[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 145 (Thursday, July 28, 2011)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 45178-45179]
[FR Doc No: 2011-18947]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2011-0359; Airspace Docket No. 11-AWP-1]

Modification of Class D and E Airspace; Fort Huachuca, AZ

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This action modifies Class D and Class E airspace at Fort
Huachuca, AZ, to accommodate aircraft departing and arriving under
Instrument Flight Rules (IFR) at Fort Huachuca, Sierra Vista Municipal
Airport-Libby Army Airfield. This action, initiated by the biennial
review of the Fort Huachuca airspace area, enhances the safety and
management of aircraft operations at the airport. This action also
updates the airport name.

DATES: Effective date, 0901 UTC, October 20, 2011. The Director of the
Federal Register approves this incorporation by reference action under
1 CFR Part 51, subject to the annual revision of FAA Order 7400.9 and
publication of conforming amendments.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rick Roberts, Federal Aviation
Administration, Operations Support Group, Western Service Center, 1601
Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, WA 98057; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

History

    On May 20, 2011, the FAA published in the Federal Register a notice
of proposed rulemaking to modify controlled airspace at Fort Huachuca,
AZ (76 FR 29179). Interested parties were invited to participate in
this rulemaking effort by submitting written

comments on the proposal to the FAA. No comments were received.
    Class D and E airspace designations are published in paragraph
5000, 6004 and 6005, respectively, of FAA Order 7400.9U dated August
18, 2010, and effective September 15, 2010, which is incorporated by
reference in 14 CFR Part 71.1. The Class D and Class E airspace
designations listed in this document will be published subsequently in
that Order.

The Rule

    This action amends Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR)
Part 71 by modifying Class D airspace, and Class E airspace designated
as an extension to Class D surface area, and airspace extending upward
from 700 feet above the surface, at Fort Huachuca, AZ. The FAA's
biennial review of the airspace found additional controlled airspace
necessary for the safety and management of aircraft departing and
arriving under IFR operations at Fort Huachuca, Sierra Vista Municipal
Airport-Libby Army Airfield. This action updates the geographic
coordinates to coincide with the FAA's aeronautical database, and
changes the airport name from Fort Huachuca, Libby AAF/Sierra Vista
Municipal Airport, to Fort Huachuca, Sierra Vista Municipal Airport-
Libby Army Airfield. This action is necessary for the safety and
management of IFR operations.
    The FAA has determined this regulation only involves an established
body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments
are necessary to keep them operationally current. Therefore, this
regulation: (1) Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under
Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a ``significant rule'' under DOT
Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979);
and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the
anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that
will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is
certified this rule, when promulgated, will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the
criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. The FAA's authority to
issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the U.S.
Code. Subtitle 1, Section 106 discusses the authority of the FAA
Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more
detail the scope of the agency's authority. This rulemaking is
promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A,
Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with
prescribing regulations to assign the use of airspace necessary to
ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This
regulation is within the scope of that authority as it creates
additional controlled airspace at Fort Huachuca, Sierra Vista Municipal
Airport-Libby Army Airfield, Fort Huachuca, AZ.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

Adoption of the Amendment

    In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation
Administration amends 14 CFR Part 71 as follows:

PART 71--DESIGNATION OF CLASS A, B, C, D AND E AIRSPACE AREAS; AIR
TRAFFIC SERVICE ROUTES; AND REPORTING POINTS

0
1. The authority citation for 14 CFR Part 71 continues to read as
follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854, 24
FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.

Sec.  71.1  [Amended]

0
2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR Part 71.1 of the Federal
Aviation Administration Order 7400.9U, Airspace Designations and
Reporting Points, dated August 18, 2010, and effective September 15,
2010 is amended as follows:

Paragraph 5000 Class D airspace.

* * * * *

AWP AZ D Fort Huachuca, AZ [Modified]

Fort Huachuca, Sierra Vista Municipal Airport-Libby Army Airfield,
AZ
    (Lat. 31[deg]35'19'' N., long. 110[deg]20'40'' W.)

    That airspace extending upward from the surface to and including
7,200 feet MSL within a 4.7-mile radius of the airport. This Class D
airspace is effective during the specific dates and times
established in advance by a Notice to Airmen. The effective date and
time will thereafter be continuously published in the Airport/
Facility Directory.

Paragraph 6004 Class E airspace areas designated as an extension to
Class D or Class E surface area.

* * * * *

AWP AZ E4 Fort Huachuca, AZ [Modified]

Fort Huachuca, Sierra Vista Municipal Airport-Libby Army Airfield,
AZ
    (Lat. 31[deg]35'19'' N., long. 110[deg]20'40'' W.)

    That airspace extending upward from the surface within 1.6 miles
each side of the Airport 088[deg] bearing, extending from the 4.7-
mile radius of the airport to 7 miles east of the airport, and that
airspace extending upward from the surface within 1 mile each side
of the Airport 270[deg] bearing, extending from the 4.7-mile radius
of the airport to 5.5 miles west of the airport. This Class E
airspace area is effective during the specific dates and times
established in advance by a Notice to Airmen. The effective date and
time will thereafter be continuously published in the Airport/
Facility Directory.

Paragraph 6005 Class E airspace areas extending upward from 700
feet or more above the surface of the earth.

* * * * *

AWP AZ E5 Fort Huachuca, AZ [Modified]

Fort Huachuca, Sierra Vista Municipal Airport-Libby Army Airfield,
AZ
    (Lat. 31[deg]35'19'' N., long. 110[deg]20'40'' W.)

    That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface
within a 7.3-mile radius of the airport, and within 3.5 miles each
side of the Airport 270[deg] bearing extending 9 miles west of the
airport, and that airspace 4 miles south and 8 miles north along the
Airport 088[deg] bearing extending 15.5 miles east of the airport,
excluding that area within Restricted Area R-2312. That airspace
extending upward from 1,200 feet above the surface within a 25-mile
radius of Fort Huachuca-Sierra Vista Municipal Airport-Libby Army
Airfield, excluding that area within Mexican airspace.

    Issued in Seattle, Washington, on July 19, 2011.
John Warner,
Manager, Operations Support Group, Western Service Center.
[FR Doc. 2011-18947 Filed 7-27-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 146 (Tuesday, August 1, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Pages 50266-50274]
[FR Doc No: 2023-16245]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-97995; File No. SR-C2-2023-015)

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Cboe C2 Exchange, Inc.; Notice of
Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To Amend
Its Fees Schedule

July 26, 2023.
    Pursuant to section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that
on July 14, 2023, Cboe C2 Exchange, Inc. (``Exchange'' or ``C2'') filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'') the
proposed rule change as described in Items I, II, and III below, which
Items have been prepared by the Exchange. The Commission is publishing
this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change from
interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    Cboe C2 Exchange, Inc. (the ``Exchange'' or ``C2'') proposes to
update its Fees Schedule. The text of the proposed rule change is
provided in Exhibit 5.
    The text of the proposed rule change is also available on the
Exchange's website (http://markets.cboe.com/us/options/regulation/rule_filings/ctwo/), at the Exchange's Office of the Secretary, and at
the Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to amend the Market Data section of its Fees
Schedule.\3\ Particularly, the Exchange proposes to (i) adopt a New
External Credit applicable to C2 Options Top, (ii) adopt a credit
towards the monthly Distribution fees for C2 Options Top, (iii) modify
the C2 Options Top Enterprise Fee; and (iv) establish fees for Cboe One
Options Feed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The Exchange initially filed the proposed fee changes on
March 1, 2023 (SR-C2-2023-008). On March 3, 2023, the Exchange
withdrew that filing and submitted SR-C2-2023-009. On March 16,
2023, the Exchange withdrew that filing and submitted SR-C2-2023-
010. On May 15, 2023, the Exchange withdrew that filing and
submitted SR-C2-2023-013. On July 14, 2023, the Exchange withdrew
that filing and submitted this proposal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C2 Top Data
    By way of background, the Exchange offers the C2 Options Top Data
feed, which is an uncompressed data feed that offers top-of-book
quotations and last sale information based on options orders entered
into the Exchange's System. The C2 Options Top Data feed benefits
investors by facilitating their prompt access to real-time top-of-book
information contained in C2 Options Top Data. The Exchange's affiliated
options exchanges (i.e., Cboe Exchange, Inc. (``Cboe Options''), Cboe
BZX Exchange, Inc. (``BZX Options''), and Cboe EDGX Exchange, Inc.
(``EDGX Options'') (collectively, ``Affiliates'' and together with the
Exchange, ``Cboe Options Exchanges'') also offer similar top-of-book
data feeds.\4\ Particularly, each of the Exchange's Affiliates offer
top-of-book quotation and last sale information based on their own
quotation and trading activity that is substantially similar to the
information provided by the Exchange through the C2 Options Top. The
Exchange proposes to make the following fee changes relating to C2
Options Top.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See Cboe Options Fees Schedule, EDGX Rule 21.15, and BZX
Rule 21.15.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

