each 10Gb direct connection to Nasdaq and $2,500 for each direct
connection that supports up to 1Gb. See also NYSE American Fee
Schedule, Section V.B, and Arca Fees and Charges, Co-Location Fees.
NYSE American and Arca each charge a monthly fee of $5,000 for each
1Gb circuit, $14,000 for each 10Gb circuit and $22,000 for each 10Gb
LX circuit.
    \104\ See e.g., Affiliated Exchange Fee Schedules, Physical
Connectivity Fees. For example, Cboe BZX, Cboe EDGX and C2 each
charge a monthly fee of $2,500 for each 1Gb connection and $7,500
for each 10Gb connection.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Data Port Fees
    The Exchange believes assessing the data port fee per data source,
instead of per port, is reasonable because it may allow for market
participants to maintain more ports at a lower cost and applies
uniformly to all market participants. The Exchange believes the
proposed increase is reasonable because, as noted above, market
participants may pay lower fees as a result of charging per data source
and not per data port. Indeed, while the Exchange has no way of
predicting with certainty the impact of the proposed changes, the
Exchange had anticipated approximately 76% of the 51 market
participants who pay data port fees to pay the same or lower fees upon
implementation of the proposed change. As of December 2019, 46 market
participants \105\ pay the proposed data port fees, of which
approximately 78% market participants are paying the same or lower fees
in connection with the proposed change. Monthly savings for firms
paying lower fees range from $500 to $6,000 per month. The Exchange
also anticipated that 19% of TPHs who pay data port fees would pay a
modest increase of only $500 per month. In December 2019, approximately
22% market participants paid higher fees, with the majority of those
market participants paying a modest monthly increase of $500 and only 3
firms paying either $1,000 or $1,500 more per month. Additionally, as
discussed above, the Exchange's affiliate C2 has the same fee which is
also assessed at the proposed rate and assessed by data source instead
of per port. The proposed name change is also appropriate in light of
the Exchange's proposed changes and may alleviate potential confusion.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \105\ The Exchange notes the reduction in market participants
that pay the data port fee is due to firm consolidations and
acquisitions.

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

Logical Connectivity
Port fees
    The Exchange believes it's reasonable to eliminate certain fees
associated with legacy options for connecting to the Exchange and to
replace them with fees associated with new options for connecting to
the Exchange that are similar to those offered at its Affiliated
Exchanges. In particular, the Exchange believes it's reasonable to no
longer assess fees for CMI and FIX Login IDs because the Login IDs were
retired and rendered obsolete upon migration and because the Exchange
is proposing to replace them with fees associated with the new logical
connectivity options. The Exchange believes that it is reasonable to
harmonize the Exchange's logical connectivity options and corresponding
connectivity fees now that the Exchange is on a common platform as its
Affiliated Exchanges. Additionally, the Exchange notes the proposed
fees are the same as, or in line with, the fees assessed on its
Affiliated Exchanges for similar connectivity.\106\ The proposed
logical connectivity fees are also equitable and not unfairly
discriminatory because the Exchange will apply the same fees to all
market participants that use the same respective connectivity options.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \106\ See Affiliated Exchange Fee Schedules, Logical Port Fees.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes the proposed Logical Port fees are reasonable
as it is the same fee for Drop Ports and the first five BOE/FIX Ports
that is assessed for CMI and FIX Logins, which the Exchange is
eliminating in lieu of logical ports. Additionally, while the proposed
ports will be assessed the same monthly fees as current CMI/FIX Login
IDs, the proposed logical ports provide for significantly more message
traffic. Specifically, the proposed BOE/FIX Logical Ports will provide
for 3 times the amount of quoting \107\ capacity and approximately 165
times order entry capacity. Similarly, the Exchange believes the
proposed BOE Bulk Port fees are reasonable because while the fees are
higher than the CMI and FIX Login Id fees and the proposed Logical Port
fees, BOE Bulk Ports offer significantly more bandwidth capacity than
both CMI and FIX Login Ids and Logical Ports. Particularly, a single
BOE Bulk Port offers 45 times the amount of quoting bandwidth than CMI/
FIX Login Ids \108\ and 5 times the amount of quoting bandwidth than
Logical Ports will offer. Additionally, the Exchange believes that its
fees for logical connectivity are reasonable, equitable, and not
unfairly discriminatory as they are designed to ensure that firms that
use the most capacity pay for that capacity, rather than placing that
burden on market participants that have more modest needs. Although the
Exchange charges a ``per port'' fee for logical connectivity, it notes
that this fee is in effect a capacity fee as each FIX, BOE or BOE Bulk
port used for order/quote entry supports a specified capacity (i.e.,
messages per second) in the matching engine, and firms purchase
additional logical ports when they require more capacity due to their
business needs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \107\ Based on the purchase of a single Market-Maker Trading
Permit or Bandwidth Packet.
