[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 118 (Wednesday, June 23, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 32997-33001]
[FR Doc No: 2021-13098]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-92190; File No. SR-ISE-2021-13]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Nasdaq ISE, LLC; Notice of Filing
and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Amend ISE's
Pricing Schedule at Options 7, Section 3, ``Regular Order Fees and
Rebates'' and Section 4, ``Complex Order Fees and Rebates''

June 16, 2021.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that
on June 8, 2021, Nasdaq ISE, LLC (``ISE'' or ``Exchange'') filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission (``SEC'' or ``Commission'') the
proposed rule change as described in Items I, II, and III, below, which
Items have been prepared by the Exchange. The Commission is publishing
this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change from
interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange proposes to amend ISE's Pricing Schedule at Options 7,
Section 3, ``Regular Order Fees and Rebates'' and Section 4, ``Complex
Order Fees and Rebates.''
    The Exchange originally filed the proposed pricing change on June
1, 2021 (SR-ISE-2021-12). On June 8, 2021, the Exchange withdrew that
filing and submitted this filing.
    The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's
website at https://listingcenter.nasdaq.com/rulebook/ise/rules, at the
principal office of the Exchange, and at the Commission's Public
Reference Room.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to amend ISE's Pricing Schedule at Options 7,
Section 3, ``Regular Order Fees and Rebates'' and Section 4, ``Complex
Order Fees and Rebates.'' Each change is described below.
Options 7, Section 3 Regular Order Fees and Rebates
    Today, the Exchange assesses a Maker Fee of $0.18 per contract in
Select Symbols \3\ for Market Maker,\4\ Non-Nasdaq ISE Market Maker
(FarMM),\5\ Firm Proprietary \6\/Broker-Dealer,\7\ and Professional
Customer \8\ orders. Priority Customer \9\ orders are not assessed a
Select Symbol Maker Fee.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ ``Select Symbols'' are options overlying all symbols listed
on the Nasdaq ISE that are in the Penny Interval Program. See
Options 7, Section 1.
    \4\ This fee applies to Market Maker orders sent to the Exchange
by Electronic Access Members. Market Makers that qualify for Market
Maker Plus will not pay this fee if they meet the applicable tier
thresholds set forth in Options 7, Section 3. Market Makers will
instead be assessed fees or rebates based on the applicable tier for
which they qualify. See notes 5 and 8 within Options 7, Section 3.
Market Maker Plus for Select Symbols is not being amended. The term
``Market Makers'' refers to ``Competitive Market Makers'' and
``Primary Market Makers'' collectively. See Options 1, Section
1(a)(21).
    \5\ A ``Non-Nasdaq ISE Market Maker'' is a market maker as
defined in Section 3(a)(38) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,
as amended, registered in the same options class on another options
exchange. See Options 7, Section 1.
    \6\ A ``Firm Proprietary'' order is an order submitted by a
member for its own proprietary account. See Options 7, Section 1.
    \7\ A ``Broker-Dealer'' order is an order submitted by a member
for a broker-dealer account that is not its own proprietary account.
See Options 7, Section 1.
    \8\ A ``Professional Customer'' is a person or entity that is
not a broker/dealer and is not a Priority Customer. See Options 7,
Section 1.
    \9\ A ``Priority Customer'' is a person or entity that is not a
broker/dealer in securities, and does not place more than 390 orders
in listed options per day on average during a calendar month for its
own beneficial account(s), as defined in ISE Options 1, Section
1(a)(37). Unless otherwise noted, when used in the Pricing Schedule
the term ``Priority Customer'' includes ``Retail.'' A ``Retail''
order is a Priority Customer order that originates from a natural
person, 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. See Options 7, Section 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Further, today, pursuant to Options 7, Section 3, note 10, a Market
Maker is not charged a fee or paid a rebate when trading against non-
Priority Customer Complex Orders \10\ that leg into the regular \11\
order book. Also, today, pursuant to Options 7, Section 3, note 11, a
Market Maker, FarMM, Firm Proprietary/Broker Dealer, and Professional
Customer are assessed a $0.25 per contract fee, instead of the
applicable fee or rebate, when trading against Priority Customer
Complex Orders that leg into the regular order book. Today, Market
Makers that qualify for Market Maker Plus in Select Symbols pay a $0.15
per contract fee in the symbols for which they qualify for Market Maker
Plus when trading against Priority Customer Complex Orders of less than
50 contracts in Select Symbols that leg into the regular order book.
Further, Market Makers that qualify for Market Maker Plus in Select
Symbols do not pay any fee nor receive any rebate in the symbols for
which they qualify for Market Maker Plus when trading against Priority
Customer Complex Orders of 50 contracts or more in Select Symbols that
leg into the regular order book.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ A ``Complex Order'' is any order involving the simultaneous
purchase and/or sale of two or more different options series in the
same underlying security, as provided in Nasdaq ISE Options 3,
Section 14, as well as Stock-Option Orders. See Options 7, Section
1.
    \11\ A ``Regular Order'' is an order that consists of only a
single option series and is not submitted with a stock leg. See
Options 7, Section 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange proposes to remove rule text from Options 7, Section
3, note 11, which provides that Market Makers that qualify for Market
Maker Plus in Select Symbols will pay a $0.15 per contract fee in
symbols for which they