New External Distributor Credit
    The Exchange first proposes to adopt a New External Distributor
Credit which will provide that new External Distributors of the C2
Options Top feed will not be charged an External Distributor Fee for
their first three (3) months in order to incentivize External

Distributors to enlist new users to receive C2 Options Top feed.\5\ The
Exchange notes that other exchanges, including the Exchange's
affiliated equities exchanges, offer similar credits for similar market
data products. For example, Cboe's equities exchanges currently offer a
one (1) month New External Distributor Credit applicable to External
Distributors of their top-of-book data feeds.\6\ They also offer a
three (3) month new External Credit applicable to External Distributors
of summary depth-of-book feeds.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Any applicable User fees or Enterprise fee will continue to
apply during this three-month period. The New External Distributor
Credit will not apply during an External Distributor's trial usage
period for C2 Options Top. External Distributors who receive C2
Options Top on a trial basis are still eligible for the New
Distributor Credit and such free trial basis will not count towards
the three (3) months. For example, if an External Distributor has a
trial usage period from June 1 through June 30, the New External
Distributor Credit will apply for July, August and September. The
New External Distribution Credit also applies to External
Distributors who also distribute internally (i.e., no additional
distribution fee will apply during the time the New External
Distributor Credit is applied).
    \6\ See e.g., EDGX Equities Exchange Fees Schedule, Market Data
Fees.
    \7\ See e.g., EDGX Equities Exchange Fees Schedule, Market Data
Fees, Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Distributor Fee Credit
    The Exchange also proposes to provide that each External
Distributor will receive a credit against its monthly Distributor Fee
for the C2 Options Top equal to the amount of its monthly User Fees up
to a maximum of the Distributor Fee for the C2 Options Top feed.\8\ The
proposed Enterprise Fees discussed below would also be counted towards
the Distributor Fee credit, equal to the amount of an External
Distributor's monthly C2 Options Top External Distribution fee. For
example, an External Distributor will be subject to a $2,500 monthly
Distributor Fee where they elect to receive the C2 Options Top. If that
External Distributor reports User quantities totaling $2,500 or more of
monthly usage of the C2 Options Top, it will pay no net Distributor
Fee, whereas if that same External Distributor were to report User
quantities totaling $1,500 of monthly usage, it will pay a net of
$1,000 for the Distributor Fee. External Distributors will remain
subject to the per User fees applicable to C2 Options Top. External
Distributors who choose to purchase an Enterprise license as an
alternative to paying User Fees will get a credit in the amount of the
External Distribution Fee, which is currently $2,500, since the
proposed Enterprise Fees are in excess of the External Distribution
fee. In every case the Exchange will receive at least $2,500 in
connection with the distribution of the C2 Options Top (through a
combination of the External Distribution Fee and per User Fees or
Enterprise Fees, as applicable). The Exchange notes that its affiliated
equities exchanges offer a similar credit for a similar market data
product.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ The Distributor Fee Credit does not apply during any such
time that an External Distributor is receiving the New External
Distributor Credit or during a trial usage period for C2 Options
Top. The Exchange also proposes to update the Trial Usage section in
the Fees Schedule to make clear that first time Users and
Distributors of Exchange Market Data Products will not receive any
applicable credits during their trial usage period.
    \9\ See e.g., EDGX Equities Exchange Fees Schedule, Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Enterprise Fee Tiers
    The Exchange currently offers Distributors the ability to purchase
a monthly (and optional) Enterprise license to receive the C2 Options
Top Feed for distribution to an unlimited number of Professional \10\
and Non-Professional \11\ Users. The Enterprise Fee is an alternative
to Professional and Non-Professional User fees and permits a
Distributor to pay a flat fee for an unlimited number of Professional
and Non-Professional Users and is in addition to the Distribution fees.
The Exchange currently assesses a flat monthly Enterprise fee of
$10,000. The Exchange proposes to modify the current Enterprise Fee and
adopt a tiered structure based on the number of Users a Distributor
has. The Exchange proposes to adopt the following monthly Enterprise
Fees: $10,000 for up to 1,500,000 Users (Tier 1), $20,000 for 1,500,001
to 2,500,000 Users (Tier 2) and $30,000 for 2,500,001 or greater Users
(Tier 3). The proposed fees are non-progressive (e.g., if a Distributor
has 2,000,000 Users, it will be subject to $20,000 for Tier 2). The
Enterprise Fee may provide an opportunity to reduce fees. For example,
if a Distributor has 1 million Non-Professional Users who each receive
C2 Options Top at $0.10 per month, then that Distributor will pay
$100,000 per month in Non-Professional Users fees. If the Distributor
instead were to purchase the proposed Enterprise license (tier 1), it
would alternatively pay a flat fee of $10,000 for up to 1.5 million
Professional and Non-Professional Users. A Distributor that pays the
Tier 1 or Tier 2 Enterprise Fee will have to report its number of such
Users on a monthly basis. A Distributor that pays the Tier 3 Enterprise
Fee will only have to report the number of its Users every six
months.\12\ The Exchange notes that if the reported number of Users
exceed the Enterprise Tier a Distributor has purchased, the higher Tier
will apply (e.g., if a Distributor purchases Tier 1, but reports
1,600,000 Users for a month, the Distributor will be assessed the Tier
2 fee).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ A Professional User of an Exchange Market Data product is
any User other than a Non-Professional User.
    \11\ A ``Non-Professional User'' of an Exchange Market Data
product is a natural person or qualifying trust that uses Data only
for personal purposes and not for any commercial purpose and, for a
natural person who works in the United States, is not: (i)
registered or qualified in any capacity with the Securities and
Exchange Commission, the Commodities Futures Trading Commission, any
state securities agency, any securities exchange or association, or
any commodities or futures contract market or association; (ii)
engaged as an ``investment adviser'' as that term is defined in
section 202(a)(11) of the Investment Advisors Act of 1940 (whether
or not registered or qualified under that Act); or (iii) employed by
a bank or other organization exempt from registration under federal
or state securities laws to perform functions that would require
registration or qualification if such functions were performed for
an organization not so exempt; or, for a natural person who works
outside of the United States, does not perform the same functions as
would disqualify such person as a Non-Professional User if he or she
worked in the United States.
    \12\ See Cboe Global Markets North American Data Policies, which
provides that Distributors that have obtained an Enterprise license
are required to report quantities monthly unless they reach the
highest Enterprise Tier available (i.e., Tier 3), in which case they
are required to report user quantities only every six months).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange also proposes to allow Distributors to purchase the
Enterprise Fee on a monthly or annual basis. Annual licenses will
receive a 5% discount off the applicable Enterprise Tier fee.\13\ The
Exchange notes that the purchase of an Enterprise license is voluntary,
and a firm may elect to instead use the per User structure and benefit
from the proposed per User Fees described above. For example, a firm
that does not have a sufficient number of Users to benefit from
purchase of a license need not do so.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ The discount will be taken off the applicable fee assessed
for the applicable Enterprise Tier each month.. For example, if a
Distributor elects to purchase an annual license and is in Tier 1
for any 9 months of the year and Tier 2 for any 3 months of the
year, the total amount of fees paid for one year will be $142,500
($10,000-5% x 9 months + $20,000-5% x 3 months) as compared to
$150,000 ($10,000 x 9 months + $20,000 x 3 months).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Cboe One Options Feed
    By way of background, the Exchange recently adopted a new market
data product called Cboe One Options Feed, which launched March 1,
2023.\14\ Cboe One Options Feed will provide top-of-book quotation and
last sale information based on the quotation and trading activity on
the Exchange and each of its Affiliates, which the Exchange believes
offers a comprehensive and highly