    \108\ Based on the purchase of a single Market-Maker Trading
Permit or Bandwidth Packet.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    An obvious driver for a market participant's decision to purchase
multiple ports will be their desire to send or receive additional
levels of message traffic in some manner, either by increasing their
total amount of message capacity available, or by segregating order
flow for different trading desks and clients to avoid latency sensitive
applications from competing for a single thread of resources. For
example, a TPH may purchase one or more ports for its market making
business based on the amount of message traffic needed to support that
business, and then purchase separate ports for proprietary trading or
customer facing businesses so that those businesses have their own
distinct connection, allowing the firm to send multiple messages into
the Exchange's trading system in parallel rather than sequentially.
Some TPHs that provide direct market access to their customers may also
choose to purchase separate ports for different clients as a service
for latency sensitive customers that desire the lowest possible latency
to improve trading performance. Thus, while a smaller TPH that demands
more limited message traffic may connect through a service bureau or
other service provider, or may choose to purchase one or two logical
ports that are billed at a rate of $750 per month each, a larger market
participant with a substantial and diversified U.S. options business
may opt to purchase additional ports to support both the volume and
types of activity that they conduct on the Exchange. While the Exchange
has no way of predicting with certainty the amount or type of logical
ports market participants will in fact purchase post-migration, the
Exchange anticipated approximately 16% of TPHs to purchase one to two
logical ports, and approximately 22% of TPHs to not purchase any
logical ports. In December 2019, 13% of TPHs purchased one to two
logical ports and 27% have not purchased any logical ports. At the same
time, market participants that desire more total capacity due to their
business needs, or that wish to segregate order flow by purchasing
separate capacity allocations to reduce latency or for other
operational reasons, would be permitted to choose to purchase such
additional capacity at the same marginal cost. The Exchange believes
the proposal to assess an additional Logical and BOE Bulk port fee for
incremental usage per logical port is reasonable because the proposed
fees are modestly higher than the proposed Logical Port and BOE Bulk
fees and encourage users to mitigate message traffic as necessary. The
Exchange notes one of its Affiliated Exchanges has similar implied port
fees.\109\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \109\ See e.g., Cboe C2 Options Exchange Fees Schedule, Logical
Connectivity Fees.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In sum, the Exchange believes that the proposed BOE/FIX Logical
Port and BOE Bulk Port fees are appropriate as these fees would ensure
that market participants continue to pay for the amount of capacity
that they request, and the market participants that pay the most are
the ones that demand the most resources from the Exchange. The Exchange
also believes that its logical connectivity fees are aligned with the
goals of the Commission in facilitating a competitive market for all
firms that trade on the Exchange and of ensuring that critical market
infrastructure has ``levels of capacity, integrity, resiliency,
availability, and security adequate to maintain their operational
capability and promote the maintenance of fair and orderly markets.''
\110\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \110\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 73639 (November
19, 2014), 79 FR 72251 (December 5, 2014) (File No. S7-01-13)
(Regulation SCI Adopting Release).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes waiving the FIX/BOE Logical Port fee for one
FIX Logical Port used to access PULSe and Silexx (for FLEX Trading) is
reasonable because it will allow all TPHs using PULSe and Silexx to
avoid having to pay a fee that they would otherwise have to pay. The
waiver is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because TPHs using
PULSe are already subject to a monthly fee for the PULSe Workstation,
which the Exchange views as inclusive of fees to access the Exchange.
