Program is also reasonably designed because the proposed credits are within the range of credits assessed by other exchanges employing similar rebate programs. The proposed rebate program is fair and equitable and not unreasonably discriminatory because it will apply equally to all Priority Customer orders. All similarly situated Priority Customer orders are subject to the same rebate schedule, and access to the Exchange is offered on terms that are not unfairly discriminatory. In addition, the Program is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because, while only Priority Customer order flow qualifies for the Program, an increase in Priority Customer order flow will bring greater volume and liquidity, which benefit all market participants by providing more trading opportunities and tighter spreads. Similarly, offering increasing credits for executing higher percentages of total national customer volume (increased credit rates at increased volume tiers) is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because such increased rates and tiers encourage Members to direct increased amounts of Priority Customer contracts to the Exchange. Market participants want to trade with Priority Customer order flow. To the extent Priority Customer order flow is increased by the proposal, market participants will increasingly compete for the opportunity to trade on the Exchange including sending more orders and providing narrower and larger sized quotations in the effort to trade with such Priority Customer order flow. The resulting increased volume and liquidity will benefit those Members who receive the lower tier levels, or do not qualify for the Program at all, by providing more trading opportunities and tighter spreads.
Limiting the Program to multiply-listed options classes listed on MIAX is reasonable because those parties trading heavily in multiply-listed classes will receive a credit for such trading, and is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because the Exchange does not trade any singly-listed products at this time. If at such time the Exchange develops proprietary products, the Exchange anticipates having to devote a lot of resources to develop them, and therefore would need to retain funds collected in order to recoup those expenditures.
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The Exchange believes that the proposed change would increase both intermarket and intramarket competition by incenting Members to direct their Priority Customer orders to the Exchange, which will enhance the quality of quoting and increase the volume of contracts traded here. To the extent that there is additional competitive burden on non-Priority Customers, the Exchange believes that this is appropriate because the rebate program should incent Members to direct additional order flow to the Exchange and thus provide additional liquidity that enhances the quality of its markets and increases the volume of contracts traded here. To the extent that this purpose is achieved, all the Exchange's market participants should benefit from the improved market liquidity. Enhanced market quality and increased transaction volume that results from the anticipated increase in order flow directed to the Exchange will benefit all market participants and improve competition on the Exchange. The Exchange notes that it operates in a highly competitive market in which market participants can readily favor competing venues if they deem fee levels at a particular venue to be excessive. In such an environment, the Exchange must continually adjust its fees to remain competitive with other exchanges and to attract order flow to the Exchange. The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change reflects this competitive environment because it reduces the Exchange's fees in a manner that encourages market participants to direct their customer order flow, to provide liquidity, and to attract additional transaction volume to the Exchange. Given the robust competition for volume among options markets, many of which offer the same products, implementing a volume based customer rebate program to attract order flow like
Written comments were neither solicited nor received.
The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act.
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:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an email
• 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-MIAX-2014-69 and should be submitted on or before February 2, 2015.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”),
The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Web site at
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.
BX Rule 4761 addresses the treatment of quotes/orders in securities that are the subject of issuer corporate actions
Prior to 2013, BX had not had a clear rule providing for the adjustments of quotes and orders carried on the BX book overnight. In April 2013, BX adopted Rule 4761 to provide that BX would cancel all open quotes/orders in the event of any corporate action.
The proposal will expand the rule also to provide for adjustment in the case of stock dividends and combined cash dividends/stock dividends. The proposal reflects the conclusion, based on member feedback, that actions resulting in the distribution of additional stock should be treated similarly, regardless of whether they are denominated as forward stock splits or stock dividends. BX will make members aware of the effective date of the proposed change by the issuance of a widely disseminated Equity Trader Alert.
Under the current rule, a member may designate that all orders with a time-in-force of good-till-cancelled
(1) Cash Dividend. If an issuer is paying a cash dividend, the price of an order to buy is reduced by the amount of the sum of all dividends payable, rounded up to the nearest whole cent; provided, however, that there will be no adjustment if the sum of all dividends is less than $0.01. For example, if the sum of all dividends is $0.381, the price of the order will be reduced by $0.39. An order to sell will be retained but will receive no price adjustment.
(2) Forward Stock Split. If an issuer is implementing a forward stock split, the order is cancelled if its size is less than one round lot. If the order's size is greater than one round lot, (i) the size of the order is multiplied by the ratio of post-split shares to pre-split shares, with the result rounded downward to the nearest whole share, and (ii) the price of the order will be multiplied by the ratio of pre-split shares to post-split shares, with the result rounded down to the nearest whole penny in the case of orders to buy and rounded up to the nearest whole penny in the case of orders to sell.
Under the change proposed in this filing, stock dividends will be treated in the same manner as forward stock splits. Thus, any corporate action in which additional shares are issued to holders of outstanding shares will be treated in the manner described above.
For example, if a member has entered a good-till-cancelled order to buy 375 shares at $10.95 per share and the issuer implemented a split or dividend under which an additional 1.25 shares would be issued for each share outstanding, the size of the order would be adjusted to 843 shares (375 × 2.25/1 = 843.75, rounded down to 843) and the price of the order would be adjusted to $4.86 per share ($10.95 per share × 1/2.25 = $4.8667 per share, rounded down to $4.86 per share). An order to sell at the same price and size would be adjusted to 843 shares with a price of $4.87 per share ($4.8667 per share, rounded up).
(3) Combination of Cash Dividend and Forward Stock Split or Stock Dividend. Under the current rule, if an issuer is implementing a cash dividend and a forward stock split on the same date, the adjustments described above will both be applied, in the order described in the notice of the corporate actions received by BX.
As is currently the case, changes to open orders will continue to be effected immediately prior to the opening of the System at 7:00 a.m. on the ex-date of the applicable corporate action. Open orders that are retained are re-entered by the System (as adjusted above) immediately prior to the opening of the System, such that they will retain time priority over new orders entered at or after 7:00 a.m.
BX believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the provisions of Section 6 of the Act,
BX does not believe that the proposed rule change will result in any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act, as amended. Specifically, by offering market participants additional options with regard to management of open orders, the change has the potential to enhance BX's competitiveness with respect to other trading venues, thereby promoting greater competition. Moreover, the change does not burden competition in that it does not restrict the ability of members to enter and update trading interest in BX.
No written comments were either solicited or received.
Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not: (i) Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public interest; (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii) become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act
At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is: (i) Necessary or appropriate in the public interest; (ii) for the protection of investors; or (iii) otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule should be approved or disapproved.
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:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Brent J. Fields, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1)
The Exchange proposes to amend its Price List to eliminate transaction fees for Midpoint Passive Liquidity (“MPL”) Orders that remove liquidity from the Exchange and that are designated with a “retail” modifier as defined in Rule 13—Equities. The Exchange proposes to implement the fee change effective January 2, 2015. The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Web site at
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.
The Exchange proposes to amend its Price List to eliminate transaction fees for MPL Orders that remove liquidity from the Exchange and that are designated with a “retail” modifier as defined in Rule 13—Equities (“Rule 13”). The Exchange proposes to implement the fee change effective January 2, 2015.
For securities priced $1.00 or greater, the Exchange currently charges a fee of $0.0028 per share for all MPL Orders
To be eligible for the proposed pricing for MPL Orders, an MPL Order would need to meet the requirements to be designated as “retail” pursuant to Rule 13. An order designated as “retail” under Rule 13 is an agency or riskless principal order that meets the criteria of Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc. Rule 5320.03 and that (1) originates from a natural person and (2) is submitted to the Exchange by a member organization, provided that no change is made to the terms of the order with respect to price or side of market and the order does not originate from a trading algorithm or any other computerized methodology.
To submit an order with a “retail” modifier, a member or member organization must submit an attestation, in a form prescribed by the Exchange, that substantially all orders submitted as “retail” will qualify as such. Further, Rule 13 requires a member organization to have written policies and procedures reasonably designed to assure that it will only designate orders as “retail” if all requirements are met.
The Exchange proposes to retain the fee for MPL Orders that remove liquidity from the Exchange but that are not designated with a “retail” modifier at the current rates. The proposed amended Price List would distinguish MPL Orders that remove liquidity and that are designated as “retail” under Rule 13, which would not be charged a fee, from MPL Orders that remove liquidity and that are not designated as “retail” under Rule 13, and which would continue to be charged the existing fee for MPL Orders that take liquidity. The Exchange proposes to make comparable amendments to the Price List relating to pricing applicable to Floor broker executions of MPL Orders.
The proposed change is not otherwise intended to address any other issues, and the Exchange is not aware of any problems that members and member organizations would have in complying with the proposed change.
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act,
The Exchange believes that removing a fee for MPL Orders that remove liquidity from the Exchange and that are designated as “retail” is reasonable because it will encourage the submission of orders that meet the requirements to be designated as “retail” to the Exchange, thus enhancing order execution opportunities for all participants, but specifically retail investors. The “retail” modifier under Rule 13 along with its pricing is designed to incentivize the submission of additional retail order flow to a public market like the Exchange.
Finally, the Exchange notes that while the proposed price change would treat retail order flow differently from order flow submitted by other market participants, such segmentation would not be inconsistent with Section 6(b)(5)
The proposed change is also equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because the ability to designate MPL Orders as “retail” is available equally to all similarly situated members and member organizations that submit qualifying orders and satisfy the other related, existing requirements.
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.
In accordance with Section 6(b)(8) of the Act,
Finally, the Exchange notes that it operates in a highly competitive market in which market participants can readily favor competing venues if they deem fee levels at a particular venue to be excessive or rebate opportunities available at other venues to be more favorable. In such an environment, the Exchange must continually adjust its fees and rebates to remain competitive with other exchanges and with alternative trading systems that have been exempted from compliance with the statutory standards applicable to exchanges. 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 believes that the degree to which fee changes in this market may impose any burden on competition is extremely limited. As a result of all of these considerations, the Exchange does not believe that the proposed changes will impair the ability of member organizations or competing order execution venues to maintain their competitive standing in the financial markets.
No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the proposed rule change.
The foregoing rule change is effective upon filing pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)
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)
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:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Brent J. Fields, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”),
The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Web site at
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.
PSX Rule 4761 [sic]
Prior to 2013, PSX had not had a clear rule providing for the adjustments of quotes and orders carried on the PSX book overnight. In April 2013, Phlx adopted Rule 3311 to provide that PSX would cancel all open quotes/orders in the event of any corporate action.
The proposal will expand the rule also to provide for adjustment in the case of stock dividends and combined cash dividends/stock dividends. The proposal reflects the conclusion, based on member feedback, that actions resulting in the distribution of additional stock should be treated similarly, regardless of whether they are denominated as forward stock splits or stock dividends. Phlx will make members aware of the effective date of the proposed change by the issuance of a widely disseminated Equity Trader Alert.
Under the current rule, a member may designate that all orders with a time-in-
(1) Cash Dividend. If an issuer is paying a cash dividend, the price of an order to buy is reduced by the amount of the sum of all dividends payable, rounded up to the nearest whole cent; provided, however, that there will be no adjustment if the sum of all dividends is less than $0.01. For example, if the sum of all dividends is $0.381, the price of the order will be reduced by $0.39. An order to sell will be retained but will receive no price adjustment.