representative view of US options pricing to market participants. More
specifically, Cboe One Options Feed will contain the aggregate best bid
and offer (``BBO'') of all displayed orders for options traded on the
Exchange and its Affiliates, as well as individual last sale
information and volume, which includes the price, time of execution and
individual Cboe options exchange on which the trade was executed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ See SR-C2-2023-006.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Cboe One Options Feed will also consist of Symbol Summary,\15\
Market Status,\16\ Trading Status,\17\ and Trade Break \18\ messages
for the Exchange and each of its Affiliates.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ The Symbol Summary message will include the total executed
volume across all Cboe Options Exchanges.
    \16\ The Market Status message is disseminated to reflect a
change in the status of one of the Cboe Options Exchanges. For
example, the Market Status message will indicate whether one of the
Cboe Options Exchanges is experiencing a systems issue or disruption
and quotation or trade information from that market is not currently
being disseminated via the Cboe One Options Feed as part of the
aggregated BBO. The Market Status message will also indicate when a
Cboe Options Exchange is no longer experiencing a systems issue or
disruption to properly reflect the status of the aggregated BBO.
    \17\ The Trade Break message will indicate when an execution on
a Cboe Options Exchange is broken in accordance with the individual
Cboe Options Exchange's rules (e.g., Cboe Options Rule 6.5, C2
Option Rule 6.5, BZX Options Rule 20.6, EDGX Options Rule 20.6).
    \18\ The Trading Status message will indicate the current
trading status of an option contract on each individual Cboe Options
Exchange. A Trading Status message will also be sent whenever a
security's trading status changes. For example, a Trading Status
message will be sent when a symbol is open for trading or when a
symbol is subject to a trading halt or when it resumes trading.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange will use the following data feeds to create the Cboe
One Options Feed, each of which is available to other vendors and/or
distributors: Cboe Options Top Data, C2 Options Top Data, EDGX Options
Top and BZX Options Top. A vendor and/or distributor that wishes to
create a product like the Cboe One Options Feed could instead subscribe
to each of the aforementioned data feeds. Any entity that receives, or
elects to receive, the individual data feeds or the feeds that may be
used to create a product like the Cboe One Options Feed would be able
to, if it so chooses, to create a data feed with the same information
included in the Cboe One Options Feed and sell and distribute it to its
clients so that it could be received by those clients as quickly as the
Cboe One Options Feed would be received by those same clients.
    The Exchange proposes to amend its fee schedule to incorporate fees
related to the Cboe One Options Feed. The Exchange has taken into
consideration its affiliated relationship with its Affiliates in its
design of the Cboe One Options Feed to assure that vendors \19\ would
be able to offer a similar product on the same terms as the Exchange
from a cost perspective. Although Cboe Options Exchanges are the
exclusive distributors of the individual data feeds from which certain
data elements would be taken to create the Cboe One Options Feed, the
Exchange would not be the exclusive distributor of the aggregated and
consolidated information that compose the proposed Cboe One Options
Feed. Distributors and/or vendors would be able, if they chose, to
create a data feed with the same information as the Cboe One Options
Feed and distribute it to their clients on a level-playing field with
respect to latency and cost as compared to the Exchange's proposed Cboe
One Options Feed. The pricing the Exchange proposes to charge for the
Cboe One Options Feed, as described more fully below, is not lower than
the cost to a distributor or vendor to obtain the underlying data
feeds. In fact, the Distribution and User (Professional and Non-
Professional) fees, as well as the optional Enterprise Fees, that the
Exchange proposes to adopt for the Cboe One Options Feed are equal to
the respective combined fees for subscribing to each individual data
feed. The Exchange also proposes to adopt a ``Data Consolidation Fee,''
which would reflect the value of the aggregation and consolidation
function the Exchange performs in creating the Cboe One Options Feed.
Therefore, Distributors would be enabled to create a competing product
based on the individual data feeds and charge their clients a fee that
they believe reflects the value of the aggregation and consolidation
function that is competitive with Cboe One Options Feed pricing. For
these reasons, the Exchange believes that Distributors, including
vendors, could readily offer a product similar to the Cboe One Options
Feed on a competitive basis at a similar cost.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ For purposes of this filing, a ``vendor'', which is a type
of distributor, will refer to any entity that receives an exchange
market data product directly from the exchange or indirectly from
another entity (for example, from an extranet) and then resell that
data to a third-party customer (e.g., a data provider that resells
exchange market data to a retail brokerage firm). The term
``distributor'' herein, will refer to any entity that receives an
exchange market data product, directly from the exchange or
indirectly from another entity (e.g., from a data vendor) and then
distributes to individual internal or external end-users (e.g., a
retail brokerage firm who distributes exchange data to its
individual employees and/or customers). An example of a vendor's
``third-party customer'' or ``customer'' is an institutional broker
dealer or a retail broker dealer, who then may in turn distribute
the data to their customers who are individual internal or external
end-users.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed Cboe One Options Feed fees include the following, each
of which are described in further detail below: (i) Distributor Fees;
(ii) User Fees for both Professional and Non-Professional Users; (iii)
Enterprise Fees; and (iv) a Data Consolidation Fee. The Exchange also
proposes to adopt a New External Distributor credit and a credit
against the monthly External Distribution Fee equal to the amount of
monthly User Fees or Enterprise Fees up to a maximum of the External
Distributor Fee. To ensure consistency across the Cboe Options
Exchanges, Cboe Options, EDGX Options, and BZX Options will be filing
companion proposals to reflect this proposal in their respective fee
schedules.
Distributor Fees
    As proposed, each Internal Distributor that receives the Cboe One
Options Feed shall pay a fee of $15,000 per month. The proposed
Internal Distribution Fee equals the combined monthly Internal
Distribution fees for the underlying individual data feeds of the Cboe
Options Exchanges (i.e., the monthly Internal Distribution fees are
$3,000 for BZX Options Top, $500 for EDGX Options Top, $2,500 for C2
Options Top and $9,000 for Cboe Options Top). The Exchange also
proposes to assess External Distributors a monthly fee of $10,000. The
proposed External Distribution fee equals the combined monthly External
Distribution fees for the underlying individual data feeds of the Cboe
Options Exchanges (i.e., the monthly External Distribution fees are
$5,000 per month for the Cboe Options Top, $2,500 per month for C2
Options Top, $2,000 per month for BZX Options Top, and $500 for EDGX
Options Top). As noted above, the Exchange is proposing to charge
Internal Distributors an Internal Distribution Fee, and External
Distributors an External Distribution Fee, that equals the combined
respective Distribution fees of each individual Top feed to ensure the
combined cost of subscribing to Cboe Options, C2 Options, BZX Options
and EDGX Options Top feeds are no greater than the amount that would be
charged to subscribe to the Cboe One Options feed, thereby ensuring
that vendors could compete with the Exchange by creating the same
product as the Cboe One Options Feed to sell to their clients.
User Fees
    In addition to Internal and External Distributor Fees, the Exchange
proposes to assess Professional User and Non-Professional User Fees.
The proposed