Moreover, while PULSe users today do not require a FIX/CMI Login Id,
post-migration, due to changes to the connectivity infrastructure,
PULSe users will be required to maintain a FIX Logical Port and as such
incur a fee they previously would not have been subject to. Similarly,
the Exchange believes that the waiver for Silexx (for FLEX trading)

will encourage TPHs to transact business using FLEX Options using the
new Silexx System and encourage trading of FLEX Options. Additionally,
the Exchange notes that it currently waives the Login Id fees for Login
IDs used to access the CFLEX system.
    The Exchange believes its proposed fee for Purge Ports is
reasonable as it is also in line with the amount assessed for purge
ports offered by its Affiliated Exchanges, as well as other
exchanges.\111\ Moreover, the Exchange believes that offering purge
port functionality at the Exchange level promotes robust risk
management across the industry, and thereby facilitates investor
protection. Some market participants, and, in particular, larger firms,
could build similar risk functionality on their trading systems that
permit the flexible cancellation of orders entered on the Exchange.
Offering Exchange level protections however, ensures that such
functionality is widely available to all firms, including smaller firms
that may otherwise not be willing to incur the costs and development
work necessary to support their own customized mass cancel
functionality. The Exchange operates in a highly competitive market in
which exchanges offer connectivity and related services as a means to
facilitate the trading activities of TPHs and other participants. As
the proposed Purge Ports provide voluntary risk management
functionality, excessive fees would simply serve to reduce demand for
this optional product. The Exchange also believes that the proposed
Purge Port fees are not unfairly discriminatory because they will apply
uniformly to all TPHs that choose to use dedicated Purge Ports. The
proposed Purge Ports are completely voluntary and, as they relate
solely to optional risk management functionality, no TPH is required or
under any regulatory obligation to utilize them. The Exchange believes
that adopting separate fees for these ports ensures that the associated
costs are borne exclusively by TPHs that determine to use them based on
their business needs, including Market-Makers or similarly situated
market participants. Similar to Purge Ports, Spin and GRP Ports are
optional products that provide an alternative means for market
participants to receive multicast data and request and receive a
retransmission of such data. As such excessive fees would simply serve
to reduce demand for these products, which TPHs are under no regulatory
obligation to utilize. All TPHs that voluntarily select these service
options (i.e., Purge Ports, Spin Ports or GRP Ports) will be charged
the same amount for the same respective services. All TPHs have the
option to select any connectivity option, and there is no
differentiation among TPHs with regard to the fees charged for the
services offered by the Exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \111\ See Affiliated Exchange Fee Schedules, Logical Port Fees.
See also, Nasdaq ISE Pricing Schedule, Section 7(C). ISE charges a
fee of $1,100 per month for SQF Purge Ports.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Access Credits
    The Exchange believes the proposal to adopt credits for BOE Bulk
Ports is reasonable, equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because
it provides an opportunity for TPHs to pay lower fees for logical
connectivity. The Exchange notes that the proposed credits are in lieu
of the current credits that Market-Makers are eligible to receive today
for Trading Permits fees. Although only Market-Makers may receive the
proposed BOE Bulk Port credits, Market-Makers are valuable market
participants that provide liquidity in the marketplace and incur costs
that other market participants do not incur. For example, Market-Makers
have a number of obligations, including quoting obligations and fees
associated with appointments that other market participants do not
have. The Exchange also believes that the proposals provide incremental
incentives for TPHs to strive for the higher tier levels, which provide
increasingly higher benefits for satisfying increasingly more stringent
criteria, including criteria to provide more liquidity to the Exchange.
The Exchange believes the value of the proposed credits is commensurate
with the difficulty to achieve the corresponding tier thresholds of
each program.