(2) Forward Stock Split. If an issuer is implementing a forward stock split, the order is cancelled if its size is less than one round lot. If the order's size is greater than one round lot, (i) the size of the order is multiplied by the ratio of post-split shares to pre-split shares, with the result rounded downward to the nearest whole share, and (ii) the price of the order will be multiplied by the ratio of pre-split shares to post-split shares, with the result rounded down to the nearest whole penny in the case of orders to buy and rounded up to the nearest whole penny in the case of orders to sell.
Under the change proposed in this filing, stock dividends will be treated in the same manner as forward stock splits. Thus, any corporate action in which additional shares are issued to holders of outstanding shares will be treated in the manner described above.
For example, if a member has entered a good-till-cancelled order to buy 375 shares at $10.95 per share and the issuer implemented a split or dividend under which an additional 1.25 shares would be issued for each share outstanding, the size of the order would be adjusted to 843 shares (375 × 2.25/1 = 843.75, rounded down to 843) and the price of the order would be adjusted to $4.86 per share ($10.95 per share × 1/2.25 = $4.8667 per share, rounded down to $4.86 per share). An order to sell at the same price and size would be adjusted to 843 shares with a price of $4.87 per share ($4.8667 per share, rounded up).
(3) Combination of Cash Dividend and Forward Stock Split or Stock Dividend. Under the current rule, if an issuer is implementing a cash dividend and a forward stock split on the same date, the adjustments described above will both be applied, in the order described in the notice of the corporate actions received by Phlx.
As is currently the case, changes to open orders will continue to be effected immediately prior to the opening of the System at 8:00 a.m. on the ex-date of the applicable corporate action. Open orders that are retained are re-entered by the System (as adjusted above) immediately prior to the opening of the System, such that they will retain time priority over new orders entered at or after 8:00 a.m.
Phlx believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the provisions of Section 6 of the Act,
Phlx does not believe that the proposed rule change will result in any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act, as amended. Specifically, by offering market participants additional options with regard to management of open orders, the change has the potential to enhance PSX's competitiveness with respect to other trading venues, thereby promoting greater competition. Moreover, the change does not burden competition in that it does not restrict the ability of members to enter and update trading interest in PSX.
No written comments were either solicited or received.
Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not: (i) Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public interest; (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii) become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act
At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the
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:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Brent J. Fields, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1)
The Exchange proposes to amend its Schedule of Fees and Charges for Exchange Services (“Fee Schedule”) to eliminate transaction fees for Midpoint Passive Liquidity (“MPL”) orders that remove liquidity from the Exchange and that are designated as “retail” but which are not executed in the Retail Liquidity Program. The Exchange proposes to implement the fee change effective January 2, 2015. The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Web site at
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.
The Exchange proposes to amend its Fee Schedule to eliminate transaction fees for MPL orders that remove liquidity from the Exchange and that are designated as “retail” orders, but which are not executed in the Retail Liquidity Program. The Exchange proposes to implement the fee change effective January 2, 2015.
For securities priced $1.00 or greater, the Exchange currently charges qualifying ETP Holders and Market Makers in Tier 1
To be eligible to for the proposed pricing for MPL orders, an MPL order would need to meet the requirements of Rule 7.44(a)(3). Rule 7.44(a)(3) defines a retail order as an agency order or a riskless principal order that meets the criteria of Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc. Rule 5320.03 that originates from a natural person and is submitted to the Exchange by a Retail Member Organization (“RMO”),
The Exchange proposes to define the term “Retail Orders” separately in the Fee Schedule to distinguish the pricing applicable to orders designated as retail that are eligible for this proposed change, the existing Retail Order Tier and the existing Retail Orders that provide liquidity to the Book from the pricing applicable to executions of orders designated as retail in the Retail Liquidity Program, which are referred to in the Fee Schedule as “RMO Retail Orders” and are covered in the section of the Fee Schedule entitled “Fees and Credits Applicable to Executions in the Retail Liquidity Program.” As noted above, the Exchange proposes to define the term “Retail Order” in an earlier point of the Fee Schedule, thereby obviating the second definition currently in the Retail Order Tier section of the Fee Schedule. Accordingly, Exchange proposes to delete the phrase “as defined in Rule 7.44(a)(3)” in the Retail Order Tier.
The Exchange proposes to retain the fees for MPL orders that remove liquidity from the Exchange but that are not designated as Retail Orders at the current rates. The proposed amended Fee Schedule would distinguish between MPL orders that remove liquidity and that are designated Retail Orders, which would not be charged a fee, from MPL orders that remove liquidity and that are not designated Retail Orders, and which would continue to be charged the existing fee for MPL Orders that take liquidity.
The Exchange also proposes to add explanatory material to footnote 2 of the Fee Schedule that orders with specific rates (
The proposed change is not otherwise intended to address any other issues, and the Exchange is not aware of any problems ETP Holders would have in complying with the proposed change.
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act,
The Exchange believes that removing a fee for MPL orders that remove liquidity from the Exchange and that are designated Retail Orders is reasonable because it will encourage the submission of orders that meet the requirements to be designated as “retail” to the Exchange, thus enhancing order execution opportunities for all participants, but specifically retail investors. Moreover, the Exchange believes that markets and price discovery optimally function through the interactions of diverse flow types, and also believes that growth in internalization has required differentiation of retail order flow from other order flow types. As the Exchange has previously noted, a significant percentage of the orders of individual investors are executed over-the-counter.
Finally, the Exchange notes that while the proposed price change would treat retail order flow differently from order flow submitted by other market participants, such segmentation would not be inconsistent with Section 6(b)(5) of the Act,
The proposed change is also equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because the ability to designate MPL orders as Retail Orders is available equally to all similarly situated ETP Holders that submit qualifying orders and satisfy the other related, existing requirements.
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.
In accordance with Section 6(b)(8) of the Act,
Finally, the Exchange notes that it operates in a highly competitive market in which market participants can readily favor competing venues if they deem fee levels at a particular venue to be excessive or rebate opportunities available at other venues to be more favorable. In such an environment, the Exchange must continually adjust its fees and rebates to remain competitive with other exchanges and with alternative trading systems that have been exempted from compliance with the statutory standards applicable to exchanges. 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 believes that the degree to which fee changes in this market may impose any burden on competition is extremely limited. As a result of all of these considerations, the Exchange does not believe that the proposed changes will impair the ability of ETP Holders or competing order execution venues to maintain their competitive standing in the financial markets.
No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the proposed rule change.
The foregoing rule change is effective upon filing pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)
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)
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:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Brent J. Fields, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1)
The Exchange proposes to amend the fees for NYSE Arca BBO and NYSE Arca Trades to: (1) Change the way the user fee is calculated and applied, operative on January 1, 2015; and (2) establish eligibility requirements for redistribution on a managed non-display basis and an access fee for managed non-display data recipients, operative on January 1, 2015. The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Web site at
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.
The Exchange proposes to amend the fees for NYSE Arca BBO and NYSE Arca Trades data feeds, as set forth on the NYSE Arca Equities Proprietary Market Data Fee Schedule (“Fee Schedule”), as follows:
• To change the way the user fees are calculated and applied by eliminating the unit-of-count policy, operative on January 1, 2015; and
• To establish eligibility requirements for redistribution of market data on a Managed Non-Display basis and establish an access fee for Managed Non-Display data recipients, operative on January 1, 2015.
For display use of the NYSE Arca BBO and NYSE Arca Trades data feeds, the Fee Schedule sets forth a Professional User Fee of $4 per month or a Non-Professional User Fee of $0.25 per month. These user fees generally apply to each display device that has access to NYSE Arca BBO or NYSE Arca Trades.
Vendors and subscribers that are eligible for the Unit-of-Count Policy may avail themselves of an alternative method for counting how many user fees should be charged for display use of the NYSE Arca BBO and Trades data feeds. The Unit-of-Count Policy was first introduced by the Exchange's affiliate, New York Stock Exchange LLC (“NYSE”), as a pilot in 2009 for its NYSE OpenBook data feed
The effect of the Unit-of-Count Policy for these subscribers is that a single user fee applies to individual users that receive multiple display device services,
Non-Display Use of NYSE Arca market data means accessing, processing, or consuming NYSE Arca market data delivered via direct and/or Redistributor
A Redistributor approved for Managed Non-Display Services is required to report to the Exchange on a monthly basis the data recipients that are receiving NYSE Arca BBO or NYSE Arca Trades through the Redistributor's Managed Non-Display Service. A data recipient receiving NYSE Arca BBO or NYSE Arca Trades through a Redistributor's Managed Non-Display Service does not have any reporting requirements.
Currently, to be approved for Managed Non-Display Services, a Redistributor of the Managed Non-Display Services must be approved under the Unit-of-Count policy.
The proposed eligibility requirements for the provision of Managed Non-Display Services would be similar to the eligibility requirements for the Unit-of-Count Policy in that they would require the Redistributor to manage and control the access to NYSE Arca BBO or NYSE Arca Trades for data recipients' non-display applications and not allow for further internal distribution or external redistribution of the information by data recipients. In addition, to be eligible to provide Managed Non-Display Services, the Redistributor would be required to (a) host the data recipients' non-display applications in equipment located in the Redistributor's data center and/or hosted space/cage and (b) offer NYSE Arca BBO or NYSE Arca Trades in the Redistributor's own messaging formats (rather than using raw message formats) by reformatting and/or altering NYSE Arca BBO or NYSE Arca Trades prior to retransmission without affecting the integrity of NYSE Arca BBO or NYSE Arca Trades and without rendering NYSE Arca BBO or NYSE Arca Trades inaccurate, unfair, uninformative, fictitious, misleading or discriminatory. The proposed eligibility requirements are similar to data distribution models currently in use and align the Exchange with other markets.
The reporting requirements associated with the Managed Non-Display Service would not change. A Redistributor approved for Managed Non-Display Service would be required to report to the Exchange on a monthly basis the data recipients that are receiving NYSE Arca BBO or NYSE Arca Trades through the Redistributor's Managed Non-Display Service. A data recipient receiving NYSE Arca BBO or NYSE Arca Trades through a Redistributor's Managed Non-Display Service would continue not to have any reporting requirements.
In addition, the Exchange proposes to adopt an Access Fee of $375/month applicable only to data recipients that receive NYSE Arca BBO and/or NYSE Arca Trades from an approved Redistributor of Managed Non-Display Services, operative January 1, 2015. Currently, data recipients are required to pay an Access Fee of $750/month to receive NYSE Arca BBO and/or NYSE Arca Trades, which has not been charged to data recipients of Managed Non-Display Services of NYSE Arca BBO or NYSE Arca Trades. The Exchange charges a single Access Fee for clients receiving both NYSE Arca BBO and NYSE Arca Trades. Because the purpose of an access fee is to charge data recipients for access to the Exchange's proprietary market data, the Exchange believes it is appropriate to charge an access fee to all data recipients, including recipients of Managed Non-Display Services.