monthly Professional User fee for the Cboe Options Exchanges is $30.50
per Professional User, which equals the combined monthly Professional
User fees of the underlying individual Cboe Options Exchanges Top feeds
(i.e., $15.50 per Professional User for the Cboe Options Top, $5 per
Professional User for C2 Options Top, $5 per Professional User for BZX
Options Top, and $5 per Professional User for EDGX Options Top). The
Exchange also proposes to adopt a monthly Non-Professional User fee of
$0.60 per Non-Professional User, which similarly represents the
combined total Non-Professional User fee for the individual data feeds
of the Cboe Options (i.e., $0.30 per Non-Professional User for Cboe
Options Top, $0.10 per Non-Professional User for C2 Options Top, $0.10
per Non-Professional User for BZX Options Top, and $0.10 per Non-
Professional User for EDGX Options Top). Similar to the individual
underlying feeds, Distributors that receive Cboe One Options Feed will
be required to count Professional and Non-Professional Users to which
they provide the data feed. The Exchange is proposing to charge
Professional and Non-Professional User fees that equal the combined
respective Professional and Non-Professional User fees of each
individual Top feed to ensure the combined cost of subscribing to Cboe
Options, C2 Options, BZX Options and EDGX Options Top feeds are no
greater than the amount that would be charged to subscribe to the Cboe
One Options feed, thereby ensuring that vendors could compete with the
Exchange by creating the same product as the Cboe One Options Feed to
sell to their clients.
Enterprise Fees
    The Exchange also proposes to establish Enterprise Fees that will
permit a Distributor to purchase a monthly (and optional) Enterprise
license to receive the Cboe One Options Feed for distribution to a
specified number of Professional and Non-Professional Users. The
Enterprise Fee will be an alternative to Professional and Non-
Professional User fees and will permit a Distributor to pay a flat fee
to receive the data for a specified number of Professional and Non-
Professional Users, which the Exchange proposes to make clear in the
Fee Schedule. Like User fees, the Enterprise Fee would be assessed in
addition to the Distribution Fees. The Exchange proposes to adopt the
following monthly Enterprise Fees: $350,000 for up to 1,500,000 Users
(Tier 1), $550,000 for 1,500,001 to 2,500,000 Users (Tier 2) and
$750,000 for 2,500,001 or greater Users (Tier 3). The proposed fee
amounts for each Tier equals the combined Enterprise Fees for the
respective tiers for the underlying individual Cboe Options Exchanges
Top feeds (i.e., $300,000, $450,000 and $600,000 for Tiers 1, 2 and 3
respectively for the Cboe Options Top; $10,000, $20,000 and $30,000 for
Tiers 1, 2 and 3 respectively for C2 Options Top; $20,000, $40,000 and
$60,000 for Tiers 1, 2 and 3 respectively for BZX Options Top; and
$20,000, $40,000 and $60,000 for Tiers 1, 2 and 3 respectively for EDGX
Options Top). The proposed fees are non-progressive (e.g., if a
Distributor has 2,000,000 Users, it will be subject to $550,000 for
Tier 2). The Enterprise Fee may provide an opportunity to reduce fees.
For example, if a Distributor has 1 million Non-Professional Users who
each receive Cboe One Options Feed at $0.60 per month (as proposed),
then that Distributor will pay $600,000 per month in Non-Professional
Users fees. If the Distributor instead were to purchase the proposed
Enterprise license (Tier 1), it would alternatively pay a flat fee of
$350,000 for up to 1.5 million Professional and Non-Professional Users.
A Distributor must pay a separate Enterprise Fee for each entity that
controls the display of Cboe One Options Feed if it wishes for such
Users to be covered by an Enterprise Fee rather than by per User
fees.\20\ A Distributor that pays the Tier 1 or Tier 2 Enterprise Fee
will have to report its number of such Users on a monthly basis. A
Distributor that pays the Tier 3 Enterprise Fee will only have to
report the number of its Users every six months.\21\ The Exchange notes
that if the reported number of Users exceed the Enterprise Tier a
Distributor has purchased, the higher Tier will apply (e.g., if a
Distributor purchases Tier 1, but reports 1,600,000 Users for a month,
the Distributor will be assessed the Tier 2 fee).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ For example, if a Distributor that distributes C2 Options
Top to Retail Brokerage Firm A and Retail Brokerage Firm B and
wishes to have the Users under each firm covered by an Enterprise
license, the Distributor would be subject to two Enterprise Fees.
    \21\ See Cboe Global Markets North American Data Policies which
provides that Distributors that have obtained an Enterprise license
are required to report quantities monthly unless they reach the
highest Enterprise Tier available (i.e., Tier 3), in which case they
are required to report user quantities only every six months).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange also proposes to allow Distributors to purchase the
Enterprise Fee on a monthly or annual basis. Annual licenses will
receive a 5% discount off the applicable Enterprise Fee tier.\22\ The
Exchange notes that the purchase of an Enterprise license is voluntary,
and a firm may elect to instead use the per User structure and benefit
from the proposed per User Fees described above. For example, a firm
that does not have a sufficient number of Users to benefit from
purchase of a license need not do so. The Exchange is proposing to
charge Enterprise Fees that equal the combined respective Enterprise
Fees of each individual Top feed and is also is proposing to adopt a 5%
discount for those that purchase an Annual license for Cboe Options Top
(with a corresponding change will also be proposed by the Exchange's
Affiliates) to ensure the combined cost of subscribing to Cboe Options,
C2 Options, BZX Options and EDGX Options Top feeds will be the same as
those that would be charged to subscribe to the Cboe One Options feed,
thereby ensuring that vendors could compete with the Exchange by
creating the same product as the Cboe One Options Feed to sell to their
clients.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ The discount will be taken off the applicable fee assessed
for the applicable Enterprise Tier each month.. For example, if a
Distributor elects to purchase an annual license and is in Tier 1
for any 9 months of the year and Tier 2 for any 3 months of the
year, the total amount of fees paid for one year will be $4,560,00
($350,000-5% x 9 months + $550,000-5% x 3 months) as compared to
$4,800,000 ($350,000 x 9 months + $550,000 x 3 months). 3150000
[sic]
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

New External Distributor Credit
    The Exchange proposes to adopt a New External Distributor Credit
which would provide that new External Distributors of the Cboe One
Options Feed will not be charged an External Distributor Fee for their
first three (3) months in order to incentivize them to enlist new Users
to receive the Cboe One Options Feed.\23\ The Exchange notes that other
exchanges, including the Exchange's affiliated equities exchanges offer
similar credits for similar market data products. For example, Cboe's
equities exchanges currently offer a one (1) month New External
Distributor Credit applicable to the Cboe One Summary Feed and a three
(3) month New External Distributor Credit applicable to the
distribution of the Cboe One Premium

Feed.\24\ To alleviate any competitive issues that may arise with a
vendor seeking to offer a product similar to the Cboe One Options Feed
based on the underlying data feeds, the Exchange is proposing, as
discussed above, to also adopt a three-month New External Distributor
Credit for the underlying top-of-book data feeds for the Cboe Options
Exchanges. The respective proposals to adopt a three-month credit
ensures the proposed New External Distributor Credit for Cboe One
Options will not cause the combined cost of subscribing to Cboe
Options, C2 Options, BZX Options and EDGX Options Top feeds for new
External Distributors to be greater than those that would be charged to
subscribe to the Cboe One Options feed, thereby ensuring that vendors
could compete with the Exchange by creating the same product as the
Cboe One Options Feed to sell to their clients.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ Any applicable User fees will continue to apply during this
three-month period. The New External Distributor Credit will not
apply during an External Distributor's trial usage period for Cboe
One Options and such free trial basis will not count towards the
three (3) months. For example, if an External Distributor has a
trial usage period from June 1 through June 30, the New External
Distributor Credit will apply for July, August and September.
    \24\ See e.g., EDGX Equities Exchange Fees Schedule, Market Data
Fees.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Distributor Fee Credit
    The Exchange also proposes to provide that each External
Distributor will receive a credit against its monthly External
Distributor Fee for the Cboe One Options Feed equal to the amount of
its monthly User Fees up to a maximum of the External Distributor Fee
for the Cboe One Options Feed.\25\ The proposed Enterprise Fees
discussed above would also be counted towards the Distributor Fee
credit, equal to the amount of its monthly Cboe One Options External
Distribution fee. For example, an External Distributor will be subject
to a $10,000 monthly Distributor Fee where they elect to receive the
Cboe One Options Feed. If that External Distributor reports User
quantities totaling $10,000 or more of monthly User fees of the Cboe
Options One Feed, it will pay no net Distributor Fee, whereas if that
same External Distributor were to report User quantities totaling
$9,000 of monthly usage, it will pay a net of $1,000 for the
Distributor Fee. External Distributors will remain subject to the per
User fees discussed above. External Distributors who choose to purchase
an Enterprise license as an alternative to paying User Fees will get a
credit in the amount of the External Distribution Fee, which is
currently $10,000, since the proposed Enterprise Fees are in excess of
the External Distribution fee. In every case the Exchange will receive
at least $10,000 in connection with the distribution of the Cboe One
Options Feed (through a combination of the External Distribution Fee
and per User Fees or the Enterprise Fees, as applicable). The Exchange
notes that its affiliated equities exchanges offer a similar credit for
a similar market data product.\26\ The proposal to adopt a Distributor
Fee Credit for Cboe One Options Feed ensures the proposed credit for
Cboe One Options will not cause the combined cost of subscribing to
Cboe Options, C2 Options, BZX Options and EDGX Options Top feeds for
External Distributors to be greater than the amount that would be
charged to subscribe to the Cboe One Options feed, thereby ensuring
that vendors could compete with the Exchange by creating the same
product as the Cboe One Options Feed to sell to their clients..
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ The Distributor Fee Credit does not apply during any such
time that an External Distributor is receiving the New External
Distributor Credit or during a trial usage period for Cboe One
Options.
    \26\ See e.g., EDGX Equities Exchange Fees Schedule, Market Data
Fees.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Data Consolidation Fee
    The Exchange also proposes to charge Distributors of the Cboe One
Options Feed a separate Data Consolidation Fee, which reflects the
value of the aggregation and consolidation function the Exchange
performs in creating the Cboe One Options Feed.\27\ As stated above,
the Exchange creates the Cboe One Options Feed from data derived from
the Cboe Options Top, C2 Options Top, BZX Options Top, and EDGX Options
Top Feeds. Distributors (including vendors) could similarly create a
competing product to the Cboe One Options Feed based on these
individual data feeds offered by the Exchanges, and could charge its
clients a fee that it believes reflects the value of the aggregation
and consolidation function. Accordingly, the Exchange believes that
vendors could readily offer a product similar to the Cboe One Options
Feed on a competitive basis at a similar cost.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ If a vendor distributes the Cboe One Options Feed to
another firm, who then re-distributes the Cboe One Options Feed,
both entities would be subject to the Data Consolidation Fee. A
vendor will only be assessed a single Data Consolidated Fee, even if
it distributes Cboe One Options Feed to more than one entity.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the ``Act'') and the rules and
regulations thereunder applicable to the Exchange and, in particular,
the requirements of section 6(b) of the Act.\28\ Specifically, the
Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with the
section 6(b)(5) \29\ requirements that the rules of an exchange be
designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to
promote just and equitable principles of trade, to foster cooperation
and coordination with persons engaged in regulating, clearing,
settling, processing information with respect to, and facilitating
transactions in securities, to remove impediments to and perfect the
mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system, and,
in general, to protect investors and the public interest. Additionally,
the Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with the
section 6(b)(5) requirement that the rules of an exchange not be
designed to permit unfair discrimination between customers, issuers,
brokers, or dealers. The Exchange also believes this proposal is
consistent with section 6(b)(8) of the Act, which requires that the
rules of an exchange not impose any burden on competition that is not
necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.\30\
In addition, the Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is
consistent with section 11(A) of the Act as it supports (i) fair
competition among brokers and dealers, among exchange markets, and
between exchange markets and markets other than exchange markets, and
(ii) the availability to brokers, dealers, and investors of information
with respect to quotations for and transactions in securities.\31\ The
Exchange also believes the proposed rule change is consistent with
section 6(b)(4) of the Act,\32\ which requires that Exchange rules
provide for the equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees, and
other charges among its Trading Permit Holders and other persons using
its facilities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \29\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
    \30\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(8).
    \31\ 15 U.S.C. 78k-1.
    \32\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange first notes that it operates in a highly competitive
environment. Indeed, there are currently 16 registered options
exchanges that trade options. Based on publicly available information,
no single options exchange has more than 18% of the market share.\33\
The Exchange believes top-of-book quotation and transaction data is
highly competitive as national securities exchanges compete vigorously
with each other to provide efficient, reliable, and low-cost data to a
wide range of investors and market participants. Indeed, there are
several competing products offered by other