qualify for Market Maker Plus when trading against Priority Customer
Complex Orders of less than 50 contracts in Select Symbols that leg
into the regular order book. Additionally, the Exchange proposes to
modify the remainder of note 11 to provide, ``Market Makers that
qualify for Market Maker Plus in Select Symbols will not pay this fee
nor receive any rebate in symbols for which they qualify for Market
Maker Plus when trading against Priority Customer Complex Orders leg
into the regular order book.''
    With the proposed amendments to note 11 of Options 7, Section 3, a
Market Maker that qualifies for Market Maker Plus when trading against
Priority Customer Complex Orders leg into the regular order book would
no longer pay a $0.15 per contract fee, rather, the Market Maker would
pay no fee, nor receive any rebate similar to the manner in which
Market Makers are priced today for orders of 50 contracts or more in
Select Symbols, when those Market Makers qualify for Market Maker Plus
and trade against Priority Customer Complex Orders leg into the regular
order book. This proposal would align pricing for Market Makers that
qualify for Market Maker Plus when trading against Priority Customer
Complex Orders leg into the regular order book, irrespective of the
size of the order. Market Makers that do not qualify for Market Maker
Plus would continue to pay a $0.25 per contract fee when trading
against Priority Customer Complex Orders that leg into the regular
order book similar to other market participants.
    The Exchange believes this pricing will continue to incentivize
Market Makers to qualify for Market Maker Plus in order to earn the
associated rebates for Market Maker Plus and also pay no fees when
trading against Priority Customer Complex Orders leg into the regular
order book in Select Symbols.
    The Exchange also proposes to make a non-substantive amendment to
capitalize the term ``Complex Order'' in current note 10 of Options 7,
Section 3.
Options 7, Section 4, Complex Order Fees and Rebates
    Currently, Options 7, Section 4 provides a fee structure for
Complex Orders that provides rebates to Priority Customer Complex
Orders in order to encourage Members to bring that order flow to the
Exchange. Specifically, Priority Customer Complex Orders are provided
rebates in Select Symbols and Non-Select Symbols \12\ (other than NDX,
NQX, and MNX as noted within note 4 of Options 7, Section 4) based on
Priority Customer average daily volume (``ADV'').\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ ``Non-Select Symbols'' are options overlying all symbols
excluding Select Symbols. See Options 7, Section 1.
    \13\ See tiered rebates within Options 7, Section 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Today, Options 7, Section 4, note 1 provides, ``Rebate provided per
contract per leg if the order trades with non-Priority Customer orders
in the Complex Order Book. Rebate provided per contract leg in Select
Symbols where the largest leg of the Complex Order is under fifty (50)
contracts and trades with quotes and orders on the regular order book.
No Priority Customer Complex Order rebates will be provided in Select
Symbols if any leg of the order that trades with interest on the
regular order book is fifty (50) contracts or more. No Priority
Customer Complex Order rebates will be provided in Non-Select Symbols
if any leg of the order trades with interest on the regular order book,
irrespective of order size.''
    The Exchange proposes to amend the second sentence in note 1 of
Options 7, Section 4 to state, ``This rebate will be reduced by $0.15
per contract in Select Symbols where the largest leg of the complex
order is under fifty (50) contracts and trades with quotes and orders
on the regular order book.'' The proposed amendment to the second
sentence of note 1 of Options 7, Section 4, would reduce the current
rebate paid in Select Symbols, per contract, when the largest leg of
the Complex Order is under fifty contracts and trades with quotes and
orders on the regular order book. Today, the Exchange pays no Priority
Customer Complex Order rebates in Select Symbols if any leg of the
order that trades with interest on the regular order book is fifty
contracts or more, nor does the Exchange pay a Priority Customer
Complex Order rebate in Non-Select Symbols if any leg of the order
trades with interest on the regular order book, irrespective of order
size. The Exchange has observed in the past that several market
participants have entered larger sized Priority Customer Complex Orders
with a leg of fifty or more contracts to earn a rebate. When these
Complex Orders do not find a counterparty in the Complex Order Book,
the orders may leg into the regular order book where they are typically
executed by Market Makers on the individual legs who pay a fee to trade
with this order flow.\14\ As a result, the Market Maker's ability to
provide liquidity on the Exchange is adversely affected as they are
charged to trade against these larger complex orders when they leg into
the regular market and execute against their quotes. For this reason,
the Exchange continues to not pay Priority Customer Complex Order
rebates in Select Symbols if any leg of the order that trades with
interest on the regular order book is fifty contracts or more,
including for Select Symbols which do not pay a Priority Customer
Complex Order rebate if any leg of the order trades with interest on
the regular order book, irrespective of order size.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ For example, a Market Maker providing liquidity on the
individual leg would typically pay a maker fee of only $0.18 per
contract for trading with orders originating from the regular order
book, or in the case of Market Makers that achieve Market Maker Plus
status, would earn certain maker rebates instead of paying the $0.18
per contract maker fee. See Options 7, Section 3, note 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange's proposal to reduce the Select Symbol rebate when the
largest leg of the Complex Order is under fifty contracts and trades
with quotes and orders on the regular order book, by $0.15 per
contract, is intended to continue to incentivize Members to send order
flow to the Exchange despite the reduction. Also, the Exchange will
continue to pay Priority Customer rebates for Priority Customer Complex
Orders of any size which trades with non-Priority Customer orders in
the Complex Order Book, based on the Priority Customer Complex Tier
achieved, thereby continuing to incentivize Members to bring Complex
Order flow to the Exchange to earn the rebate on their Priority
Customer Complex Order volume.
    Further, the proposal would close the pricing gap as between
Members who receive a Priority Customer rebate, which is being reduced
by this proposal, in Select Symbols where the largest leg of the
Complex Order is under fifty (50) contracts and trades with quotes and
orders on the regular order book as compared to both Members that do
not receive a Priority Customer rebate in non-Select Symbols if any leg
of the order trades with interest on the regular order book,
irrespective of order size, and Members that do not receive a Priority
Customer rebate in Select Symbols where the largest leg of the Complex
Order is fifty contracts or more and trades with quotes and orders on
the regular order book.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section
6(b) of the Act,\15\ in general, and furthers the objectives of
Sections 6(b)(4) and 6(b)(5) of the Act,\16\ in particular, in that it