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the provisions of Section 6 of the Act,
The Exchange believes that it is reasonable to retire the Unit-of-Count Policy. First, as evidenced by the low number of eligible subscribers, the Unit-of-Count Policy is not currently considered useful to market data recipients as a method for counting users. In addition, as the Exchange noted in the 2013 Non-Display Filing,
The Exchange believes that revising the eligibility requirements for Managed Non-Display Services so that the requirements are more closely aligned with the nature of the services being provided is reasonable. The proposed additional requirements for hosting in the Redistributor's data center and for reformatting and/or altering the market data prior to retransmission are also consistent with similar requirements of other markets for the provision of managed data.
The Exchange believes that the proposed Access Fee for Managed Non-Display Services is reasonable, because the data is of value to recipients, and it is reasonable to charge them a lower access fee because they are receiving the data through a Redistributor in a controlled form rather than from the Exchange in raw form. The Exchange believes that the proposed fees directly and appropriately reflect the significant value of using non-display data in a wide range of computer-automated functions relating to both trading and non-trading activities and that the number and range of these functions continue to grow through innovation and technology developments. NASDAQ and Phlx also both offer managed non-display data solutions and charge access fees for such services.
The fees are also equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because they will apply to all data recipients that choose to subscribe to the feeds.
The Exchange notes that NYSE Arca BBO and NYSE Arca Trades are entirely optional. The Exchange is not required to make NYSE Arca BBO and NYSE Arca Trades available or to offer any specific pricing alternatives to any customers, nor is any firm required to purchase NYSE Arca BBO or NYSE Arca Trades. Firms that do purchase NYSE Arca BBO or NYSE Arca Trades do so for the primary goals of using the products to increase revenues, reduce expenses, and in some instances compete directly with the Exchange (including for order flow); those firms are able to determine for themselves whether NYSE Arca BBO or NYSE Arca Trades or any other similar products are attractively priced or not.
Firms that do not wish to purchase NYSE Arca BBO or NYSE Arca Trades at the new prices have a variety of alternative market data products from which to choose,
The decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in
In fact, the legislative history indicates that the Congress intended that the market system `evolve through the interplay of competitive forces as unnecessary regulatory restrictions are removed' and that the SEC wield its regulatory power `in those situations where competition may not be sufficient,' such as in the creation of a `consolidated transactional reporting system.'
As explained below in the Exchange's Statement on Burden on Competition, the Exchange believes that there is substantial evidence of competition in the marketplace for proprietary market data and that the Commission can rely upon such evidence in concluding that the fees established in this filing are the product of competition and therefore satisfy the relevant statutory standards. In addition, the existence of alternatives to these data products, such as consolidated data and proprietary data from other sources, as described below, further ensures that the Exchange cannot set unreasonable fees, or fees that are unreasonably discriminatory, when vendors and subscribers can select such alternatives.
As the
For these reasons, the Exchange believes that the proposed fees are reasonable, equitable, and not unfairly discriminatory.
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. An exchange's ability to price its proprietary market data feed products is constrained by actual competition for the sale of proprietary market data products, the joint product nature of exchange platforms, and the existence of alternatives to the Exchange's proprietary data.
The market for proprietary data products is currently competitive and inherently contestable because there is fierce competition for the inputs necessary for the creation of proprietary data and strict pricing discipline for the proprietary products themselves. Numerous exchanges compete with one another for listings and order flow and sales of market data itself, providing ample opportunities for entrepreneurs who wish to compete in any or all of those areas, including producing and distributing their own market data. Proprietary data products are produced and distributed by each individual exchange, as well as other entities, in a vigorously competitive market. Indeed, the U.S. Department of Justice (“DOJ”) (the primary antitrust regulator) has expressly acknowledged the aggressive actual competition among exchanges, including for the sale of proprietary market data. In 2011, the DOJ stated that exchanges “compete head to head to offer real-time equity data products. These data products include the best bid and offer of every exchange and information on each equity trade, including the last sale.”
Moreover, competitive markets for listings, order flow, executions, and transaction reports provide pricing discipline for the inputs of proprietary data products and therefore constrain markets from overpricing proprietary market data. Broker-dealers send their order flow and transaction reports to multiple venues, rather than providing them all to a single venue, which in turn reinforces this competitive constraint. As a 2010 Commission Concept Release noted, the “current market structure can be described as dispersed and complex” with “trading volume . . . dispersed among many highly automated trading centers that compete for order flow in the same stocks” and “trading centers offer[ing] a wide range of services that are designed to attract different types of market participants with varying trading needs.”
If an exchange succeeds in its competition for quotations, order flow, and trade executions, then it earns trading revenues and increases the value of its proprietary market data products because they will contain greater quote and trade information. Conversely, if an exchange is less successful in attracting quotes, order flow, and trade executions, then its market data products may be less desirable to customers using them in support of order routing and trading decisions in light of the diminished content; data products offered by competing venues may become correspondingly more attractive. Thus, competition for quotations, order flow, and trade executions puts significant pressure on an exchange to maintain both execution and data fees at reasonable levels.
In addition, in the case of products that are also redistributed through market data vendors, such as Bloomberg and Thompson Reuters, the vendors themselves provide additional price discipline for proprietary data products because they control the primary means of access to certain end users. These vendors impose price discipline based upon their business models. For example, vendors that assess a surcharge on data they sell are able to refuse to offer proprietary products that their end users do not or will not purchase in sufficient numbers. Vendors will not elect to make available NYSE Arca BBO or NYSE Arca Trades unless their customers request it, and customers will not elect to pay the proposed fees unless NYSE Arca BBO or NYSE Arca Trades can provide value by sufficiently increasing revenues or reducing costs in the customer's business in a manner that will offset the fees. All of these factors operate as constraints on pricing proprietary data products.
Transaction execution and proprietary data products are complementary in that market data is both an input and a byproduct of the execution service. In fact, proprietary market data and trade executions are a paradigmatic example of joint products with joint costs. The decision of whether and on which platform to post an order will depend on the attributes of the platforms where the order can be posted, including the execution fees, data availability and quality, and price and distribution of data products. Without a platform to post quotations, receive orders, and execute trades, exchange data products would not exist.
The costs of producing market data include not only the costs of the data distribution infrastructure, but also the costs of designing, maintaining, and
Moreover, an exchange's broker-dealer customers generally view the costs of transaction executions and market data as a unified cost of doing business with the exchange. A broker-dealer will only choose to direct orders to an exchange if the revenue from the transaction exceeds its cost, including the cost of any market data that the broker-dealer chooses to buy in support of its order routing and trading decisions. If the costs of the transaction are not offset by its value, then the broker-dealer may choose instead not to purchase the product and trade away from that exchange. There is substantial evidence of the strong correlation between order flow and market data purchases. For example, in November 2014, more than 80% of the transaction volume on each of NYSE Arca and the Exchange's affiliates NYSE and NYSE MKT LLC (“NYSE MKT”) was executed by market participants that purchased one or more proprietary market data products (the 20 firms were not the same for each market). A super-competitive increase in the fees for either executions or market data would create a risk of reducing an exchange's revenues from both products.
Other market participants have noted that proprietary market data and trade executions are joint products of a joint platform and have common costs.
Analyzing the cost of market data product production and distribution in isolation from the cost of all of the inputs supporting the creation of market data and market data products will inevitably underestimate the cost of the data and data products because it is impossible to obtain the data inputs to create market data products without a fast, technologically robust, and well-regulated execution system, and system and regulatory costs affect the price of both obtaining the market data itself and creating and distributing market data products. It would be equally misleading, however, to attribute all of an exchange's costs to the market data portion of an exchange's joint products. Rather, all of an exchange's costs are incurred for the unified purposes of attracting order flow, executing and/or routing orders, and generating and selling data about market activity. The total return that an exchange earns reflects the revenues it receives from the joint products and the total costs of the joint products.
As noted above, the level of competition and contestability in the market is evident in the numerous alternative venues that compete for order flow, including 12 equities self-regulatory organization (“SRO”) markets, as well as various forms of ATSs, including dark pools and electronic communication networks (“ECNs”), and internalizing broker-dealers. SRO markets compete to attract order flow and produce transaction reports via trade executions, and two FINRA-regulated Trade Reporting Facilities compete to attract transaction reports from the non-SRO venues.
Competition among trading platforms can be expected to constrain the aggregate return that each platform earns from the sale of its joint products, but different trading platforms may choose from a range of possible, and equally reasonable, pricing strategies as the means of recovering total costs. For example, some platforms may choose to pay rebates to attract orders, charge relatively low prices for market data products (or provide market data products free of charge), and charge relatively high prices for accessing posted liquidity. Other platforms may choose a strategy of paying lower rebates (or no rebates) to attract orders, setting relatively high prices for market data products, and setting relatively low prices for accessing posted liquidity. For example, BATS and Direct Edge, which previously operated as ATSs and obtained exchange status in 2008 and 2010, respectively, have provided certain market data at no charge on their Web sites in order to attract more order flow, and use revenue rebates from resulting additional executions to maintain low execution charges for their users.
The large number of SROs, ATSs, and internalizing broker-dealers that currently produce proprietary data or are currently capable of producing it provides further pricing discipline for proprietary data products. Each SRO, ATS, and broker-dealer is currently permitted to produce and sell proprietary data products, and many currently do or have announced plans to do so, including but not limited to the Exchange, NYSE, NYSE MKT, NASDAQ OMX, BATS, and Direct Edge.
The fact that proprietary data from ATSs, internalizing broker-dealers, and vendors can bypass SROs is significant in two respects. First, non-SROs can compete directly with SROs for the production and sale of proprietary data products. By way of example, BATS and NYSE Arca both published proprietary data on the Internet before registering as exchanges. Second, because a single order or transaction report can appear in an SRO proprietary product, a non-SRO proprietary product, or both, the amount of data available via proprietary products is greater in size than the
Those competitive pressures imposed by available alternatives are evident in the Exchange's proposed pricing.
In addition to the competition and price discipline described above, the market for proprietary data products is also highly contestable because market entry is rapid and inexpensive. The history of electronic trading is replete with examples of entrants that swiftly grew into some of the largest electronic trading platforms and proprietary data producers: Archipelago, Bloomberg Tradebook, Island, RediBook, Attain, TrackECN, BATS Trading and Direct Edge. As noted above, BATS launched as an ATS in 2006 and became an exchange in 2008, while Direct Edge began operations in 2007 and obtained exchange status in 2010. As noted above, LavaFlow ECN provides market data to its subscribers at no charge.
In setting the proposed fees, the Exchange considered the competitiveness of the market for proprietary data and all of the implications of that competition. The Exchange believes that it has considered all relevant factors and has not considered irrelevant factors in order to establish fair, reasonable, and not unreasonably discriminatory fees and an equitable allocation of fees among all users. The existence of numerous alternatives to the Exchange's products, including proprietary data from other sources, ensures that the Exchange cannot set unreasonable fees, or fees that are unreasonably discriminatory, when vendors and subscribers can elect these alternatives or choose not to purchase a specific proprietary data product if the attendant fees are not justified by the returns that any particular vendor or data recipient would achieve through the purchase.
No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the proposed rule change.
The foregoing rule change is effective upon filing pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)
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)
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:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Brent J. Fields, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”),
The Exchange proposes to amend the fees for NYSE Order Imbalances to: (1)
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.