national securities exchanges today, not counting products offered by
the Exchange's affiliates, and each of the Exchange's affiliated U.S.
options exchanges also offers similar top-of-book data.\34\ Each of
those exchanges offer top-of-book quotation and last sale information
based on their own quotation and trading activity that is substantially
similar to the information provided by the Exchange through the C2
Options Top Data Feed. Further, the quote and last sale data contained
in the C2 Data Feed is identical to the data sent to OPRA for
redistribution to the public.\35\ Accordingly, Exchange top-of-book
data is widely available today from a number of different sources.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \33\ See Cboe Global Markets U.S. Options Market Month-to-Date
Volume Summary (April 24, 2023), available at https://markets.cboe.com/us/options/market_statistics/.
    \34\ See e.g., NYSE Arca Options Proprietary Market Data Fees
Schedule, MIAX Options Exchange, Fee Schedule, Section 6 (Market
Data Fees), Nasdaq PHLX Options 7 Pricing Schedule, Section 10
(Proprietary Data Feed Fees) and Cboe Data Services, LLC Fees
Schedule.
    \35\ The Exchange makes available the top-of-book data and last
sale data that is included in the C2 Options Top Data Feed no
earlier than the time at which the Exchange sends that data to OPRA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Moreover, the C2 Options Top Data Feed and Cboe One Options Feeds
are distributed and purchased on a voluntary basis, in that neither the
Exchange nor market data distributors are required by any rule or
regulation to make these data products available. Accordingly,
Distributors (including vendors) and Users can discontinue use at any
time and for any reason, including due to an assessment of the
reasonableness of fees charged. Further, the Exchange is not required
to make any proprietary data products available or to offer any
specific pricing alternatives to any customers. Moreover, persons
(including broker-dealers) who subscribe to any exchange proprietary
data feed must also have equivalent access to consolidated Options
Information \36\ from OPRA for the same classes or series of options
that are included in the proprietary data feed, and proprietary data
feeds cannot be used to meet that particular requirement.\37\ As such,
all proprietary data feeds are optional.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \36\ ``Consolidated Options Information'' means consolidated
Last Sale Reports combined with either consolidated Quotation
Information or the BBO furnished by OPRA. Access to consolidated
Options Information is deemed ``equivalent'' if both kinds of
information are equally accessible on the same terminal or work
station. See Limited Liability Company Agreement of Options Price
Reporting Authority, LLC (``OPRA Plan''), Section 5.2(c)(iii). The
Exchange notes that this requirement under the OPRA Plan is also
reiterated under the Cboe Global Markets Global Data Agreement and
Cboe Global Markets North American Data Policies, which subscribers
to any exchange proprietary product must sign and are subject to,
respectively. Additionally, the Exchange's Data Order Form (used for
requesting the Exchange's market data products) requires
confirmation that the requesting market participant receives data
from OPRA.
    \37\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission has repeatedly expressed its preference for
competition over regulatory intervention in determining prices,
products, and services in the securities markets. Particularly, in
Regulation NMS, the Commission highlighted the importance of market
forces in determining prices and SRO revenues and, also, recognized
that current regulation of the market system ``has been remarkably
successful in promoting market competition in its broader forms that
are most important to investors and listed companies.'' \38\ Making
similar data products available to market participants fosters
competition in the marketplace, and constrains the ability of exchanges
to charge supracompetitive fees. In the event that a market participant
views one exchange's data product as more or less attractive than the
competition they can and do switch between similar products. The
proposed fees are a result of the competitive environment, as the
Exchange seeks to adopt fees to attract purchasers of C2 Options Top
Data and Cboe One Options Feed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \38\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 51808 (June 9,
2005), 70 FR 37496, 37499 (June 29, 2005) (``Regulation NMS Adopting
Release'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange has also taken into consideration its affiliated
relationship with its Affiliates in its design of the Cboe One Options
Feed to ensure that vendors would be able to offer a similar product on
the same terms as the Exchange from a cost perspective. While the Cboe
Options Exchanges are the exclusive distributors of the individual data
feeds from which certain data elements may be taken to create the Cboe
One Options Feed, they are not the exclusive distributors of the
aggregated and consolidated information that comprises the Cboe One
Options Feed. Any entity that receives, or elects to receive, the
individual data feeds would be able to, if it so chooses, to create a
data feed with the same information included in the Cboe One Options
Feed and sell and distribute it to its clients so that it could be
received by those clients as quickly as the Cboe One Options Feed would
be received by those same clients with no greater cost than the
Exchange.
    In addition, vendors and Distributors that do not wish to purchase
the Cboe One Options Feed may separately purchase the individual
underlying products, and if they so choose, perform a similar
aggregation and consolidation function that the Exchange performs in
creating the Cboe One Options Feed. To enable such competition, the
Exchange is offering the Cboe One Options Feed on terms that a vendor
of those underlying feeds could offer a competing product if it so
chooses.
    In addition, the fees that are the subject of this rule filing are
constrained by competition. Particularly, the Exchange competes with
other exchanges (and their affiliates) that may choose to offer similar
market data products. If another exchange (or its affiliate) were to
charge less to consolidate and distribute a similar product than the
Exchange charges to consolidate and distribute the Cboe One Options
Feed, prospective Users likely could choose to not subscribe to, or
would cease subscribing to, the Cboe One Options Feed. In addition, the
Exchange would compete with unaffiliated market data vendors who would
be in a position to consolidate and distribute the same data that
comprises the Cboe One Options Feed into the vendor's own comparable
market data product. If the third-party vendor is able to provide the
exact same data for a lower cost, prospective Users would avail
themselves of that lower cost and elect not to take the Cboe One
Options Feed.
    For these reasons, the Exchange believes that the proposed fees are
reasonable, equitable, and not unfairly discriminatory.
    User Fees. The Exchange believes that the proposed Professional and
Non-Professional User fees for the Cboe One Options Feed are reasonable
because they represent the combined monthly fees for Professional and
Non-Professional User fees, respectively for the underlying individual
data feeds, which have previously been filed with the Commission. The
Exchange believes that the proposed fees are equitable and not unfairly
discriminatory because they will be charged uniformly to Distributors.
Combining the Professional and Non-Professional User fees, of each
individual Top feed, respectively, further ensures vendors can compete
with the Exchange by creating the same product as the Cboe One Options
Feed to sell to their clients. Moreover, the proposed fee structure of
differentiated Professional and Non-Professional fees that are paid by
both Internal and External Distributors has long been used by other
exchanges, including the Exchange, for their proprietary data products,
and by the OPRA plan in order to reduce the price of data to retail
investors and make it more broadly