provides for the equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees, and
other charges among members and issuers and other persons using any
facility, and is not designed to permit unfair discrimination between
customers, issuers, brokers, or dealers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The proposed changes to the Pricing Schedule are reasonable in
several respects. As a threshold matter, the Exchange is subject to
significant competitive forces in the market for options securities
transaction services that constrain its pricing determinations in that
market. The fact that this market is competitive has long been
recognized by the courts. In NetCoalition v. Securities and Exchange
Commission, the D.C. Circuit stated as follows: ``[n]o one disputes
that competition for order flow is `fierce.' . . . As the SEC
explained, `[i]n the U.S. national market system, buyers and sellers of
securities, and the broker-dealers that act as their order-routing
agents, have a wide range of choices of where to route orders for
execution'; [and] `no exchange can afford to take its market share
percentages for granted' because `no exchange possesses a monopoly,
regulatory or otherwise, in the execution of order flow from broker
dealers'. . . .'' \17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ NetCoalition v. SEC, 615 F.3d 525, 539 (D.C. Cir. 2010)
(quoting Securities Exchange Act Release No. 59039 (December 2,
2008), 73 FR 74770, 74782-83 (December 9, 2008) (SR-NYSEArca-2006-
21)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission and the courts have repeatedly expressed their
preference for competition over regulatory intervention in determining
prices, products, and services in the securities markets. In Regulation
NMS, while adopting a series of steps to improve the current market
model, the Commission highlighted the importance of market forces in
determining prices and SRO revenues and, also, recognized that current
regulation of the market system ``has been remarkably successful in
promoting market competition in its broader forms that are most
important to investors and listed companies.'' \18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ Securities Exchange Act Release No. 51808 (June 9, 2005),
70 FR 37496, 37499 (June 29, 2005) (``Regulation NMS Adopting
Release'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Numerous indicia demonstrate the competitive nature of this market.
For example, clear substitutes to the Exchange exist in the market for
options security transaction services. The Exchange is only one of
sixteen options exchanges to which market participants may direct their
order flow. Within this environment, market participants can freely and
often do shift their order flow among the Exchange and competing venues
in response to changes in their respective pricing schedules. As such,
the proposal represents a reasonable attempt by the Exchange to
increase its liquidity and market share relative to its competitors.
Options 7, Section 3 Regular Order Fees and Rebates
    The Exchange's proposal to remove certain rule text from Options 7,
Section 3, note 11, and amend the remaining rule text is reasonable as
a Market Maker that qualifies for Market Maker Plus when trading
against Priority Customer Complex Orders that leg into the regular
order book would no longer pay a $0.15 per contract fee, rather, the
Market Maker would pay no fee, nor receive any rebate. This proposal
would align the pricing to the manner in which Market Makers are priced
today for orders of 50 contracts or more in Select Symbols, when those
Market Makers qualify for Market Maker Plus and trade against Priority
Customer Complex Orders leg into the regular order book. Specifically,
Market Makers that qualify for Market Maker Plus when trading against
Priority Customer Complex Orders that leg into the regular order book,
would pay no fee, nor receive any rebate, irrespective of the size of
the order. The Exchange believes this pricing will continue to
incentivize Market Makers to qualify for Market Maker Plus in order to
earn the associated rebates for Market Maker Plus and also pay no fees
when trading against Priority Customer Complex Orders leg into the
regular order book in Select Symbols. Market Makers that do not qualify
for Market Maker Plus would continue to pay a $0.25 per contract fee
when trading against Priority Customer Complex Orders that leg into the
regular order book similar to other market participants.
    The Exchange's proposal to remove certain rule text from Options 7,
Section 3, note 11, and amend the remaining rule text is equitable and
not unfairly discriminatory. Market Makers that qualifies for Market
Maker Plus when trading against Priority Customer Complex Orders leg
into the regular order book would uniformly pay no fee, nor receive any
rebate, irrespective of the size of the order. The Exchange will
continue to assess a $0.25 per contract fee to all other non-Priority
Customer market participants, including Market Makers that do not
qualify for Market Maker Plus, when trading against Priority Customer
Complex Orders that leg into the regular order book. The Exchange
believes that it is not unfairly discriminatory to not assess Market
Makers a fee if they qualify for Market Maker Plus because those Market
Makers are paid rebates within the Market Maker Plus Program for adding
value for quoting at the NBBO for a significant percentage of time.
Further, all Market Makers are subject to the same qualification
criteria for Market Maker Plus.
    The Exchange's proposal to capitalize the term ``Complex Order'' in
current note 10 of Options 7, Section 3 is non-substantive.
Options 7, Section 4, Complex Order Fees and Rebates
    The Exchange's proposal to amend the second sentence in note 1 of
Options 7, Section 4 to state, ``This rebate will be reduced by $0.15
per contract in Select Symbols where the largest leg of the complex
order is under fifty (50) contracts and trades with quotes and orders
on the regular order book,'' is reasonable. The proposed amendment to
note 1 of Options 7, Section 4, would reduce the current rebate paid in
Select Symbols, per contract, when the largest leg of the Complex Order
is under fifty contracts and trades with quotes and orders on the
regular order book. Overall, the Exchange believes that the Priority
Customer Complex Order rebate program, as modified, is reasonable
because the program is optional and all Members can choose to
participate or not. The Exchange's proposal to reduce the Select Symbol
rebate when the largest leg of the Complex Order is under fifty
contracts and trades with quotes and orders on the regular order book,
by $0.15 per contract, is intended to continue to incentivize Members
to send order flow to the Exchange despite the reduction. Also, the
Exchange will continue to pay Priority Customer rebates for Priority
Customer Complex Orders of any size which trades with non-Priority
Customer orders in the Complex Order Book, based on the Priority
Customer Complex Tier achieved, thereby continuing to incentivize
Members to bring Complex Order flow to the Exchange to earn the rebate
on their Priority Customer Complex Order volume. Further, the proposal
would close the pricing gap as between Members who receive a Priority
Customer rebate, which is being reduced by this proposal, in Select
Symbols where the largest leg of the Complex Order is under fifty (50)
contracts and trades with quotes and orders on the regular order book
as compared to both Members that do not receive a Priority Customer
rebate in non-Select Symbols if any leg of the order trades with
interest on the regular order book, irrespective of order size, and
Members that do not receive a Priority Customer rebate in Select
Symbols where the largest leg of the