The Exchange proposes to (1) amend the fees for NYSE Order Imbalances to establish eligibility requirements for redistribution on a managed non-display basis and to establish an access fee for managed non-display data recipients of NYSE Order Imbalances, and (2) make a non-substantive correction to the Fee Schedule, operative on January 1, 2015.
Non-Display Use of NYSE market data means accessing, processing, or consuming NYSE market data delivered via direct and/or Redistributor
A Redistributor approved for Managed Non-Display Services is required to report to the Exchange on a monthly basis the data recipients that are receiving NYSE Order Imbalances through the Redistributor's Managed Non-Display Service. A data recipient receiving NYSE Order Imbalances through a Redistributor's Managed Non-Display Service does not have any reporting requirements.
Currently, to be approved for Managed Non-Display Services, a Redistributor of the Managed Non-Display Services must be approved under the Exchange's Unit-of-Count policy.
The proposed eligibility requirements for the provision of Managed Non-Display Services would be similar to the eligibility requirements for the Unit-of-Count Policy in that they would require the Redistributor to manage and control the access to NYSE Order Imbalances for data recipients' non-display applications and not allow for further internal distribution or external redistribution of the information by data recipients. In addition, to be eligible to provide Managed Non-Display Services, the Redistributor would be required to (a) host the data recipients' non-display applications in equipment located in the Redistributor's data center and/or hosted space/cage and (b) offer NYSE Order Imbalances in the Redistributor's own messaging formats (rather than using raw NYSE message formats) by reformatting and/or altering NYSE Order Imbalances prior to retransmission without affecting the integrity of NYSE Order Imbalances and without rendering NYSE Order Imbalances inaccurate, unfair, uninformative, fictitious, misleading or discriminatory. The proposed eligibility requirements are similar to data distribution models currently in use and align the Exchange with other markets.
The reporting requirements associated with the Managed Non-Display Service would not change. A Redistributor approved for Managed Non-Display Service would be required to report to NYSE on a monthly basis the data recipients that are receiving NYSE Order Imbalances through the Redistributor's Managed Non-Display Service. A data recipient receiving NYSE Order Imbalances through a Redistributor's Managed Non-Display Service would continue not to have any reporting requirements.
In addition, the Exchange proposes to adopt an Access Fee of $250/month applicable only to data recipients that receive NYSE Order Imbalances from an approved Redistributor of Managed Non-Display Services, operative January 1, 2015. Currently, all data recipients, including recipients of Managed Non-Display Services, are required to pay an Access Fee of $500/month to receive NYSE Order Imbalances. Because the purpose of an access fee is to charge data recipients for access to the Exchange's proprietary market data, the Exchange believes it is appropriate to charge an access fee to all data recipients.
The Exchange also proposes to make a non-substantive amendment to the Fee Schedule to add the word “month” to the Category 3 Non-Display Fee, consistent with the other fees in the Fee Schedule.
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the provisions of Section 6 of the Act,
The Exchange believes that revising the eligibility requirements for Managed Non-Display Services so that the requirements are more closely aligned with the nature of the services being provided is reasonable. The proposed additional requirements for hosting in the Redistributor's data center and for reformatting and/or altering the market data prior to retransmission are also consistent with similar requirements of other markets for the provision of managed data.
The Exchange believes that the proposed Access Fee for Managed Non-Display Services is reasonable, because the data is of value to recipients, and it is reasonable to charge them a lower access fee because they are receiving the data through a Redistributor in a controlled form rather than from the Exchange in raw form. The Exchange believes that the proposed fee directly and appropriately reflects the significant value of using non-display data in a wide range of computer-automated functions relating to both trading and non-trading activities and that the number and range of these functions continue to grow through innovation and technology developments. The NASDAQ and Phlx also both offer managed non-display data solutions and charge access fees for such services.
The fees are also equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because they will apply to all data recipients that choose to subscribe to the feeds.
The Exchange notes that NYSE Order Imbalances is entirely optional. The Exchange is not required to make NYSE Order Imbalances available or to offer any specific pricing alternatives to any customers, nor is any firm required to purchase NYSE Order Imbalances. Firms that do purchase NYSE Order Imbalances do so for the primary goals of using it to increase revenues, reduce expenses, and in some instances compete directly with the Exchange (including for order flow); those firms are able to determine for themselves whether NYSE Order Imbalances or any other similar products are attractively priced or not.
The Exchange notes that broker-dealers are not required to purchase proprietary market data to comply with their best execution obligations.
The decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in
In fact, the legislative history indicates that the Congress intended that the market system `evolve through the interplay of competitive forces as unnecessary regulatory restrictions are removed' and that the SEC wield its regulatory power `in those situations where competition may not be sufficient,' such as in the creation of a `consolidated transactional reporting system.'
As explained below in the Exchange's Statement on Burden on Competition, the Exchange believes that there is substantial evidence of competition in the marketplace for proprietary market data and that the Commission can rely upon such evidence in concluding that the fees established in this filing are the product of competition and therefore satisfy the relevant statutory standards.
As the
For these reasons, the Exchange believes that the proposed fees are reasonable, equitable, and not unfairly discriminatory.
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. An exchange's ability to price its proprietary market data feed products is constrained by actual competition for the sale of proprietary market data products, the joint product nature of exchange platforms, and the existence of alternatives to the Exchange's proprietary data.
The market for proprietary data products is currently competitive and inherently contestable because there is fierce competition for the inputs necessary for the creation of proprietary data and strict pricing discipline for the proprietary products themselves. Numerous exchanges compete with one another for listings and order flow and sales of market data itself, providing ample opportunities for entrepreneurs who wish to compete in any or all of those areas, including producing and distributing their own market data. Proprietary data products are produced and distributed by each individual exchange, as well as other entities, in a vigorously competitive market. Indeed, the U.S. Department of Justice (“DOJ”) (the primary antitrust regulator) has expressly acknowledged the aggressive actual competition among exchanges, including for the sale of proprietary market data. In 2011, the DOJ stated that exchanges “compete head to head to offer real-time equity data products. These data products include the best bid and offer of every exchange and information on each equity trade, including the last sale.”
Moreover, competitive markets for listings, order flow, executions, and transaction reports provide pricing discipline for the inputs of proprietary data products and therefore constrain markets from overpricing proprietary market data. Broker-dealers send their order flow and transaction reports to multiple venues, rather than providing them all to a single venue, which in turn reinforces this competitive constraint. As a 2010 Commission Concept Release noted, the “current market structure can be described as dispersed and complex” with “trading volume . . . dispersed among many highly automated trading centers that compete for order flow in the same stocks” and “trading centers offer[ing] a wide range of services that are designed to attract different types of market participants with varying trading needs.”
If an exchange succeeds in its competition for quotations, order flow, and trade executions, then it earns trading revenues and increases the value of its proprietary market data products because they will contain greater quote and trade information. Conversely, if an exchange is less successful in attracting quotes, order flow, and trade executions, then its market data products may be less desirable to customers using them in support of order routing and trading decisions in light of the diminished content; data products offered by competing venues may become correspondingly more attractive. Thus, competition for quotations, order flow, and trade executions puts significant pressure on an exchange to maintain both execution and data fees at reasonable levels.
In addition, in the case of products that are distributed through market data vendors, such as Bloomberg and Thompson Reuters, the vendors themselves provide additional price discipline for proprietary data products because they control the primary means of access to certain end users. These vendors impose price discipline based upon their business models. For example, vendors that assess a surcharge on data they sell are able to refuse to offer proprietary products that their end users do not or will not purchase in sufficient numbers. Vendors will not elect to make available NYSE Order Imbalances unless their customers request it, and customers will not elect to pay the proposed fees unless NYSE Order Imbalances can provide value by sufficiently increasing revenues or reducing costs in the customer's business in a manner that will offset the fees. All of these factors operate as constraints on pricing proprietary data products.
Transaction execution and proprietary data products are complementary in that market data is both an input and a byproduct of the execution service. In fact, proprietary market data and trade executions are a paradigmatic example of joint products with joint costs. The decision of whether and on which platform to post an order will depend on the attributes of the platforms where the order can be posted, including the execution fees, data availability and quality, and price and distribution of their data products. Without a platform to post quotations, receive orders, and execute trades, exchange data products would not exist.
The costs of producing market data include not only the costs of the data distribution infrastructure, but also the costs of designing, maintaining, and operating the exchange's platform for posting quotes, accepting orders, and executing transactions and the cost of regulating the exchange to ensure its fair operation and maintain investor confidence. The total return that a trading platform earns reflects the
Moreover, an exchange's broker-dealer customers generally view the costs of transaction executions and market data as a unified cost of doing business with the exchange. A broker-dealer will only choose to direct orders to an exchange if the revenue from the transaction exceeds its cost, including the cost of any market data that the broker-dealer chooses to buy in support of its order routing and trading decisions. If the costs of the transaction are not offset by its value, then the broker-dealer may choose instead not to purchase the product and trade away from that exchange. There is substantial evidence of the strong correlation between order flow and market data purchases. For example, in November 2014 more than 80% of the transaction volume on each of NYSE, and the NYSE's affiliates, NYSE Arca, Inc. (“NYSE Arca”) and NYSE MKT LLC (“NYSE MKT”), was executed by market participants that purchased one or more proprietary market data products (the 20 firms were not the same for each market). A supra-competitive increase in the fees for either executions or market data would create a risk of reducing an exchange's revenues from both products.
Other market participants have noted that proprietary market data and trade executions are joint products of a joint platform and have common costs.
Analyzing the cost of market data product production and distribution in isolation from the cost of all of the inputs supporting the creation of market data and market data products will inevitably underestimate the cost of the data and data products because it is impossible to obtain the data inputs to create market data products without a fast, technologically robust, and well-regulated execution system, and system and regulatory costs affect the price of both obtaining the market data itself and creating and distributing market data products. It would be equally misleading, however, to attribute all of an exchange's costs to the market data portion of an exchange's joint products. Rather, all of an exchange's costs are incurred for the unified purposes of attracting order flow, executing and/or routing orders, and generating and selling data about market activity. The total return that an exchange earns reflects the revenues it receives from the joint products and the total costs of the joint products.
As noted above, the level of competition and contestability in the market is evident in the numerous alternative venues that compete for order flow, including 12 equities self-regulatory organization (“SRO”) markets, as well as various forms of ATSs, including dark pools and electronic communication networks (“ECNs”), and internalizing broker-dealers. SRO markets compete to attract order flow and produce transaction reports via trade executions, and two FINRA-regulated Trade Reporting Facilities compete to attract transaction reports from the non-SRO venues.
Competition among trading platforms can be expected to constrain the aggregate return that each platform earns from the sale of its joint products, but different trading platforms may choose from a range of possible, and equally reasonable, pricing strategies as the means of recovering total costs. For example, some platforms may choose to pay rebates to attract orders, charge relatively low prices for market data products (or provide market data products free of charge), and charge relatively high prices for accessing posted liquidity. Other platforms may choose a strategy of paying lower rebates (or no rebates) to attract orders, setting relatively high prices for market data products, and setting relatively low prices for accessing posted liquidity. For example, BATS and Direct Edge, which previously operated as ATSs and obtained exchange status in 2008 and 2010, respectively, have provided certain market data at no charge on their Web sites in order to attract more order flow, and use revenue rebates from resulting additional executions to maintain low execution charges for their users.