available.\39\ The Exchange also believes offering Cboe One Options
Feed to Non-Professional Users at a lower cost than Professional Users
results in greater equity among data recipients, as Professional Users
are categorized as such based on their employment and participation in
financial markets, and thus, are compensated to participate in the
markets. Although Non-Professional Users too can receive significant
financial benefits through their participation in the markets, the
Exchange believes it is reasonable to charge more to those Users who
are more directly engaged in the markets.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \39\ See, e.g., Securities Exchange Act Release No. 59544 (March
9, 2009), 74 FR 11162 (March 16, 2009) (SR-NYSE-2008-131)
(establishing the $15 Non-Professional User Fee (Per User) for NYSE
OpenBook); See, e.g., Securities Exchange Act Release No. 67589
(August 2, 2012), 77 FR 47459 (August 8, 2012) (revising OPRA's
definition of the term ``Nonprofessional''); and See Securities
Exchange Act Release No. 70683 (October 15, 2013), 78 FR 62798
(October 22, 2013) (SR-CBOE-2013-087) (establishing Professional and
Non-Professional User fees for Cboe Options COB Data Feed).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Enterprise Fee. The Exchange believes the proposed Enterprise Fees
for the Cboe One Options Feed and proposed changes to the Enterprise
Fee for the C2 Options Top feed are reasonable as the fees proposed
could result in a fee reduction for Distributors of the respective
products with a large number of Professional and Non-Professional
Users. If a Distributor has a smaller number of Professional or Non-
Professional Users of the Cboe One Options Feed or C2 Options Top Feed,
then it may continue using the per User structure and benefit from the
per User Fee reductions for each respective product. By reducing prices
for Distributors with a large number of Professional and Non-
Professional Users, the Exchange believes that more firms may choose to
receive and to distribute the Cboe One Options or C2 Options Top feeds,
thereby expanding the distribution of this market data for the benefit
of investors. The Exchange believes it is reasonable, equitable and not
unfairly discriminatory to assess incrementally higher fees for higher
tiers, because such tier covers a higher number of users (and indeed
for those in Tier 3, an unlimited number of users). The Exchange
believes it's reasonable to require monthly reporting only for proposed
Tiers 1 and 2 because such tiers cover a defined number of Users that
need to be accounted for billing purposes, as compared to Tier 3 which
covers unlimited Users. Also as described above, the Enterprise Fees
are entirely optional. A firm that does not have a sufficient number of
Users to benefit from purchase of a license, or purchase of a specific
tier level, need not do so. The Exchange believes the proposed discount
for an Annual license is also reasonable, equitable and not unfairly
discriminatory as it provides Distributors an opportunity to be
assessed lower fees and is available to any Distributor who chooses to
make a one-year commitment via the Annual license. The Exchange
believes the proposed 5% discount will attract Distributors to purchase
and make available C2 Options Top Data and Cboe One Options Feed for at
least one year, thereby fostering and expanding the distribution of
these market data products for the benefit of investors, and
particularly retail investors. The Exchange lastly notes that the
proposed Enterprise Fees for Cboe One Options and the proposed 5%
discount for an Annual license equal the combined respective Enterprise
Fees and discount, respectively, of each individual Top feed, thereby
ensuring that vendors can compete with the Exchange by creating the
same product as the Cboe One Options Feed to sell to their clients.
    Distributor Fees. The Exchange believes that the proposed
Distributor fees for the Cboe One Options Feed are reasonable because
they represent the combined monthly fees for Internal and External
Distributor fees, respectively for the underlying individual data
feeds, which have previously been filed with the Commission. The
Exchange believes that the proposed fees are equitable and not unfairly
discriminatory because they will be charged uniformly to Internal and
External Distributors. The Exchange believes that it is also fair and
equitable, and not unfairly discriminatory to charge different fees for
internal and external distribution of the Cboe One Options Feed.
Although the proposed distribution fee charged to External Distributors
will be lower than the distribution fee charged to Internal
Distributors, External Distributors are subject to Non-Professional
user fees to which Internal Distributors are not subject, in addition
to Professional User fees (or alternatively the proposed Enterprise
Fee). The Exchange also notes that Cboe One Options Feed, like the
underlying top-of-book feeds, are more likely to be distributed
externally as such data is expected to be used more frequently by Non-
Professional Users who, by definition, do not receive the data for
commercial purposes (e.g., retail investors) and are therefore not
internal. The Exchange therefore believes that the proposed reduced fee
for External Distributors is reasonable because it may encourage more
distributors to choose to offer the Cboe One Options, thereby expanding
the distribution of this market data for the benefit of investors, and
particularly retail investors.
    The proposed Distributor Fees for the Cboe One Options Feed are
also designed to ensure that vendors could compete with the Exchange by
creating a similar product as the Cboe One Options Feed. The Exchange
believes that the proposed Distributor Fees are equitable and
reasonable as they equal the combined fee of subscribing to each
individual data feed of the Cboe Options Exchanges, which have been
previously published by the Commission.
New External Distributor Credit
    In addition, the Exchange believes it is reasonable to not charge
External Distributors of C2 Options Top and Cboe One Options Feed a
Distribution Fee during their first three (3) months because such
Distributors will not be subject to any External Distribution fee for
those months.\40\ The Exchange believes it's also reasonable for the
New External Distribution Credit for C2 Options Top to apply to
External Distributors of C2 Options Top who also distribute such
product internally because the current Distribution Fee is already
meant to cover both internal and distribution of C2 Options Top.
Therefore, the Exchange believes it's reasonable to apply the New
External Distributor Credit to both External Distributors who
distribute exclusively externally and those that distribute externally
and internally. The Exchange's that its affiliated equities exchanges
offer a similar New External Distributor Credit for a similar market
data product.\41\ The proposed credit is also intended to incentivize
new External Distributors to enlist Users to subscribe to the C2
Options Top or Cboe One Options feeds in an effort to broaden the
products' distribution. While this incentive is not available to
Internal Distributors (i.e., Distributors who exclusively distributed
internally) of these products, the Exchange believes it is appropriate
as Internal Distributors have no Users outside of their own firm.
Furthermore, External Distributors are subject to higher risks of
launch as the data is provided outside their own firm. For these
reasons, the Exchange believes it is appropriate to provide this
incentive so that External Distributors have sufficient time to test
the data

within their own systems prior to going live externally. The Exchange
also does not believe this would inhibit a vendor from creating a
competing product and offer a similar free period as the Exchange.
Specifically, a vendor seeking to create the Cboe One Options Feed
could do so by subscribing to the underlying individual data feeds, all
of which will also include a New External Distributor Credit identical
to that proposed for the Cboe One Options Feed. As a result, a
competing vendor would incur similar costs as the Exchange in offering
such free period for a competing product and may do so on the same
terms as the Exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \40\ As noted above, Distributors are additionally not assessed
any Distribution fee during any trial usage period, under the
existing Trial Usage period offered by the Exchange.
    \41\ See e.g., EDGX Equities Exchange Fees Schedule, Market Data
Fees.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Distributor Fee Credit
    The Exchange believes the proposal to provide External Distributors
a credit against their monthly Distribution Fee equal to the amount of
its monthly Usage Fee or Enterprise Fees, is reasonable as it could
result in the External Distributor paying a discounted, or no,
Distribution fee.\42\ The Exchange believes it's also reasonable for
the Distributor Fee Credit for C2 Options Top to apply to External
Distributors of C2 Options Top who also distribute such product
internally because the current Distribution Fee is already meant to
cover both internal and [sic] distribution of C2 Options Top.
Therefore, the Exchange believes it's reasonable to apply the
Distributor Fee Credit to both External Distributors who distribute
exclusively externally and to those that distribute externally and
internally. The Exchange notes that its affiliated equities exchanges
offer a similar credit for a similar market data product.\43\ Further,
in every case the Exchange will receive at least the amount of the
External Distribution fee for C2 Options Top or Cboe One Options, as
applicable, in connection with the distribution of each respective feed
(through a combination of the External Distribution Fee and per User
Fees or Enterprise Fees, as applicable). The Exchange believes it is
also equitable and not unfairly discriminatory to apply the credit to
External Distributors only because, like the free three-month credit
described above, it is also intended to incentivize new External
Distributors to enlist Users, including Non-Profession Users such as
retail investors, to subscribe to the C2 Options Top or Cboe One
Options Feed in an effort to broaden the products' distribution. While
this incentive is not available to Internal Distributors (i.e.,
Distributors who exclusively distributed internally) of these products,
the Exchange believes it is appropriate as Internal Distributors have
no Users outside of their own firm. Furthermore, External Distributors
are subject to higher risks of launch as the data is provided outside
their own firm. For these reasons, the Exchange believes it is
appropriate to provide this incentive to only External Distributors.
The proposal to adopt a Distributor Fee Credit for Cboe One Options
Feed in particular also ensures the proposed credit for Cboe One
Options will not cause the combined cost of subscribing to Cboe
Options, C2 Options, BZX Options and EDGX Options Top feeds for
External Distributors to be greater than the amount that would be
charged to subscribe to the Cboe One Options feed, thereby ensuring
that vendors can compete with the Exchange by creating the same product
as the Cboe One Options Feed (i.e., purchasing the underlying data
feeds and aggregating the feeds themselves) to sell to their clients.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \42\ A Distributor that does not qualify to receive the New
External Distributor Credit, does not need to wait three months to
be eligible to receive the Distributor Fee Credit (i.e., the
Distributor would be eligible to receive the credit immediately).
    \43\ See e.g.,, EDGX Equities Exchange Fees Schedule, Market
Data Fees.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange also believes updating the Trial Usage section of the
Fees Schedule avoids potential confusion as to whether new Users or
Distributors would be entitled to any credits, including the proposed
Distributor Fee Credit (and New External Distributor Credit), during
the trial usage period. The Exchange believes its reasonable not to
provide such credits as such new users are not paying assessed any fees
during their trial period.
    Data Consolidation Fee. The Exchange believes that the proposed
$500 per month Data Consolidation Fee charged to Distributors
(including vendors) who receive the Cboe One Options Feed is reasonable
because it represents the value of the data aggregation and
consolidation function that the Exchange performs. The Exchange further
believes the proposed Data Consolidation Fee is not designed to permit
unfair discrimination because all Distributors who obtain the Cboe One
Options Feed will be charged the same fee. Accordingly, the Exchange
believes that Distributors could readily offer a product similar to the
Cboe One Options Feed on a competitive basis at a similar cost.
Therefore, the Exchange believes the proposed application of the Data
Consolidation Fee is reasonable and would not permit unfair
discrimination.