Complex Order is fifty contracts or more and trades with quotes and
orders on the regular order book. This fee remains competitive with
other options markets.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ MIAX Emerald, LLC's (``Emerald'') Pricing Schedule provides
that Priority Customer Complex Orders contra to Priority Customer
Complex Orders are neither charged nor rebated for Penny and Non-
Penny Classes. Priority Customer Complex Orders that leg into the
Simple book are neither charged nor rebated. See Emerald's Pricing
Schedule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange's proposal to amend the second sentence in note 1 of
Options 7, Section 4 to state, ``This rebate will be reduced by $0.15
per contract in Select Symbols where the largest leg of the complex
order is under fifty (50) contracts and trades with quotes and orders
on the regular order book,'' is equitable and not unfairly
discriminatory. The Exchange will continue to uniformly pay rebates to
Priority Customer Complex Orders trading with non-Priority Customer
orders in the Complex Order Book, regardless of size, based on the
Priority Customer Complex Tier achieved. Further, the Exchange would
uniformly pay a reduced rebate (reduced by $0.15 per contract) in
Select Symbols where the largest leg of the complex order is under
fifty contracts and trades with quotes and orders on the regular order
book.

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
Inter-Market Competition
    The proposal does not impose an undue burden on inter-market
competition. The Exchange believes its proposal remains competitive
with other options markets and will offer market participants with
another choice of where to transact options. 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 to remain competitive with other
exchanges that have been exempted from compliance with the statutory
standards applicable to exchanges. Because competitors are free to
modify their own fees 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.
Options 7, Section 3 Regular Order Fees and Rebates
    The Exchange's proposal to remove certain rule text from Options 7,
Section 3, note 11, and amend the remaining rule text does not impose
an undue burden on competition. Market Makers that qualifies for Market
Maker Plus when trading against Priority Customer Complex Orders leg
into the regular order book would uniformly pay no fee, nor receive any
rebate, irrespective of the size of the order. The Exchange will
continue to assess a $0.25 per contract fee to all other non-Priority
Customer market participants, including Market Makers that do not
qualify for Market Maker Plus, when trading against Priority Customer
Complex Orders that leg into the regular order book. Today, Market
Makers that qualify for Market Maker Plus are paid rebates based on
their tier qualification for adding value for quoting at the NBBO for a
significant percentage of time. All Market Makers are subject to the
same qualification criteria for Market Maker Plus.
    The Exchange's proposal to capitalize the term ``Complex Order'' in
current note 10 of Options 7, Section 3 is non-substantive.
Options 7, Section 4, Complex Order Fees and Rebates
    The Exchange's proposal to amend the second sentence in note 1 of
Options 7, Section 4 to state, ``This rebate will be reduced by $0.15
per contract in Select Symbols where the largest leg of the complex
order is under fifty (50) contracts and trades with quotes and orders
on the regular order book,'' does not impose an undue burden on
competition. The Exchange uniformly pay rebates to Priority Customer
Complex Orders trading with non-Priority Customer orders in the Complex
Order Book, regardless of size, based on the Priority Customer Complex
Tier achieved and will continue to pay rebates. Further, the Exchange
would uniformly pay a reduced rebate (reduced by $0.15 per contract) in
Select Symbols where the largest leg of the complex order is under
fifty contracts and trades with quotes and orders on the regular order
book.

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

    No written comments were either solicited or received.

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

    The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act.\20\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-ISE-2021-13 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-ISE-2021-13. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's internet website (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml).
Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written
statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with