The large number of SROs, ATSs, and internalizing broker-dealers that currently produce proprietary data or are currently capable of producing it provides further pricing discipline for proprietary data products. Each SRO, ATS, and broker-dealer is currently permitted to produce and sell proprietary data products, and many currently do or have announced plans to do so, including but not limited to the Exchange, NYSE MKT, NYSE Arca, NASDAQ OMX, BATS, and Direct Edge.
The fact that proprietary data from ATSs, internalizing broker-dealers, and vendors can bypass SROs is significant in two respects. First, non-SROs can compete directly with SROs for the production and sale of proprietary data products. By way of example, BATS and NYSE Arca both published proprietary data on the Internet before registering as exchanges. Second, because a single order or transaction report can appear in an SRO proprietary product, a non-SRO proprietary product, or both, the amount of data available via proprietary products is greater in size than the actual number of orders and transaction reports that exist in the marketplace. With respect to NYSE Order Imbalances, similar products are available from competitors.
Those competitive pressures imposed by available alternatives are evident in the Exchange's proposed pricing, and indeed in the fact that the changes here have the effect of lowering the price for NYSE Order Imbalances.
In addition to the competition and price discipline described above, the market for proprietary data products is also highly contestable because market entry is rapid and inexpensive. The history of electronic trading is replete with examples of entrants that swiftly grew into some of the largest electronic trading platforms and proprietary data producers: Archipelago, Bloomberg Tradebook, Island, RediBook, Attain, TrackECN, BATS Trading and Direct Edge. As noted above, BATS launched as an ATS in 2006 and became an exchange in 2008, while Direct Edge began operations in 2007 and obtained exchange status in 2010. As noted above, LavaFlow ECN provides market data to its subscribers at no charge.
In setting the proposed fees, the Exchange considered the competitiveness of the market for proprietary data and all of the implications of that competition. The Exchange believes that it has considered all relevant factors and has not considered irrelevant factors in order to establish fair, reasonable, and not unreasonably discriminatory fees and an equitable allocation of fees among all users. The existence of numerous alternatives to the Exchange's products, including proprietary data from other sources, ensures that the Exchange cannot set unreasonable fees, or fees that are unreasonably discriminatory, when vendors and subscribers can elect these alternatives or choose not to purchase a specific proprietary data product if the attendant fees are not justified by the returns that any particular vendor or data recipient would achieve through the purchase.
No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the proposed rule change.
The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act
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:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
On November 6, 2014, the International Securities Exchange, LLC (the “Exchange” or the “ISE”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1)
On any Thursday or Friday that is a business day, the Exchange currently may list short term option series in designated option classes that expire at the close of business on each of the next five Fridays that are business days and
The Exchange also currently operates a $2.50 Strike Price Program that permits monthly expiration options in classes admitted to the $2.50 Strike Price Program to trade in $2.50 intervals where the strike price is greater than $25 but less than $50; or between $50 and $100 if the strikes are no more than $10 from the closing price of the underlying stock in its primary market on the preceding day.
With regard to the impact of the proposal on system capacity, the Exchange states that it has analyzed its capacity and represents that it and the Options Price Reporting Authority (“OPRA”) have the necessary systems capacity to handle any potential additional traffic associated with this proposed rule change.
After careful review, the Commission finds that the proposed rule change is consistent with the requirements of the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to a national securities exchange.
In approving this proposal, the Commission notes that the Exchange has represented that it and OPRA have the necessary systems capacity to handle the potential additional traffic associated with this proposed rule change.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”),
The Exchange proposes to amend the fees for NYSE MKT Order Imbalances to establish eligibility requirements for redistribution on a managed non-display basis and an access fee for managed non-display data recipients, operative on January 1, 2015. The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Web site at
In its filing with the Commission, the self-regulatory organization included
The Exchange proposes to establish eligibility requirements for redistribution of NYSE MKT Order Imbalances on a managed non-display basis and to establish an access fee for managed non-display data recipients of NYSE MKT Order Imbalances, operative January 1, 2015.
Non-Display Use of NYSE MKT market data means accessing, processing, or consuming NYSE MKT market data delivered via direct and/or Redistributor
A Redistributor approved for Managed Non-Display Services is required to report to the Exchange on a monthly basis the data recipients that are receiving NYSE MKT Order Imbalances through the Redistributor's Managed Non-Display Service. A data recipient receiving NYSE MKT Order Imbalances through a Redistributor's Managed Non-Display Service does not have any reporting requirements.
Currently, to be approved for Managed Non-Display Services, a Redistributor of the Managed Non-Display Services must be approved under the Exchange's Unit-of-Count policy.
The proposed eligibility requirements for the provision of Managed Non-Display Services would be similar to the eligibility requirements for the Unit-of-Count Policy in that they would require the Redistributor to manage and control the access to NYSE MKT Order Imbalances for data recipients' non-display applications and not allow for further internal distribution or external redistribution of the information by data recipients. In addition, to be eligible to provide Managed Non-Display Services, the Redistributor would be required to (a) host the data recipients' non-display applications in equipment located in the Redistributor's data center and/or hosted space/cage and (b) offer NYSE MKT Order Imbalances in the Redistributor's own messaging formats (rather than using raw NYSE message formats) by reformatting and/or altering NYSE MKT Order Imbalances prior to retransmission without affecting the integrity of NYSE MKT Order Imbalances and without rendering NYSE MKT Order Imbalances inaccurate, unfair, uninformative, fictitious, misleading or discriminatory. The proposed eligibility requirements are similar to data distribution models currently in use and align the Exchange with other markets.
The reporting requirements associated with the Managed Non-Display Service would not change. A Redistributor approved for Managed Non-Display Service would be required to report to the Exchange on a monthly basis the data recipients that are receiving NYSE MKT Order Imbalances through the Redistributor's Managed Non-Display Service. A data recipient receiving NYSE MKT Order Imbalances through a Redistributor's Managed Non-Display Service would continue not to have any reporting requirements.
In addition, the Exchange proposes to adopt an Access Fee of $250/month applicable only to data recipients that receive NYSE MKT Order Imbalances from an approved Redistributor of Managed Non-Display Services, operative January 1, 2015. Currently, all data recipients, including recipients of Managed Non-Display Services, are required to pay an Access Fee of $500/month to receive NYSE MKT Order Imbalances. Because the purpose of an access fee is to charge data recipients for access to the Exchange's proprietary market data, the Exchange believes it is appropriate to charge an access fee to all data recipients.
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the provisions of Section 6 of the Act,
The Exchange believes that revising the eligibility requirements for Managed Non-Display Services so that the requirements are more closely aligned with the nature of the services being provided is reasonable. The proposed additional requirements for hosting in the Redistributor's data center and for reformatting and/or altering the market data prior to retransmission are also consistent with similar requirements of other markets for the provision of managed data.
The Exchange believes that the proposed Access Fee for Managed Non-Display Services is reasonable, because the data is of value to recipients, and it is reasonable to charge them a lower access fee because they are receiving the data through a Redistributor in a controlled form rather than from the Exchange in raw form. The Exchange believes that the proposed fee directly and appropriately reflects the significant value of using non-display data in a wide range of computer-automated functions relating to both trading and non-trading activities and that the number and range of these functions continue to grow through innovation and technology developments. NASDAQ and Phlx also both offer managed non-display data solutions and charge access fees for such services.
The fees are also equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because they will apply to all data recipients that choose to subscribe to the feeds.
The Exchange notes that NYSE MKT Order Imbalances is entirely optional. The Exchange is not required to make NYSE MKT Order Imbalances available or to offer any specific pricing alternatives to any customers, nor is any firm required to purchase NYSE MKT Order Imbalances. Firms that do purchase NYSE MKT Order Imbalances do so for the primary goals of using it to increase revenues, reduce expenses, and in some instances compete directly with the Exchange (including for order flow); those firms are able to determine for themselves whether NYSE MKT Order Imbalances or any other similar products are attractively priced or not.
The Exchange notes that broker-dealers are not required to purchase proprietary market data to comply with their best execution obligations.
The decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in
In fact, the legislative history indicates that the Congress intended that the market system `evolve through the interplay of competitive forces as unnecessary regulatory restrictions are removed' and that the SEC wield its regulatory power `in those situations where competition may not be sufficient,' such as in the creation of a `consolidated transactional reporting system.'
As explained below in the Exchange's Statement on Burden on Competition, the Exchange believes that there is substantial evidence of competition in the marketplace for proprietary market data and that the Commission can rely upon such evidence in concluding that the fees established in this filing are the product of competition and therefore satisfy the relevant statutory standards.
As the
For these reasons, the Exchange believes that the proposed fees are reasonable, equitable, and not unfairly discriminatory.
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. An exchange's ability to price its proprietary market data feed products is constrained by actual competition for the sale of proprietary market data products, the joint product nature of exchange platforms, and the existence of alternatives to the Exchange's proprietary data.
The market for proprietary data products is currently competitive and inherently contestable because there is fierce competition for the inputs necessary for the creation of proprietary data and strict pricing discipline for the proprietary products themselves. Numerous exchanges compete with one another for listings and order flow and sales of market data itself, providing ample opportunities for entrepreneurs who wish to compete in any or all of those areas, including producing and distributing their own market data. Proprietary data products are produced and distributed by each individual exchange, as well as other entities, in a vigorously competitive market. Indeed, the U.S. Department of Justice (“DOJ”) (the primary antitrust regulator) has expressly acknowledged the aggressive actual competition among exchanges, including for the sale of proprietary market data. In 2011, the DOJ stated that exchanges “compete head to head to offer real-time equity data products. These data products include the best bid and offer of every exchange and information on each equity trade, including the last sale.”
Moreover, competitive markets for listings, order flow, executions, and transaction reports provide pricing discipline for the inputs of proprietary data products and therefore constrain markets from overpricing proprietary market data. Broker-dealers send their order flow and transaction reports to multiple venues, rather than providing them all to a single venue, which in turn reinforces this competitive constraint. As a 2010 Commission Concept Release noted, the “current market structure can be described as dispersed and complex” with “trading volume . . . dispersed among many highly automated trading centers that compete for order flow in the same stocks” and “trading centers offer[ing] a wide range of services that are designed to attract different types of market participants with varying trading needs.”
If an exchange succeeds in its competition for quotations, order flow, and trade executions, then it earns trading revenues and increases the value of its proprietary market data products because they will contain greater quote and trade information. Conversely, if an exchange is less successful in attracting quotes, order flow, and trade executions, then its market data products may be less desirable to customers using them in support of order routing and trading decisions in light of the diminished content; data products offered by competing venues may become correspondingly more attractive. Thus, competition for quotations, order flow, and trade executions puts significant pressure on an exchange to maintain both execution and data fees at reasonable levels.