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change would
result in any burden on competition that is not necessary or
appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The Exchange
operates in a highly competitive environment, and its ability to price
top-of-book data is constrained by competition among exchanges that
offer similar data products to their customers. Top-of-book data is
broadly disseminated by competing U.S. options exchanges. In this
competitive environment potential Distributors are free to choose which
competing product to purchase to satisfy their respective needs for
market information. Often, the choice comes down to price, as market
data participants look to purchase cheaper data products, and quality,
as market participants seek to purchase data that represents
significant market liquidity.
    The Exchange believes that the proposed fees do not impose a burden
on competition or on other SROs that is not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act. In particular, market
participants are not forced to subscribe to C2 Options Top, Cboe One
Options Feed or any of the Exchange's data feeds, as described above.
As noted, the quote and last sale data contained in the Exchange's C2
Options Top feed is identical to the data sent to OPRA for
redistribution to the public. Accordingly, Exchange top-of-book data is
widely available today from a number of different sources.
    The Exchange believes that the proposed fees do not put any market
participants at a relative disadvantage compared to other market
participants. As discussed, the proposed waiver, credits and Enterprise
Fees would apply to all similarly situated Distributors of C2 Options
Top on an equal and non-discriminatory basis. Because market data
customers can find suitable substitute feeds, an exchange that
overprices its market data products stands a high risk that users may
substitute another product. These competitive pressures ensure that no
one exchange's market data fees can impose an undue burden on
competition, and the Exchange's proposed fees do not do so here.
    Additionally, the Cboe One Options Feed will enhance competition
because it provides investors with an alternative option for receiving
market data. Although the Cboe Options Exchanges are the exclusive
distributors of the individual data feeds from which certain data
elements would be taken to

create the Cboe One Options Feed, the Exchange would not be the
exclusive distributor of the aggregated and consolidated information
that would compose the proposed Cboe One Options Feed. Any entity that
receives, or elects to receive, the underlying data feeds would be able
to, if it so chooses, to create a data feed with the same information
included in the Cboe One Options Feed and sell and distribute it to its
clients so that it could be received by those clients as quickly as the
Cboe One Options Feed would be received by those same clients and at a
similar cost.
    The proposed pricing the Exchange would charge for the Cboe One
Options Feed compared to the cost of the individual data feeds from the
Cboe Options Exchanges would enable a vendor to receive the underlying
individual data feeds and offer a similar product on a competitive
basis and with no greater cost than the Exchange. The pricing the
Exchange proposes to charge for the Cboe One Options Feed is not lower
than the cost to a vendor of receiving the underlying data feeds.
Indeed, the proposed pricing equals the combined costs of the
respective fees, and the proposed waivers are also being proposed for
the underlying individual feeds as well, thereby enabling a vendor to
receive the underlying data feeds and offer a similar product on a
competitive basis and with no greater cost than the Exchange.
    The Exchange further believes that its proposed monthly Data
Consolidation Fee would be pro-competitive because a vendor could
create a competing product, perform a similar aggregating and
consolidating function, and similarly charge for such service. The
Exchange notes that a competing vendor might engage in a different
analysis of assessing the cost of a competing product. For these
reasons, the Exchange believes the proposed pricing, fee waiver and
credit, would enable a vendor to create a competing product based on
the individual data feeds and charge its clients a fee that it believes
reflects the value of the aggregation and consolidation function that
is competitive with Cboe One Options Feed pricing.
    In establishing 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.

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

    The Exchange has not solicited, and does not intend to solicit,
comments on this proposed rule change. The Exchange has not received
any written comments from members or other interested parties.

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

    The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to section
19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \44\ and paragraph (f) of Rule 19b-4 \45\
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. If the Commission
takes such action, the Commission will institute proceedings to
determine whether the proposed rule change should be approved or
disapproved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \44\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \45\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's internet comment form (https://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to [email protected]. Please include
file number SR-C2-2023-015 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-C2-2023-015. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's internet website (https://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for website viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE,
Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of 10
a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available for
inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. Do not
include personal identifiable information in submissions; you should
submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. We
may redact in part or withhold entirely from publication submitted
material that is obscene or subject to copyright protection. All
submissions should refer to file number SR-C2-2023-015 and should be
submitted on or before August 22, 2023.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\46\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \46\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sherry R. Haywood,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2023-16245 Filed 7-31-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 219 (Friday, November 13, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 70291-70292]
[FR Doc No: 2015-28814]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Petition for Exemption From the Federal Motor Vehicle Theft
Prevention Standard; Mazda Motor Corporation

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA),
Department of Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Grant of petition for exemption.

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

SUMMARY: This document grants in full the Mazda Motor Corporation's
(Mazda) petition for an exemption of the (confidential) vehicle line in
accordance with 49 CFR part 543, Exemption from Vehicle Theft
Prevention Standard. This petition is granted because the agency has
determined that the antitheft device to be placed on the line as
standard equipment is likely to be as effective in reducing and
deterring motor vehicle theft as compliance with the parts-marking
requirements of 49 CFR part 541, Federal Motor Vehicle Theft Prevention
Standard (Theft Prevention Standard). Mazda also requested confidential
treatment for specific information in its petition. For purposes of
this document the confidential information has been redacted until
released by the manufacturer.

DATES: The exemption granted by this notice is effective beginning with
the 2017 model year (MY).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Carlita Ballard, Office of
International Policy, Fuel Economy and Consumer Programs, NHTSA, W43-
439, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590. Ms. Ballard's
phone number is<PHONE_NUMBER>. Her fax number is<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In a petition dated June 18, 2015, Mazda
requested an exemption from the parts-marking requirements of the Theft
Prevention Standard for the Mazda (confidential) vehicle line beginning
with MY 2017. The petition requested an exemption from parts-marking
pursuant to 49 CFR part 543, Exemption from Vehicle Theft Prevention
Standard, based on the installation of an antitheft device as standard
equipment for the entire vehicle line.
    Under 49 CFR 543.5(a), a manufacturer may petition NHTSA to grant
an exemption for one vehicle line per model year. In its petition,
Mazda provided a detailed description and diagram of the identity,
design, and location of the components of the antitheft device for the
(confidential) vehicle line. Mazda stated that its MY 2017
(confidential) vehicle line will be equipped with a passive,
transponder based, electronic engine immobilizer antitheft device as
standard equipment. Key components of its antitheft device will include
a powertrain control module (PCM), immobilizer control module, security
indicator light, coil antenna, transmitter with transponder key
(transponder key), low frequency (LF) antenna, radio frequency (RF)
antenna and low frequency unit (LFU). The device will not provide any
visible or audible indication of unauthorized vehicle entry (i.e.,
flashing lights or horn alarm) as standard equipment however, Mazda
stated that its device will incorporate a light-emitting diode (LED)
indicator which will provide a visual confirmation on the protection
status of the antitheft device.
    Mazda's submission is considered a complete petition as required by
49 CFR 543.7, in that it meets the general requirements contained in
Sec.  543.5 and the specific content requirements of Sec.  543.6.
    In addressing the specific content requirements of Sec.  543.6,
Mazda provided information on the reliability and durability of its
proposed device. To ensure reliability and durability of the device,
Mazda conducted tests based on its own specified standards. Mazda
provided a detailed list of the tests conducted (i.e., electromagnetic
radiation, electric conduction, and climatic, mechanical and chemical
environments) and believes that the device is reliable and durable
since it complied with its own specified requirements for each test.
Additionally, Mazda stated that its device is extremely reliable and
durable because it is computer-based and does not rely on any
mechanical or moving parts. Mazda further stated that any attempt to
slam-pull its vehicle's ignition will have no effect on a thief's
ability to start the vehicle without the correct code being transmitted
to the electronic control modules.
    According to Mazda, there are two methods of initiating the
antitheft device operation process. The first process is used when the
transponder key can be detected. Specifically, the immobilizer control
unit sends a signal to the transponder key using its LF antenna to
request a transponder code. The transponder code is then sent through
the RF receiver back to the immobilizer control unit to authenticate
the code and determine its validity. The second process is used when
the transponder key cannot be detected by the immobilizer control unit
(i.e., discharged battery). For this process, communication between the
transponder key and the immobilizer control unit begins when the
transponder key is passed over the coil antenna located in the ``Engine
Start'' pushbutton. The immobilizer control module then communicates
with the transponder key to determine key validity. Mazda stated that
if the code from the transponder key matches with the code from the
immobilizer control module by either process, the immobilizer control
module compares its code with the code from the powertrain electronic
control module when the ``Engine Start'' pushbutton is pressed and the
brake pedal is depressed simultaneously. Mazda stated