the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed
rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those
that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions
of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for website viewing and printing in
the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE,

Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of
10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available
for inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All
comments received will be posted without change. Persons submitting
comments are cautioned that we do not redact or edit personal
identifying information from comment submissions. You should submit
only information that you wish to make available publicly. All
submissions should refer to File Number SR-ISE-2021-13 and should be
submitted on or before July 14, 2021.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\21\
J. Matthew DeLesDernier,
Assistant Secretary.

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

    \21\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 2021-13098 Filed 6-22-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 211 (Wednesday, October 31, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 65897-65898]
[FR Doc No: 2012-26718]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

[USCG-2012-0598]

Collection of Information Under Review by Office of Management
and Budget

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Thirty-day notice requesting comments.

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

SUMMARY: In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 the
U.S. Coast Guard is forwarding Information Collection Requests (ICRs),
abstracted below, to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), Office
of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA), requesting approval of a
revision to the following collections of information: 1625-0027, Vessel
Documentation and 1625-0104, Barges Carrying Bulk Hazardous Materials.
Additionally, the U.S. Coast Guard requests an extension of its
approval for the following collection of information: 1625-0052,
Nondestructive Testing of Certain Cargo Tanks on Unmanned Barges. Our
ICRs describe the information we seek to collect from the public.
Review and comments by OIRA ensure we only impose paperwork burdens
commensurate with our performance of duties.

DATES: Comments must reach the Coast Guard and OIRA on or before
November 30, 2012.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by Coast Guard docket
number [USCG-2012-0598] to the Docket Management Facility (DMF) at the
U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) and/or to OIRA. To avoid
duplicate submissions, please use only one of the following means:
    (1) Online: (a) To Coast Guard docket at http://www.regulations.gov. (b) To OIRA by email via<EMAIL_ADDRESS>.
    (2) Mail: (a) DMF (M-30), DOT, West Building Ground Floor, Room
W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590-0001. (b) To
OIRA, 725 17th Street NW., Washington, DC 20503, attention Desk Officer
for the Coast Guard.
    (3) Hand Delivery: To DMF address above, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The telephone number is
202-366-9329.
    (4) Fax: (a) To DMF,<PHONE_NUMBER>. (b) To OIRA at<PHONE_NUMBER>. To
ensure your comments are received in a timely manner, mark the fax,
attention Desk Officer for the Coast Guard.
    The DMF maintains the public docket for this Notice. Comments and
material received from the public, as well as documents mentioned in
this Notice as being available in the docket, will become part of the
docket and will be available for inspection or copying at room W12-140
on the West Building Ground Floor, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE.,
Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays. You may also find the docket on the Internet
at http://www.regulations.gov.
    Copies of the ICRs are available through the docket on the Internet
at http://www.regulations.gov. Additionally, copies are available from:
COMMANDANT (CG-611), ATTN: PAPERWORK REDUCTION ACT MANAGER, US COAST
GUARD, 2100 2ND ST SW., STOP 7101, WASHINGTON, DC 20593-7101.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Kenlinishia Tyler, Office of
Information Management, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER> or fax<PHONE_NUMBER>, for
questions on these documents. Contact Ms. Renee V. Wright, Program
Manager, Docket Operations,<PHONE_NUMBER>, for questions on the docket.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Public Participation and Request for Comments