In addition, in the case of products that are distributed through market data vendors, such as Bloomberg and Thompson Reuters, the vendors themselves provide additional price discipline for proprietary data products because they control the primary means of access to certain end users. These vendors impose price discipline based upon their business models. For example, vendors that assess a surcharge on data they sell are able to refuse to offer proprietary products that their end users do not or will not purchase in sufficient numbers. Vendors will not elect to make available NYSE MKT Order Imbalances unless their customers request it, and customers will not elect to pay the proposed fees unless NYSE MKT Order Imbalances can provide value by sufficiently increasing revenues or reducing costs in the customer's business in a manner that will offset the fees. All of these factors operate as constraints on pricing proprietary data products.
Transaction execution and proprietary data products are complementary in that market data is both an input and a byproduct of the execution service. In fact, proprietary market data and trade executions are a paradigmatic example of joint products with joint costs. The decision of whether and on which platform to post an order will depend on the attributes of the platforms where the order can be posted, including the execution fees, data availability and quality, and price and distribution of their data products. Without a platform to post quotations, receive orders, and execute trades, exchange data products would not exist.
The costs of producing market data include not only the costs of the data distribution infrastructure, but also the costs of designing, maintaining, and operating the exchange's platform for posting quotes, accepting orders, and executing transactions and the cost of regulating the exchange to ensure its fair operation and maintain investor confidence. The total return that a trading platform earns reflects the revenues it receives from both products and the joint costs it incurs.
Moreover, an exchange's broker-dealer customers generally view the costs of transaction executions and market data as a unified cost of doing business with the exchange. A broker-dealer will only choose to direct orders to an exchange if the revenue from the transaction exceeds its cost, including the cost of any market data that the broker-dealer chooses to buy in support of its order routing and trading decisions. If the costs of the transaction are not offset by its value, then the broker-dealer may choose instead not to purchase the product and trade away from that exchange. There is substantial evidence of the strong correlation between order flow and market data purchases. For example, in November 2014 more than 80% of the transaction volume on each of NYSE MKT, and the
Other market participants have noted that proprietary market data and trade executions are joint products of a joint platform and have common costs.
Analyzing the cost of market data product production and distribution in isolation from the cost of all of the inputs supporting the creation of market data and market data products will inevitably underestimate the cost of the data and data products because it is impossible to obtain the data inputs to create market data products without a fast, technologically robust, and well-regulated execution system, and system and regulatory costs affect the price of both obtaining the market data itself and creating and distributing market data products. It would be equally misleading, however, to attribute all of an exchange's costs to the market data portion of an exchange's joint products. Rather, all of an exchange's costs are incurred for the unified purposes of attracting order flow, executing and/or routing orders, and generating and selling data about market activity. The total return that an exchange earns reflects the revenues it receives from the joint products and the total costs of the joint products.
As noted above, the level of competition and contestability in the market is evident in the numerous alternative venues that compete for order flow, including 12 equities self-regulatory organization (“SRO”) markets, as well as various forms of ATSs, including dark pools and electronic communication networks (“ECNs”), and internalizing broker-dealers. SRO markets compete to attract order flow and produce transaction reports via trade executions, and two FINRA-regulated Trade Reporting Facilities compete to attract transaction reports from the non-SRO venues.
Competition among trading platforms can be expected to constrain the aggregate return that each platform earns from the sale of its joint products, but different trading platforms may choose from a range of possible, and equally reasonable, pricing strategies as the means of recovering total costs. For example, some platforms may choose to pay rebates to attract orders, charge relatively low prices for market data products (or provide market data products free of charge), and charge relatively high prices for accessing posted liquidity. Other platforms may choose a strategy of paying lower rebates (or no rebates) to attract orders, setting relatively high prices for market data products, and setting relatively low prices for accessing posted liquidity. For example, BATS and Direct Edge, which previously operated as ATSs and obtained exchange status in 2008 and 2010, respectively, have provided certain market data at no charge on their Web sites in order to attract more order flow, and use revenue rebates from resulting additional executions to maintain low execution charges for their users.
The large number of SROs, ATSs, and internalizing broker-dealers that currently produce proprietary data or are currently capable of producing it provides further pricing discipline for proprietary data products. Each SRO, ATS, and broker-dealer is currently permitted to produce and sell proprietary data products, and many currently do or have announced plans to do so, including but not limited to the Exchange, NYSE, NYSE Arca, NASDAQ OMX, BATS, and Direct Edge.
The fact that proprietary data from ATSs, internalizing broker-dealers, and vendors can bypass SROs is significant in two respects. First, non-SROs can compete directly with SROs for the production and sale of proprietary data products. By way of example, BATS and NYSE Arca both published proprietary data on the Internet before registering as exchanges. Second, because a single order or transaction report can appear in an SRO proprietary product, a non-SRO proprietary product, or both, the amount of data available via proprietary products is greater in size than the actual number of orders and transaction reports that exist in the marketplace. With respect to NYSE MKT Order Imbalances, competitors offer similar data.
Those competitive pressures imposed by available alternatives are evident in the Exchange's proposed pricing, and indeed in the fact that the changes here have the effect of lowering the price for NYSE MKT Order Imbalances.
In addition to the competition and price discipline described above, the market for proprietary data products is also highly contestable because market entry is rapid and inexpensive. The history of electronic trading is replete with examples of entrants that swiftly grew into some of the largest electronic trading platforms and proprietary data producers: Archipelago, Bloomberg
In setting the proposed fees, the Exchange considered the competitiveness of the market for proprietary data and all of the implications of that competition. The Exchange believes that it has considered all relevant factors and has not considered irrelevant factors in order to establish fair, reasonable, and not unreasonably discriminatory fees and an equitable allocation of fees among all users. The existence of numerous alternatives to the Exchange's products, including proprietary data from other sources, ensures that the Exchange cannot set unreasonable fees, or fees that are unreasonably discriminatory, when vendors and subscribers can elect these alternatives or choose not to purchase a specific proprietary data product if the attendant fees are not justified by the returns that any particular vendor or data recipient would achieve through the purchase.
No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the proposed rule change.
The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act
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:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”),
The ISE proposes to amend its rules to permit a greater number of complex orders to leg into the regular market. The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Web site (
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 these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The self-regulatory organization has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
The purpose of this proposed rule change is to permit a greater number of complex orders to leg into the regular market. The Exchange currently
Despite the limitation adopted in the Legging Filing, certain market participants continued to use atypical multi-leg strategies to trade with multiple quotes from a single market maker that caused single leg market makers to trade far more than their risk limits allowed. To minimize this risk, the Exchange recently amended its rules to prevent these atypical multi-leg strategies from legging into the regular market. These atypical multi-leg strategies are complex orders with two option legs where both legs are buying or both legs are selling and both legs are calls or both legs are puts, and complex orders with three options legs, where all legs are buying or all legs are selling regardless of whether the option is a call or a put (“Non-Standard Strategies”).
With rules limiting Non-Standard Strategies from legging into the regular market firmly in place, the risk of market makers trading more than the limitations they have set has greatly diminished. The Exchange therefore proposes to amend Rule 722 to allow complex orders with two, three or four legs (determined by the Exchange on a class basis) to leg into the regular market.
The proposed rule change will allow the Exchange to permit complex order strategies with three or four legs to leg into the regular market as long as all legs are not buying or all legs are not selling. To ensure that such orders do not leg into the regular market, the Exchange proposes to amend Rule 722(b)(3)(ii)(B) to extend the current limitation found in that rule to complex orders with 3 or 4 legs, where all legs are buying or all legs are selling regardless of whether the option is a call or a put. Such orders will only be permitted to trade against other complex orders in the complex order book, as is the case today. The Exchange expects this proposal to loosen the current restriction to result in a number of other legitimate complex order strategies to also be executed on the Exchange.
The Exchange previously permitted complex orders that are the subject of this proposal to leg into the regular market and only recently limited that activity to better address the risk posed to market makers. The market maker risk that the Exchange sought to address in the Legging Filing was further strengthened when ISE amended its rules to prevent Non-Standard Strategies from legging into the regular market. With this proposed rule change, complex order strategies, such as Box Spreads and Condors, for example, will once again be permitted to leg into the regular market and thereby increase the likelihood that these orders are executed on the Exchange rather than on a competing market without posing any unintended risk to market makers. In the Legging Filing, the Exchange noted that over 85% of all complex orders have only two legs. The Exchange notes that current data continues to support that assertion in that even today, over 85% of all complex orders have only two legs and that very few complex orders are entered with more than three legs. The proposed rule change will therefore impact only a small portion of all complex orders traded on the Exchange. These orders, however, are comprised of legitimate trading strategies that have an economic purpose and are not submitted as means to bypass a market maker's risk setting.
The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act
The Exchange believes it is reasonable to permit complex orders that are subject of this rule change to leg into the regular market. ISE has codified into its rules the specific complex order strategies that pose the greatest amount of risk to market makers and therefore, the Exchange believes the proposed rule change to permit legitimate multi-legged complex orders to interact with the regular market will promote just and equitable principles of trade. The proposed rule change will facilitate the
The proposed rule change does not impose any burden on competition. The proposed change to amend the restriction against complex order strategies, such as Box Spreads and Condors, from legging into the regular market will allow a greater number of complex orders to be executed on the Exchange without adversely impacting risk to market makers that are quoting in the regular market.
The Exchange has not solicited, and does not intend to solicit, comments on this proposed rule change. The Exchange has not received any unsolicited written comments from members or other interested parties.
Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not: (i) Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public interest; (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii) become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) 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.
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:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an Email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Brent J. Fields, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1)
The Exchange proposes to amend Rule 123C to specify that Exchange systems may close one or more securities electronically if a Designated Market Maker (“DMM”) registered in a security or securities cannot facilitate the close of trading as required by Exchange rules. The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Web site at
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.
The Exchange proposes to amend Rule 123C to specify that Exchange systems may close one or more securities electronically if a Designated Market Maker registered in a security or securities cannot facilitate the close of trading as required by Exchange rules.
Rule 123C specifies the procedures to be followed at the close of trading on the Exchange, including procedures for the execution of closing interest,
The Exchange proposes to amend Rule 123C.10 to provide that, if a DMM cannot facilitate the close of trading for one or more securities for which the DMM is registered, the Exchange would close those securities electronically.
As proposed, the closing price of a security closed by the Exchange would not be greater than or less than the last sale price on the Exchange (the “Reference Price”) by an amount within the Closing Numerical Guidelines set forth below:
The proposed numerical guidelines are the same as those currently utilized in determining whether an execution qualifies as clearly erroneous under Rule 128.
Further, the Exchange proposes to amend Rule 123C.10 to specify the eligible interest to be considered in an Exchange electronic close. Specifically, as proposed, no manually-entered Floor interest would participate in an Exchange electronic close, and if previously entered, would be ignored.
The proposed rule would also specify that the provisions of Rule 123C(9)(a)(1) and 123C(9)(b) would be suspended if the Exchange closes a security electronically. Rule 123C(9)(a)(1) permits the Exchange, on a security-by-security basis, to temporarily suspend the hours of operation under Rule 52 so that offsetting interest may be solicited from both on-Floor and off-Floor participants and entered after 4:00 p.m. ET to reduce the size of the imbalance. Rule 123C(9)(b) specifies that only the DMM may request the temporary suspensions available under Rule 123C(9)(a). As proposed, if the Exchange closes a security electronically, the assigned DMM would not have the authority to invoke Rule 123C(9)(a)(1).