that the vehicle's engine can only be started if the immobilizer code
matches the code previously programmed into the immobilizer control
module.
    Mazda stated that activation of the device occurs when the operator
disengages the ignition by pressing the ``Engine Start'' pushbutton
when the vehicle is parked, and that the integration of the set/unset
device (transponder key) into the immobilizer system prevents any
inadvertent activation of the system. Deactivation occurs when the
ignition is initially engaged by pressing the ``Engine Start''
pushbutton while simultaneously depressing the brake pedal.
    Mazda provided data on the effectiveness of other similar antitheft
devices installed on vehicle lines in support of its belief that its
device will be at least as effective as those comparable devices.
Specifically, Mazda stated that its device was installed on certain MY
1996 Ford vehicles as standard equipment, (i.e., all Ford Mustang GT
and Cobra models, Ford Taurus LX, and SHO models and Ford Sable LS
models). In MY 1997, Mazda installed its immobilizer device on the
entire Ford Mustang vehicle line as standard equipment. When comparing
1995 model year Mustang vehicle thefts (without immobilizers) with MY
1997 Mustang vehicle thefts (with immobilizers), Mazda referenced the
National Crime Information Center's (NCIC) theft information which
showed that there was a 70% reduction in theft experienced when
comparing MY 1997 Mustang vehicle thefts (with immobilizers) to MY 1995
Mustang vehicle thefts (without immobilizers). Mazda also stated that
the Highway Loss Data Institute's (HLDI) September 1997 Theft Loss
Bulletin reported an overall theft loss decrease of approximately 50%
for both the Ford Mustang and Taurus models upon installation of an
antitheft immobilization device. The agency notes that the theft rate
data for MYs' 2010 through 2012 are 2.2392, 1.7365 and 2.2115
respectively for the Ford Mustang vehicle line. Preliminary theft data
for MY 2013 show that the theft rate for the Ford Mustang vehicle line
is 2.8190, which is still below the median theft rate. Additionally,
Mazda referenced a July 2000 Highway Loss Data Institute news release
which compared theft loss data before and after equipping vehicles with
passive immobilizer devices. The data showed an average theft reduction
of approximately 50% for vehicles installed with immobilizer devices.
    Based on the supporting evidence submitted by Mazda on its device,
the agency believes that the antitheft device for the (confidential)
vehicle line is likely to be as effective in reducing and deterring
motor vehicle theft as compliance with the parts-marking requirements
of the Theft Prevention Standard (49 CFR part 541). The agency
concludes that the device will provide four of the five types of
performance listed in Sec.  543.6(a)(3): promoting activation;
preventing defeat or circumvention of the device by unauthorized
persons; preventing operation of the vehicle by unauthorized entrants;
and ensuring the reliability and durability of the device.
    Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 33106 and 49 CFR 543.7(b), the agency grants
a petition for exemption from the parts-marking requirements of part
541 either in whole or in part, if it determines that, based upon
substantial evidence, the standard equipment antitheft device is likely
to be as effective in reducing and deterring motor vehicle theft as
compliance with the parts-marking requirements of part 541. The agency
finds that Mazda has provided adequate reasons for its belief that the
antitheft device for the Mazda (confidential) vehicle line is likely to
be as effective in reducing and deterring motor vehicle theft as
compliance with the parts-marking requirements of the Theft Prevention
Standard (49 CFR part 541). This conclusion is based on the information
Mazda provided about its device.
    For the foregoing reasons, the agency hereby grants in full Mazda's
petition for exemption for the Mazda (confidential) vehicle line from
the parts-marking requirements of 49 CFR part 541. The agency notes
that 49 CFR part 541, appendix A-1, identifies those lines that are
exempted from the Theft Prevention Standard for a given model year. 49
CFR 543.7(f) contains publication requirements incident to the
disposition of all part 543 petitions. Advanced listing, including the
release of future product nameplates, the beginning model year for
which the petition is granted and a general description of the
antitheft device is necessary in order to notify law enforcement
agencies of new vehicle lines exempted from the parts-marking
requirements of the Theft Prevention Standard. As a condition to the
formal granting of Mazda's petition for exemption from the parts-
marking requirements of 49 CFR part 541 for the MY 2017 (confidential)
vehicle line, the agency fully expects Mazda to notify the agency of
the nameplate for the vehicle line prior to its introduction into the
United States Commerce for sale.
    If Mazda decides not to use the exemption for this line, it must
formally notify the agency. If such a decision is made, the line must
be fully marked according to the requirements under 49 CFR 541.5 and
541.6 (marking of major component parts and replacement parts).
    NHTSA notes that if Mazda wishes in the future to modify the device
on which this exemption is based, the company may have to submit a
petition to modify the exemption. Section 543.7(d) states that a part
543 exemption applies only to vehicles that belong to a line exempted
under this part and equipped with the antitheft device on which the
line's exemption is based. Further, Sec.  543.9(c)(2) provides for the
submission of petitions ``to modify an exemption to permit the use of
an antitheft device similar to but differing from the one specified in
that exemption.''
    The agency wishes to minimize the administrative burden that Sec.
543.9(c)(2) could place on exempted vehicle manufacturers and itself.
The agency did not intend in drafting part 543 to require the
submission of a modification petition for every change to the
components or design of an antitheft device. The significance of many
such changes could be de minimis. Therefore, NHTSA suggests that if the
manufacturer contemplates making any changes, the effects of which
might be characterized as de minimis, it should consult the agency
before preparing and submitting a petition to modify.

    Issued in Washington, DC, under authority delegated in 49 CFR
1.95.
Raymond R. Posten,
Associate Administrator for Rulemaking.
[FR Doc. 2015-28814 Filed 11-12-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P


[Federal Register: April 11, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 69)]
[Notices]
[Page 18229]
[DOCID:fr11ap07-67]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. RP99-176-132]

Natural Gas Pipeline Company of America; Notice of Tariff Filing
and Negotiated Rates

April 5, 2007.
    Take notice that on March 30, 2007, Natural Gas Pipeline Company of
America (Natural) tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas Tariff,
Sixth Revised Volume No. 1, the following tariff sheets, to become
effective May 1, 2007

Second Revised Sheet No. 26V,
Original Sheet No. 414A.07.

    Natural states that copies of the filing are being mailed to all
parties set out on the Commission's official service list.
    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 and 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. Such notices,
motions, or protests must be filed in accordance with the provisions of
Section 154.210 of the Commission's regulations (18 CFR 154.210).
Anyone filing an intervention or protest must serve a copy of that
document on the Applicant. Anyone filing an intervention or protest on
or before the intervention or protest date need not serve motions to
intervene or protests on persons other than the Applicant.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov.
 Persons unable to file electronically should submit an

original and 14 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC
20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the

``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription''
link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For
assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For

TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Philis J. Posey,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. E7-6810 Filed 4-10-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 77 (Tuesday, April 21, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Page 22217]
[FR Doc No: 2020-08383]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-88646; File No. SR-CboeBZX-2019-069]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Cboe BZX Exchange, Inc.; Notice of
Withdrawal of a Proposed Rule Change To Introduce a Small Retail Broker
Distribution Program

April 15, 2020.
    On August 1, 2019, Cboe BZX Exchange, Inc. (``Exchange'' or
``BZX'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission''), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ a
proposed rule change to amend the BZX fee schedule to introduce a Small
Retail Broker Distribution Program. The proposed rule change was
immediately effective upon filing with the Commission pursuant to
Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act.\3\ The proposed rule change was
published for comment in the Federal Register on August 20, 2019.\4\
The Commission received no comment letters regarding the proposed rule
change. On September 30, 2019, the Commission issued an order
temporarily suspending the proposed rule change pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(C) of the Act \5\ and simultaneously instituting proceedings
under Section 19(b)(2)(B) of the Act \6\ to determine whether to
approve or disapprove the proposed rule change (``OIP'').\7\ The
Commission received no comment letters in response to the OIP. On
February 12, 2020, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act,\8\ the
Commission designated a longer period within which to approve or
disapprove the proposed rule change.\9\ On April 9, 2020, the Exchange
withdrew the proposed rule change (SR-CboeBZX-2019-069).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \4\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 86667 (August 14,
2019), 84 FR 43233 (August 20, 2019).
    \5\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(C).
    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2)(B).
    \7\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 87164 (September 30,
2019), 84 FR 53208 (October 4, 2019).
    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).
    \9\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 88180 (February 12,
2020), 85 FR 9504 (February 19, 2020).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(57) and (58).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

J. Matthew DeLesDernier,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2020-08383 Filed 4-20-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P