    First, the Exchange believes the proposed BOE Bulk Port fee credits
provided under AVP will incentivize the routing of orders to the
Exchange by TPHs that have both Market-Maker and agency operations, as
well as incent Market-Makers to continue to provide critical liquidity
notwithstanding the costs incurred with being a Market-Maker. More
specifically, in the options industry, many options orders are routed
by consolidators, which are firms that have both order router and
Market-Maker operations. The Exchange is aware not only of the
importance of providing credits on the order routing side in order to
encourage the submission of orders, but also of the operations costs on
the Market-Maker side. The Exchange believes the proposed change to AVP
continues to allow the Exchange to provide relief to the Market-Maker
side via the credits, albeit credits on BOE Bulk Port fees instead of
Trading Permit fees. Additionally, the proposed credits may incentivize
and attract more volume and liquidity to the Exchange, which will
benefit all Exchange participants through increased opportunities to
trade as well as enhancing price discovery. While the Exchange has no
way of predicting with certainty how many and which TPHs will satisfy
the required criteria to receive the credits, the Exchange had
anticipated approximately two TPHs (out of approximately 5 TPHs that
are eligible for AVP) to reach VIP Tiers 4 or 5 and consequently earn
the BOE Bulk Port fee credits for their respective Market-Maker
affiliate. For the month of October 2019, two TPHs received access
credits under Tier 5 and no TPHs received credits under Tier 4. The
Exchange notes that it believes its reasonable, equitable and not
unfairly discriminatory to no longer provider access credits for
Market-Makers whose affiliates achieve VIP Tiers 2 or 3 as the Exchange
has adopted another opportunity for all Market-Makers, not just Market-
Makers that are part of a consolidator, to receive credits on BOE Bulk
Port fees (i.e., credits available via the proposed Market-Maker Access
Credit Program). More specifically, limiting the credits under AVP to
the top two tiers enables the Exchange to provide further credits under
the new Market-Maker Access Credit Program. Furthermore, the Exchange
notes that it is not required to provide any credits at any tier level.
    The Exchange believes the proposed BOE Bulk Port fee credits
available for TPHs that reach certain Performance Tiers under the
Liquidity Provider Sliding Scale Adjustment Table is reasonable as the
credits provide for reduced connectivity costs for those Market-Makers
that reach the required thresholds. The Exchange believe it's
reasonable, equitable and not unfairly discriminatory to provide
credits to those Market-Makers that primarily provide and post
liquidity to the Exchange, as the Exchange wants to continue to
encourage Market-Makers with significant Make Rates to continue to
participate on the Exchange and add liquidity. Greater liquidity
benefits all market participants by providing more trading
opportunities and tighter spreads.
    Moreover, the Exchange notes that Market-Makers with a high Make
Rate percentage generally require higher amounts of capacity than other
Market-Makers. Particularly, Market-Makers with high Make Rates are
generally

streaming significantly more quotes than those with lower Make Rates.
As such, Market-Makers with high Make Rates may incur more costs than
other Market-Makers as they may need to purchase multiple BOE Bulk
Ports in order to accommodate their capacity needs. The Exchange
believes the proposed credits for BOE Bulk Ports encourages Market-
Makers to continue to provide liquidity for the Exchange,
notwithstanding the costs incurred by purchasing multiple ports.
Particularly, the proposal is intended to mitigate the costs incurred
by traditional Market-Makers that focus on adding liquidity to the
Exchange (as opposed to those that provide and take, or just take).
While the Exchange cannot predict with certainty which Market-Makers
will reach Performance Tiers 4 and 5 each month, based on historical
performance it anticipated approximately 10 Market-Makers would achieve
Tiers 4 or 5. In October 2019, 12 Market-Makers achieved Tiers 4 or 5.
Lastly, the Exchange notes that it is common practice among options
exchanges to differentiate fees for adding liquidity and fees for
removing liquidity.\112\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \112\ See e.g., MIAX Options Fees Schedule, Section 1(a), Market
Maker Transaction Fees.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Bandwidth Packets and CMI CAS Server Fees
    The Exchange believes it's reasonable to eliminate Bandwidth Packet
fees and the CMI CAS Server fee because TPHs will not pay fees for
these connectivity options and because Bandwidth Packets and CAS
Servers have been retired and rendered obsolete as part of the
migration. The Exchange believes that even though it will be
discontinuing Bandwidth Packets, the proposed incremental pricing for
Logical Ports and BOE Bulk Ports will continue to encourage users to
mitigate message traffic. The proposed change is equitable and not
unfairly discriminatory because it will apply uniformly to all TPHs.