Similarly, the proposed rule would specify that only the Exchange would be able to invoke Rule 123C(9)(a)(2) if the Exchange closes a security electronically. Rule 123C(9)(a)(2) permits temporary suspensions of the prohibition on the cancellation or reduction of a Market on Close (“MOC”)/Limit on Close (“LOC”) order after 3:58 p.m. where there is a legitimate error in such an order and execution of the order would cause significant price dislocation at the close. Only the assigned DMM can request relief under Rule 123C(9)(a)(2). Under the proposed rule, in an electronic close by the Exchange, Rule 123C(9)(a)(2) would be in effect but the assigned DMM would not have authority to temporarily suspend cancellation; only
Because of the technology changes associated with the proposed rule change, the Exchange proposes to announce the implementation date via Trader Update.
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act,
The Exchange believes that the proposed amendment to Rule 123C.10 to provide that closings effectuated by the Exchange would be within a proposed numerical guideline would remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market because having such guidelines provides transparency regarding the range of potential prices that a security may close in such scenario. The Exchange further believes that the proposed numerical guidelines, which are based on existing guidelines for clearly erroneous executions, would remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a fair and orderly market because in the absence of a DMM supplying liquidity, the proposed guidelines would reduce the possibility for closing prices to not [sic] be executed at potentially erroneous prices, thereby protecting investors and the public. Similarly, the Exchange believes that excluding interest eligible for the close that would cause an execution to occur outside the proposed numerical guidelines, even if such interest would otherwise be required to be included in a close effectuated by a DMM, and permitting the Exchange to cancel or reduce an MOC/LOC order after 3:58 p.m. where there is a legitimate error and execution of the order would cause significant price dislocation at the close, would remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a fair and orderly market because it would assure that the Exchange could effectuate the close within the proposed specified price ranges. The proposed rule therefore promotes just and equitable principles of trade because it provides transparency to entering firms of whether interest would be eligible to participate in a closing transaction effectuated by the Exchange.
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The proposed rule change is not intended to address competitive issues but rather enable the Exchange to close trading where circumstances would prevent a DMM from facilitating a close.
No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the proposed rule change.
The Exchange has filed the proposed rule change pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act
A proposed rule change filed under Rule 19b-4(f)(6)
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)
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:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”),
The Exchange proposes to modify Section VII entitled “Other Member Fees” of the Phlx Pricing Schedule (“Pricing Schedule”). Specifically, the Exchange proposes to amend the Port Fees in Section VII of the Pricing Schedule in order to increase the Order Entry Port Fee, establish a CTI Port Fee, and delete the Real-Time Risk Management Fee.
While the changes proposed herein are effective upon filing, the Exchange has designated that the amendments be operative on January 2, 2015.
The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Web site at
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.
The purpose of this filing is to amend the Port Fees in Section VII of the Pricing Schedule in order to increase the Order Entry Port Fee, establish a CTI Port Fee, and remove the Real-Time Risk Management Fee.
Today, all Port Fees on the Exchange are located in subsection B of Section VII of the Pricing Schedule. These Port Fees include Order Entry Port Fees, Real-time Risk Management Fees, and Active SQF Port Fees, which are not amended by this proposal. Each of the amended fees is discussed below.
The Order Entry Port Fee is a connectivity fee related to routing orders to the Exchange via an external order entry port. Phlx members access the Exchange's network through order entry ports. A Phlx member may have more than one order entry port. Today, the Exchange assesses members an Order Entry Port Fee of $550 per month, per mnemonic.
The Exchange proposes to increase the Order Entry Port Fee of $550 per month, per mnemonic to $600 per month, per mnemonic, as described below. This is exactly the same as a rule change filed by NASDAQ Options Market (“NOM”) proposing to assess $600 for Order Entry Port Fees as of January 2, 2015.
The Exchange is eliminating the Real-time Risk Management Fee from subsection B of Section VII of the Pricing Schedule, entitled “Port Fees.” The proposal to delete the Real-Time Risk Management Fee results in a price reduction to member organizations and members (clearing firms,
The Real-time Risk Management Fee was established more than a decade ago to assess a fee to members and member organizations that receive electronic option trading information on-line from the Exchange. The purpose of the fee was to provide members and member organizations (
The Exchange now proposes to establish a CTI Port Fee that is $600 per port, per month for each of the first 5 CTI ports, and $100 per port for each port thereafter. The Exchange proposes to charge a smaller amount for the subsequent ports in order to continue to encourage use of ports on the Exchange.
CTI offers real-time clearing trade updates. A real-time clearing trade update is a message that is sent to a member after an execution has occurred and contains trade details. The message containing the trade details is also simultaneously sent to The Options Clearing Corporation. The trade messages are routed to a member's connection containing certain information. The administrative and market event messages include, but are not limited to: System event messages to communicate operational-related events; options directory messages to relay basic option symbol and contract information for options traded on the Exchange; complex strategy messages to relay information for those strategies traded on the Exchange; trading action messages to inform market participants when a specific option or strategy is halted or released for trading on the Exchange; and an indicator which distinguishes electronic and non-electronically delivered orders. This information will be available to members on a real-time basis.
The Exchange notes that the CTI Port Fee is currently available on NOM at $550 per port, per month.
By increasing the Order Entry Port Fee and establishing a new CTI Port Fee,
The Exchange believes that its proposal to amend the Pricing Schedule is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act
The Exchange believes that eliminating the Real-Time Risk Management Fee and proposing a new CTI Port Fee on the Exchange
As with other port fees in subsection B of Section VII of the Pricing Schedule, the CTI Port Fees reflect a portion of the costs that the Exchange bears with respect to offering and maintaining the CTI ports. The CTI Port Fees are reasonable because they enable the Exchange to offset, in part, its connectivity costs associated with making such ports available, including costs based on gateway software and hardware enhancements and resources dedicated to gateway development, quality assurance, and support. Charging less for additional fees is reasonable to continue to recoup costs while encouraging members to connect to the Exchange.
The Exchange believes that assessing CTI Port Fees for the CTI ports at $600 per port per month for each of the first 5 CTI ports, and $100 per port for each port thereafter, is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because the Exchange will assess the same fees for all CTI ports to all members.
The Exchange believes that continuing the Order Entry Port Fee at $600 per month, per mnemonic on the Exchange is reasonable because it will allow the Exchange to continue to recoup fees associated with offering the Order Entry Port. As with other port fees in subsection B of Section VII of the Pricing Schedule, including the CTI Port Fee, the Order Entry Port Fee reflects a portion of the costs that the Exchange bears with respect to offering and maintaining the Order Entry Ports. The Order Entry Port Fees are reasonable because they enable the Exchange to offset, in part, its connectivity costs associated with making such ports available, including costs based on gateway software and hardware enhancements and resources dedicated to gateway development, quality assurance, and support.
The Exchange believes that Order Entry Fees for the Order Entry Ports at $600 per month, per mnemonic is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because the Exchange will assess the same fees for all Order Entry Ports to all members.
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The Exchange believes the proposed Order Entry Fees and CTI Port Fees are fair and equitable, and therefore, will not unduly burden any particular group of market participants trading on the Exchange. The Exchange's proposal to adopt CTI Port and continue Order Entry Fees would be applied in a uniform manner to all Exchange members. The proposed fees are designed to ensure a fair and reasonable use of Exchange resources by allowing the Exchange to recoup a certain portion of connectivity costs, while continuing to offer connectivity at competitive rates to Exchange members.
The Exchange will not assess the Real-Time Risk Management Fee with respect to any member.
No written comments were either solicited or received.
The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act.
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:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Brent J. Fields, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1)
The Exchange proposes to amend its Price List to eliminate transaction fees for Midpoint Passive Liquidity (“MPL”) Orders that remove liquidity from the Exchange and that are designated with a “retail” modifier as defined in Rule 13. The Exchange proposes to implement the fee change effective January 2, 2015. The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Web site at
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.
The Exchange proposes to amend its Price List to eliminate transaction fees for MPL Orders that remove liquidity from the Exchange and that are designated with a “retail” modifier as defined in Rule 13. The Exchange proposes to implement the fee change effective January 2, 2015.
For securities priced $1.00 or greater, the Exchange currently charges a fee of $0.0025 per share per transaction for all MPL Orders
To be eligible for the proposed pricing for MPL Orders, an MPL Order would need to meet the requirements to be designated as “retail” pursuant to Rule 13. An order designated as “retail” under Rule 13 is an agency or riskless principal order that meets the criteria of Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc. Rule 5320.03 and that (1) originates from a natural person and (2) is submitted to the Exchange by a member organization, provided that no change is made to the terms of the order with respect to price or side of market and the order does not originate from a trading algorithm or any other computerized methodology.
To submit an order with a “retail” modifier, a member or member organization must submit an attestation, in a form prescribed by the Exchange, that substantially all orders submitted as “retail” will qualify as such. Further, Rule 13 requires a member organization to have written policies and procedures reasonably designed to assure that it will only designate orders as “retail” if all requirements are met.
The Exchange proposes to retain the fee for MPL Orders (including Floor broker MPL Orders) that remove liquidity from the Exchange but that are not designated with a “retail” modifier at the current rates. The proposed amended Price List would distinguish MPL Orders that remove liquidity and that are designated as “retail” under Rule 13, which would not be charged a fee, from MPL Orders that remove liquidity and that are not designated as “retail” under Rule 13, and which would continue to be charged the existing fee for MPL Orders that take liquidity. The Exchange proposes to make comparable amendments to the Price List relating to pricing applicable to Floor broker executions of MPL Orders.
The proposed change is not otherwise intended to address any other issues, and the Exchange is not aware of any problems that members and member organizations would have in complying with the proposed change.
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act,
The Exchange believes that removing a fee for MPL Orders that remove liquidity from the Exchange and that are designated as “retail” is reasonable because it will encourage the submission of orders that meet the requirements to be designated as “retail” to the Exchange, thus enhancing order execution opportunities for all participants, but specifically retail investors. The “retail” modifier under Rule 13 along with its pricing is designed to incentivize the submission of additional retail order flow to a public market like the Exchange.
Finally, the Exchange notes that while the proposed price change would treat retail order flow differently from order flow submitted by other market participants, such segmentation would not be inconsistent with Section 6(b)(5) of the Act,
The proposed change is also equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because the ability to designate MPL Orders as “retail” is available equally to all similarly situated members and member organizations that submit qualifying orders and satisfy the other related, existing requirements.
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.
In accordance with Section 6(b)(8) of the Act,
Finally, the Exchange notes that it operates in a highly competitive market in which market participants can readily favor competing venues if they deem fee levels at a particular venue to be excessive or rebate opportunities available at other venues to be more favorable. In such an environment, the Exchange must continually adjust its fees and rebates to remain competitive with other exchanges and with alternative trading systems that have been exempted from compliance with the statutory standards applicable to exchanges. 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 believes that the degree to which fee changes in this market may impose any burden on competition is extremely limited. As a result of all of these considerations, the Exchange does not believe that the proposed changes will impair the ability of member organizations or competing order execution venues to maintain their competitive standing in the financial markets.