    This Notice relies on the authority of the Paperwork Reduction Act
of 1995; 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35, as amended. An ICR is an application to
OIRA seeking the approval, extension, or renewal of a Coast Guard
collection of information (Collection). The ICR contains information
describing the Collection's purpose, the Collection's likely burden on
the affected public, an explanation of the necessity of the Collection,
and other important information describing the Collections. There is
one ICR for each Collection.
    The Coast Guard invites comments on whether these ICRs should be
granted based on the Collections being necessary for the proper
performance of Departmental functions. In particular, the Coast Guard
would appreciate comments addressing: (1) The practical utility of the
Collections; (2) the accuracy of the estimated burden of the
Collections; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of
information subject to the Collections; and (4) ways to minimize the
burden of the Collections on respondents, including the use of
automated collection techniques or other forms of information
technology. These comments will help OIRA determine whether to approve
the ICRs referred to in this Notice.
    We encourage you to respond to this request by submitting comments
and related materials. Comments to Coast Guard or OIRA must contain the
OMB Control Number of the ICR. They must also contain the docket number
of this request, [USCG 2012-0598], and must be received by November 30,
2012. We will post all comments received, without change, to http://www.regulations.gov. They will include any personal information you
provide. We have an agreement with DOT to use their DMF. Please see the
``Privacy Act'' paragraph below.

Submitting Comments

    If you submit a comment, please include the docket number [USCG-
2012-0598], indicate the specific section of the document to which each
comment applies, providing a reason for each comment. You may submit
your comments and material online (via http://www.regulations.gov), by
fax, mail, or hand delivery, but please use only one of these means. If
you submit a comment online via www.regulations.gov, it will be
considered received by the Coast Guard when you successfully transmit
the comment. If you fax, hand deliver, or mail your comment, it will be
considered as having been received by the Coast Guard when it is
received at the DMF. We recommend you include your name, mailing
address, an email address, or other contact information in the body of
your document so that we can contact you if we have questions regarding
your submission.
    You may submit comments and material by electronic means, mail,
fax, or delivery to the DMF at the address under ADDRESSES, but please
submit them by only one means. To submit your comment online, go to
http://www.regulations.gov, and type ``USCG-2012-0598'' in the
``Keyword'' box. If you submit your comments by mail or hand delivery,
submit them in an unbound format, no larger than 8\1/2\ by 11 inches,
suitable for copying and electronic filing. If you submit comments by
mail and would like to know that they reached the Facility, please
enclose a stamped, self-addressed postcard or envelope. We will
consider all comments and material received during the comment period
and will address them accordingly.

Viewing Comments and Documents

    To view comments, as well as documents mentioned in this Notice as
being available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov, click
on the

``read comments'' box, which will then become highlighted in blue. In
the ``Keyword'' box insert ``USCG-2012-0598'' and click ``Search.''
Click the ``Open Docket Folder'' in the ``Actions'' column. You may
also visit the DMF in Room W12-140 on the ground floor of the DOT West
Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    OIRA posts its decisions on ICRs online at http://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain after the comment period for each ICR. An OMB Notice
of Action on each ICR will become available via a hyperlink in the OMB
Control Numbers: 1625-0027, 1625-0052 and 1625-0104.

Privacy Act

    Anyone can search the electronic form of comments received in
dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or
signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association,
business, labor union, etc.). You may review a Privacy Act statement
regarding Coast Guard public dockets in the January 17, 2008, issue of
the Federal Register (73 FR 3316).

Previous Request for Comments

    This request provides a 30-day comment period required by OIRA. The
Coast Guard published the 60-day notice (77 FR 40624, July 10, 2012)
required by 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2). That Notice elicited no comments.

Information Collection Requests

    1. Title: Vessel Documentation.
    OMB Control Number: 1625-0027.
    Type of Request: Revision of a currently approved collection.
    Respondents: Owners/builders of yachts and commercial vessels of at
least 5 net tons.
    Abstract: The information collected will be used to establish the
eligibility of a vessel to: (a) Be documented as a ``vessel of the
United States,'' (b) engage in a particular trade, and/or (c) become
the object of a preferred ship's mortgage. The information collected
concerns citizenship of owner/applicant and build, tonnage and markings
of a vessel.
    Forms: CG-1258, CG-1261, CG-1270, CG-1280, CG-1340, CG-1356, CG-
4593, CG-5542, CG-7042, and CG-7043.
    Burden Estimate: The estimated burden has increased from 54,466
hours to 67,882 hours a year.
    2. Title: Nondestructive Testing of Certain Cargo Tanks on Unmanned
Barges.
    OMB Control Number: 1625-0052.
    Type of Request: Extension of a currently approved collection.
    Respondents: Owners of tank barges.
    Abstract: The Coast Guard uses the results of nondestructive
testing to evaluate the suitability of older pressure-vessel-type cargo
tanks of unmanned barges to remain in service. Such a tank, on an
unmanned barge, 30 years old or older is subjected to nondestructive
testing once every ten years.
    Forms: None.
    Burden Estimate: The estimated burden remains 130 hours a year.
    3. Title: Barges Carrying Bulk Hazardous Materials
    OMB Control Number: 1625-0104.
    Type of Request: Revision of a currently approved collection.
    Respondents: Owners and operators of tank barges.
    Abstract: This information is needed to ensure the safe shipment of
bulk hazardous liquids in barges. The requirements are necessary to
ensure that barges meet safety standards and to ensure that barges'
crewmembers have the information necessary to operate barges safely.
    Forms: None.
    Burden Estimate: The estimated burden has decreased from 29,281
hours a year to 28,958 hours.