Access Fees
    The Exchange believes the restructuring of its Trading Permits is
reasonable in light of the changes to the Exchange's connectivity
infrastructure in connection with the migration and the resulting
separation of bandwidth allowance, logins and appointment costs from
each Trading Permit. The Exchange also believes that it is reasonable
to harmonize the Exchange's Trading Permit structure and corresponding
connectivity options to more closely align with the structures offered
at its Affiliated Exchanges once the Exchange is on a common platform
as its Affiliated Exchanges.\113\ The proposed Trading Permit structure
and corresponding fees are also in line with the structure and fees
provided by other exchanges. The proposed Trading Permit fees are also
equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because the Exchange will
apply the same fees to all market participants that use the same type
and number of Trading Permits.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \113\ For example, the Exchange's affiliate, C2, similarly
provides for Trading Permits that are not tied to connectivity, and
similar physical and logical port options at similar pricings. See
Cboe C2 Options Exchange Fees Schedule. Physical connectivity and
logical connectivity are also not tied to any type of permits on the
Exchange's other options exchange affiliates.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With respect to electronic Trading Permits, the Exchange notes that
TPHs previously requested multiple Trading Permits because of
bandwidth, login or appointment cost needs. As described above, in
connection with migration, bandwidth, logins and appointment costs are
no longer tied to Trading Permits or Bandwidth Packets and as such, the
need to hold multiple permits and/or Bandwidth Packets is obsolete. As
such, the Exchange believes the structure to require only one of each
type of applicable electronic Trading Permit is appropriate. Moreover,
the Exchange believes offering separate marketing making permits for
off-floor and on-floor Market-Makers provides for a cleaner, more
streamlined approach to trading permits and corresponding fees. Other
exchanges similarly provide separate and distinct fees for Market-
Makers that operate on-floor vs off-floor and their corresponding fees
are similar to those proposed by the Exchange.\114\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \114\ See e.g., PHLX Section 8A, Permit and Registration Fees.
See also, BOX Options Fee Schedule, Section IX Participant Fees;
NYSE American Options Fees Schedule, Section III(A) Monthly ATP Fees
and NYSE Arca Options Fees and Charges, OTP Trading Participant
Rights. For similar Trading Floor Permits for Floor Market Makers,
Nasdaq PHLX charges $6,000; BOX charges up to $5,500 for 3
registered permits in addition to a $1,500 Participant Fee, NYSE
Arca charges up to $6,000; and NYSE American charges up to $8,000.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes the proposed fee for its MM EAP Trading
Permits is reasonable as it is the same fee it assess today for Market-
Maker Trading Permits (i.e., $5,000 per month per permit).
Additionally, the proposed fee is in line with, and in some cases even
lower than, the amounts assessed for similar access fees at other
exchanges, including its affiliate C2.\115\ The Exchange believes the
proposed EAP fee is also reasonable, and in line with the fees assessed
by other Exchanges for non-Market-Maker electronic access.\116\ The
Exchange notes that while the Trading Permit fee is increasing, TPHs
overall cost to access the Exchange may be reduced in light of the fact
that a TPH no longer must purchase multiple Trading Permits, Bandwidth
Packets and Login Ids in order to receive sufficient bandwidth and
logins to meet their respective business needs. To illustrate the value
of the new connectivity infrastructure, the Exchange notes that the
cost that would be incurred by a TPH today in order to receive the same
amount of order capacity that will be provided by a single Logical Port
post-migration (i.e., 5,000 orders per second), is approximately 98%
higher than the cost for the same capacity post-migration. The
following examples further demonstrate potential cost savings/value
added for an EAP holder with modest capacity needs and an EAP holder
with larger capacity needs:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \115\ See e.g., Cboe C2 Options Exchange Fees Schedule. See
also, NYSE Arca Options Fees and Charges, General Options and
Trading Permit (OTP) Fees, which assesses up to $6,000 per Market
Maker OTP and NYSE American Options Fee Schedule, Section III.