No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the proposed rule change.
The foregoing rule change is effective upon filing pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)
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
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:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Brent J. Fields, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
U.S. Small Business Administration.
Call for Early Stage Fund Managers.
This call for proposals (“Call”) invites experienced early stage fund managers to submit the preliminary materials discussed in Section II below, in the form of the Small Business Investment Company (“SBIC”) Management Assessment Questionnaire (“MAQ”), for consideration by the Small Business Administration (“SBA”) to be licensed as Early Stage Small Business Investment Companies. Licensed Early Stage SBICs may receive SBA-guaranteed debenture leverage of up to 100 percent of their Regulatory Capital, up to a maximum of $50 million. However, Early Stage SBICs may request less than 100 percent of their Regulatory Capital. Importantly, Early Stage SBICs must invest at least 50% of their investment dollars in early stage small businesses. For the purposes of this initiative, an “early stage” business is one that has never achieved positive cash flow from operations in any fiscal year. By licensing and providing SBA guaranteed leverage to Early Stage SBICs, SBA seeks to expand entrepreneurs' access to capital and encourage innovation as part of President Obama's Start-Up America Initiative launched on January 31, 2011. More information on the Early Stage SBIC Initiative and the regulations governing these SBICs may be found at
The following table provides the key milestones for the Early Stage SBIC Initiative.
Visit
SBA invites early stage fund managers to submit the preliminary materials, as discussed in Section II below, in the form of a Management Assessment Questionnaire (“MAQ”) for the formation and management of an Early Stage SBIC. In 2012, SBA introduced the Early Stage Initiative. Early Stage SBICs represent a new sub-category of SBICs that will focus on making investments in early stage small businesses. Go to
The first required submission in the Early Stage Licensing process is SBA's MAQ. The MAQ consists of two forms that cover qualitative and quantitative information on the management team, the proposed strategy for the SBIC, the principals' investment track record, and the proposed fund structure and economics. The MAQ consists of SBA Form 2181 and Exhibits A-F of SBA Form 2182.
Should SBA issue you a “Green Light letter,” you must submit the SBIC License Application, consisting of SBA Forms 2181, 2182 and 2183 (each of SBA Forms 2181 and 2182 updated to reflect any changes), for the final licensing phase. Exhibit O in SBA Form 2183 includes the fund's limited partnership agreement (“LPA”). Applicants should review this notice for special instructions associated with the LPA for Early Stage SBICs.
There are four stages in SBA's Early Stage Licensing Process: A) Call Period; B) Initial Review; C) Applicant Fundraising and Document Preparation; and D) Licensing. Each of these stages is discussed below.
1. Submit MAQ. SBA must receive your completed MAQ no later than the date and time specified under the Dates section of this notice. SBA will send a confirmation that it has received your MAQ within three (3) business days of your submission. If you have not fully completed all sections of the MAQ or provided sufficient information to allow SBA to evaluate your management team, you may be ineligible for this call period. If so, SBA will notify you by email.
3
1. SBA encourages applicants to adhere to the Model LPA to the maximum extent possible. Although SBA does not prohibit changes to those Model LPA provisions that do not appear in Bold Arial type, such changes must be explained in a narrative accompanying the applicant's limited partnership agreement. The entire agreement is subject to SBA's approval.
2. Conditions or restrictions on the ability of the general partner to call private capital commitments are limited to those permitted by the Model LPA.
3. Withdrawal rights are limited to those permitted by the Model LPA.
4. Applicants must adhere to SBA's management fee policies available at
5. The designation of fund expenses and expenses to be paid out of the management fee must be consistent with SBIC program regulations (see 13 CFR 107.520).
a. Organizational costs, expenses incurred in applying for a license and forming the SBIC and its entity general partner (but not its parent fund or any other affiliate), are considered a partnership expense. Organizational expenses typically include items such as the licensing fee, cost of legal and other professional and consulting services, travel and other fundraising expenses, costs of preparing, printing and distributing the private placement memorandum or other offering materials, and other related expenses such as telephone and supply costs. SBA strongly encourages applicants to include in the LPA a reasonable cap on the total organizational costs to be paid by the applicant. Costs that SBA deems excessive can be paid by an affiliate of the applicant or deducted from the applicant's Regulatory Capital prior to licensing (Regulatory Capital must still be at least $20 million after the deduction).
b. Unreimbursed expenses on investments in small businesses that do not close may be designated as a partnership expense but must be capped at a reasonable level.
6. Right of limited partners to remove general partner—Provisions allowing removal of the general partner without cause (“no-fault divorce” provisions) are permitted only after the Early Stage SBIC has repaid all outstanding leverage and any other amounts payable to SBA and has surrendered its SBIC license.
7. Any amendments to the limited partnership agreement required by SBA must be executed before licensing. Any amendments initiated by the applicant during the licensing process must be submitted to SBA in draft form as early as possible. SBA will not consider amendments to an Early Stage SBIC's LPA for a minimum of six months after licensing.
1. Applicant cannot be a BDC or other public entity or a subsidiary of any such entity.
2. All provisions governing the operation of the SBIC must be included in the limited partnership agreement. A side letter between the applicant (or its general partner) and an investor may supplement the limited partnership agreement but may not supersede it. In the event of a conflict between the limited partnership agreement and the side letter, the limited partnership agreement shall control. If an investor requests a side letter provision that is of general interest to all investors (
3. Applicant must adopt
4. Drop-down SBICs
a. The drop-down structure should be used only when it has a clear business purpose:
i. Example 1—Parent fund has already raised capital and begun operating and wants to commit a portion of its capital to an Early Stage SBIC.
ii. Example 2—Substantial capital will be retained for investment at the parent level (SBA suggests that managers consider the alternative of structuring a non-SBIC fund side by side with the SBIC).
b. Drop-down funds must have one parent fund only and the parent fund must be a U.S. entity.
c. Parent must qualify as a traditional investment company based on established SBA precedent.
d. Parent must disclose the identity of all of its investors.
e. All of the investors in the parent fund (the SBIC's “Class A” limited partner) must agree to be “Class B” limited partners of the SBIC with an obligation to fund the Early Stage SBIC capital calls if the Class A limited partner does not. The obligation of the Class B limited partners to the Early Stage SBIC is reduced dollar for dollar as the parent fund contributes capital to the SBIC. The Model LPA contains required provisions for drop-down funds.
f. The Class B limited partners' commitments to the SBIC applicant must be expressed as a specific dollar amount (not just as the “proportionate share” of parent fund's commitment).
g. The total dollar amount of Class B commitments must be equal to the Class A limited partner's unfunded commitment to the SBIC. SBA will not require Class B commitments if the SBIC's Regulatory Capital will not include any unfunded commitments from the Class A limited partner.
1. Capital commitments from limited partners must be made directly to the SBIC (and its parent fund, in the case of a drop-down) with no intermediaries involved.
2. The Early Stage SBIC applicant must have the unconditional ability to legally enforce collection of each capital commitment.
3. Capital Certificate. Capital commitments must be documented in the capital certificate (Exhibit K of SBA Form 2183) and comply with the following:
a. A signed Capital Certificate must be submitted with the license application.
b. SBA will permit only the sole following condition on private capital commitments: The receipt of an Early Stage SBIC license.
c. Individual investors must list primary residence address, not a business address.
d. Street addresses are required (no P.O. Box addresses).
4. A dual commitment may be obtained to back up the commitment of any direct investor in the SBIC who is not an Institutional Investor.
5. Capital commitments by the principals, general partner, or their affiliates must be payable in cash when called (cannot be satisfied with notes or management fee waivers).
1. All principals must:
a. Hold direct ownership interests in and be the direct individual managers of the general partner, with no intervening entities.
b. Receive carried interest directly from the general partner; for drop-down SBICs, carried interest may be received from the parent fund's general partner.
2. A maximum of 25% of the carried interest may be allocated to non-principals.
3. Any provision to remove or terminate a principal must be spelled out within the general partner's organizational document and must not be tied to events occurring under other agreements (
1. Power to remove or terminate other principals.
2. Power to change the composition of the Early Stage SBIC's investment committee.
V. Early Stage SBIC Licensing Evaluation Criteria.
1
2
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice and request for comments.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, FAA invites public comments about our intention to request the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approval to renew an information collection. The
Written comments should be submitted by February 11, 2015.
Interested persons are invited to submit written comments on the proposed information collection to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget. Comments should be addressed to the attention of the Desk Officer, Department of Transportation/FAA, and sent via electronic mail to
Public Comments Invited: You are asked to comment on any aspect of this information collection, including (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for FAA's performance; (b) the accuracy of the estimated burden; (c) ways for FAA to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information collection; and (d) ways that the burden could be minimized without reducing the quality of the collected information. The agency will summarize and/or include your comments in the request for OMB's clearance of this information collection.
Kathy DePaepe at (405) 954-9362, or by email at:
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Monthly Notice of PFC Approvals and Disapprovals. In December 2014, there were six applications approved. This notice also includes information on one application, approved in October 2014, inadvertently left off the October 2014 notice. Additionally, 17 approved amendments to previously approved applications are listed.
The FAA publishes a monthly notice, as appropriate, of PFC approvals and disapprovals under the provisions of the Aviation Safety and Capacity Expansion Act of 1990 (Title IX of the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990) (Pub. L. 101-508) and Part 158 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 158). This notice is published pursuant to paragraph d of § 158.29.
Terminal building renovations, phase 2.
PFC application costs.
Priscilla Scott, New England Regional Airports Division, (781) 238-7614.
Tommy DuPree, Memphis Airports District Office, (901) 322-8182.
Terminal road, phase 1.
Access control/EOC.
Terminal frontage improvements, phase 2.
Passenger loading bridge—gate 6.
Baggage claim system replacement.
PFC consultant/development costs.
Perimeter security fence.
PFC administrative costs.
Cynthia Wills, Memphis Airports District Office, (901) 322-8190.
Michael Brown, Chicago Airports District Office, (847) 294-7195.
Rehabilitate runway 15R/33L.
Rehabilitation of north Alpha and north Bravo taxiways.
Runway 22R safety area improvements and replacement of 22R engineered materials arresting system bed.
Checked baggage inspection systems enhancements.
Mitigation sound insulation program.
Priscilla Scott, New England Regional Airports Division, (781) 238-7614.
Conduct environmental assessment (airfield geometry/reconfiguration).
Conduct environmental assessment (terminal area and east side improvements).
Acquire snow removal equipment (blower, plow, and broom).
PFC administration fees.
Jesse Lyman, Denver Airports District Office, (303) 342-1262.
Andy Velayos, Louisiana/New Mexico Airports Development Office, (817) 222-5647.
The Department of the Treasury will submit the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and clearance in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13, on or after the date of publication of this notice.
Comments should be received on or before February 11, 2015 to be assured of consideration.
Send comments regarding the burden estimate, or any other aspect of the information collection, including suggestions for reducing the burden, to (1) Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, Attention: Desk Officer for Treasury, New Executive Office Building, Room 10235, Washington, DC 20503, or email at
Copies of the submission may be obtained by emailing