    Authority:  The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995; 44 U.S.C.
Chapter 35, as amended.

    Dated: October 24, 2012.
R. E. Day,
Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Assistant Commandant for Command,
Control, Communications, Computers and Information Technology.
[FR Doc. 2012-26718 Filed 10-30-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 214 (Monday, November 7, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 67103-67105]
[FR Doc No: 2022-24141]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-96194; File No. SR-Phlx-2022-42]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Nasdaq PHLX LLC; Notice of Filing
and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Amend Standard
Monthly Expirations for XND

November 1, 2022.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that
on October 19, 2022, Nasdaq PHLX LLC (``Phlx'' or ``Exchange'') filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'') the
proposed rule change as described in Items I and II below, which Items
have been prepared by the Exchange. The Exchange has designated the
proposed rule change as constituting a ``non-controversial'' rule
change under paragraph (f)(6) of Rule 19b-4 under the Act,\3\ which
renders the proposal effective upon receipt of this filing by the
Commission. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit
comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange proposes to permit Phlx to list up to 12 standard
monthly expirations for Nasdaq 100 Micro Index Options (``XND'').
    The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's
website at https://listingcenter.nasdaq.com/rulebook/phlx/rules, at the
principal office of the Exchange, and at the Commission's Public
Reference Room.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    Phlx proposes to amend its index listing rules at Options 4A,
Section 12(a)(4) to allow it to list up to12 standard monthly
expirations for Nasdaq 100 Micro Index Options (``XND'').
    Currently, Options 4A, Section 12(a)(4) provides that the Exchange
may list: (i) up to six (6) standard monthly expirations at any one
time in a class, but will not list index options that expire more than
twelve (12) months out; (ii) up to 12 standard monthly expirations at
any one time for any class that the Exchange (as the Reporting
Authority) uses to calculate a volatility index; and (iii) up to 12
standard (monthly) expirations in NDX options.\4\ Today, the maximum
number of monthly expirations permitted by Options 4A, Section 12(a)(4)
for XND options is six (6) standard monthly expirations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Options 4A, Section 12(a)(4) states, ``Expiration Months and
Weeks. Index options contracts may expire at three (3)-month
intervals or in consecutive weeks or months. The Exchange may list:
(i) up to six (6) standard monthly expirations at any one time in a
class, but will not list index options that expire more than twelve
(12) months out; (ii) up to 12 standard monthly expirations at any
one time for any class that the Exchange (as the Reporting
Authority) uses to calculate a volatility index; and (iii) up to 12
standard (monthly) expirations in NDX options.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At this time, like Nasdaq-100 Index[supreg] options (``NDX''), the
Exchange proposes to permit up to 12 standard (monthly) expirations in
XND options. This would permit the Exchange to list the same number of
monthly expirations (up to 12) for XND options as currently permitted
for options on the corresponding full-value index, Nasdaq-100 Index.
    Today, XND options trade independently of and in addition to NDX
options, and the XND options are subject to the same rules that
presently govern the trading of NDX options, including sales practice
rules, margin requirements, trading rules, and position and exercise
limits. Like NDX, XND options are European-style and cash-settled, and
have a contract multiplier of 100. The contract specifications for XND
options mirror in all respects those of the NDX options contract
already listed on the Exchange, except that XND options are based on 1/
100th of the value of the Nasdaq-100 Index, and are P.M.-settled
pursuant to Options 4A, Section 12(a)(5).\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ The Exchange notes that NDX options are both a.m.-settled
and p.m.-settled while XND options are only p.m.-settled.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Market participants may use XND options as a hedging vehicle to
meet their investment needs in connection with the Nasdaq-100 Index.
Since both products are used to hedge exposure to the Nasdaq-100 Index,
the Exchange believes it is appropriate to permit the Exchange to be
able to list the same number of monthly expirations for XND options as
it does today for NDX options.
    The Exchange notes that Cboe Exchange, Inc.'s (``Cboe'') rules
permit it to list up to 12 standard monthly expirations for Mini-
Russell 2000 Index (``Mini-RUT'' or ``MRUT'') and Mini S&P 500 Index
(``Mini-SPX'' or ``XSP'').\6\ Mini-SPX is p.m.-settled and subject to a
pilot program similar to XND.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See Cboe Rule 4.13(a)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with Section 6(b) of the Act,\7\ in general, and furthers the
objectives of Section 6(b)(5) of the Act,\8\ in particular, in that it
is designed to promote just and equitable principles of trade, to
remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open
market and a national market system, and, in general to protect
investors and the public interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    Allowing Phlx to list up to 12 standard monthly expirations for XND
options will remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free
and open market and a national market system, and, in general, protect
investors, because it will allow the Exchange to be able to list the
same number of expirations for options on a micro index (XND) as it
currently lists for NDX options, which are options on the corresponding
full-value index, Nasdaq-100 Index. The Exchange notes that because the
same components comprise XND as the Nasdaq-100 Index, market
participants may use XND options as a hedging vehicle to meet their
investment needs in connection with the corresponding full-value index-
related product. Therefore, by allowing the Exchange to be able to list
a consistent number of expirations between options on the full-value
and micro index, the proposed rule change will benefit investors by
assisting them in more effectively using options that track the same
index to meet their investment needs.
    The Exchange notes that today, Cboe rules permit it to list up to
12 standard monthly expirations for Mini-Russell 2000 Index (``Mini-
RUT'' or ``MRUT'') and Mini S&P 500 Index (``Mini-SPX'' or ``XSP'').\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See Cboe Rule 4.13(a)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on intra-market competition that is not necessary or
appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act as all monthly
expirations listed for XND options will be equally available, or
continue to be equally available, to all market participants who trade
such options. Also, the proposed number of expirations will apply, or
continue to apply, in the same manner to all XND options. The proposed
rule change makes it possible for the same expirations to be listed for
options on the micro index (XND) that are currently available for XND
[sic] options, which are options on the full-value index, Nasdaq-100
Index.
    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change
regarding the number of standard monthly expirations permissible for
XND options will impose any burden on intermarket competition that is
not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act
because XND is a proprietary Exchange product. To the extent that
allowing up to 12 standard monthly expirations for XND options trading
on the Exchange may make the Exchange a more attractive marketplace to
market participants at other exchanges, such market participants are
free to elect to become market participants on Phlx. As noted above,
the Exchange believes that being able to list a consistent number of
monthly expirations of options on both the full-value and micro index
may permit investors to more effectively use options that track the
same index to meet their investment needs.
    This proposal enhances intermarket competition because it permits
Phlx's proprietary product, XND, the same flexibility to trade, and
hedge, with 12 standard monthly expirations as certain Cboe proprietary
products.

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

    No written comments were either solicited or received.

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

    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 after the date of the filing, or such
shorter time as the Commission may designate if consistent with the
protection of investors and the public interest, it has become
effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \10\ and Rule 19b-
4(f)(6) \11\ thereunder.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \11\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). In addition, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)
requires a self-regulatory organization to give the Commission
written notice of its intent to file the proposed rule change, along
with a brief description and text of the proposed rule change, at
least five business days prior to the date of filing of the proposed
rule change, or such shorter time as designated by the Commission.
The Exchange has satisfied this requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A proposed rule change filed under Rule 19b-4(f)(6) \12\ normally
does not become operative prior to 30 days after the date of the
filing. However, pursuant to Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii),\13\ the Commission
may designate a shorter time if such action is consistent with the
protection of investors and the public interest. The Exchange has asked
the Commission to waive the 30-day operative delay so that the proposed
rule change may become operative upon filing. The Exchange states that
waiver of the operative delay will protect investors because it will
allow the Exchange to be able to list expirations for XND options that
are consistent with the expirations for related NDX options, and assist
market participants in more effectively utilizing both the full-value
index and reduced-value option as hedging vehicles to meet their
investment needs in connection with the Nasdaq-100 Index product as
soon as feasible. Further, the Exchange states that there is investor
demand to be able to transact in the same number of expirations for XND
options as the Exchange currently lists for NDX options (that is, 12
standard monthly expirations). For these reasons, and because the
proposed rule change does not raise any novel regulatory issues, the
Commission believes that waiving the 30-day operative delay is
consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest.
Therefore, the Commission hereby waives the operative delay and
designates the proposal operative upon filing.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
    \13\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii).
    \14\ For purposes only of waiving the 30-day operative delay,
the Commission has considered the proposed rule's impact on
efficiency, competition, and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C.
78c(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to [email protected]. Please include
File Number SR-Phlx-2022-42 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-Phlx-2022-42. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's internet website (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml).
Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written
statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with
the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed
rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those
that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions
of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for website viewing and printing in
the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC
20549, on official business days between the hours of 10 a.m. and 3
p.m. Copies of such filing also will be available for inspection and
copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All comments received
will be posted without change. Persons submitting comments are
cautioned that we do not redact or edit personal identifying
information from comment submissions. You should submit only
information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions
should refer to File Number SR-Phlx-2022-42 and should be submitted on
or before November 28, 2022.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\15\
J. Matthew DeLesDernier,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2022-24141 Filed 11-4-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P