Monthly ATP Fees, which assess up to $8,000 per Market Maker ATP.
See also, PHLX Section 8A, Permit and Registration Fees, which
assesses up to $4,000 per Market Maker Permit.
    \116\ See e.g., PHLX Section 8A, Permit and Registration Fees,
which assesses up to $4,000 per Permit for all member and member
organizations other than Floor Specialists and Market Makers.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                      Current fee     Post-migration fee
                                       structure           structure
------------------------------------------------------------------------
       TPH that holds 1 EAP, no Bandwidth Packets and 1 CMI login
------------------------------------------------------------------------
EAP.............................  $1,600............  $3,000.
CMI Login/Logical Port..........  $750..............  $750.
Bandwidth Packets...............  0.................  N/A.
Total Bandwidth Available.......  30 orders/sec.....  5,000 orders/sec.
Total Cost......................  $2,350............  $3,750.
Total Cost per message..........  $78.33/order/sec..  $0.75/order/sec.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

       TPH that holds 1 EAP, 4 Bandwidth Packets and 15 CMI logins
------------------------------------------------------------------------
EAP.............................  $1,600............  $3,000.
CMI Login/Logical Port..........  $11,250 ([email protected])..  $750.
Bandwidth Packets...............  $6,400 ([email protected]$1,600).  N/A.
Total Bandwidth Available.......  150 orders/sec....  5,000 orders/sec.
Total Cost......................  $19,250...........  $3,750.
Total Cost per message..........  $128.33/order/sec.  $0.75/order/sec.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes the proposal to adopt a new Clearing TPH
Permit is reasonable because it offers TPHs that only clear
transactions of TPHs a discount. Particularly, Clearing TPHs that also
submit orders electronically to the Exchange would purchase the
proposed EAP at $3,000 per permit. The Exchange believe it's reasonable
to provide a discount to Clearing TPHs that only clear transactions and
do not otherwise submit electronic orders to the Exchange. The Exchange
notes that another exchange similarly charges a separate fee for
clearing firms.\117\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \117\ See e.g., NYSE Arca Options Fees and Charges, General
Options and Trading Permit (OTP) Fees and NYSE American Options Fee
Schedule, Section III. Monthly ATP Fees.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes the proposed fee structure for on-floor
Market-Makers is reasonable as the fees are in line with those offered
at other Exchanges.\118\ The Exchange believes that the proposed fee
for MM Floor Permits as compared to MM EAPs is reasonable because it is
only modestly higher than MM EAPs and Floor MMs don't have other costs
that MM EAP holders have, such as MM EAP Appointment fees.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \118\ See e.g., PHLX Section 8A, Permit and Registration Fees,
which assesses $6,000 per permit for Floor Specialists and Market
Makers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes its proposed fees for Floor Broker Permits
are reasonable because the fees are similar to, and in some cases lower
than, the fees the Exchange currently assesses for such permits.
Specifically, based on the number of Trading Permits TPHs held upon
migration, 60% of TPHs that hold Floor Broker Trading Permits will pay
lower Trading Permit fees. Particularly, any Floor Broker holding ten
or less Floor Broker Trading Permits will pay lower fees under the
proposed tiers as compared to what they pay today. While the remaining
40% of TPHs holding Floor Broker Trading Permits (who each hold between
12-21 Floor Broker Trading Permits) will pay higher fees, the Exchange
notes the monthly increase is de minimis, ranging from an increase of
0.6%--2.72%.\119\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \119\ The Floor Brokers whose fees are increasing have each
committed to a minimum number of permits and therefore currently
receive the rates set forth in the current Floor Broker TP Sliding
Scale.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes the proposed ADV Discount is reasonable
because it provides an opportunity for Floor Brokers to pay lower FB
Trading Permit fees, similar to the current rebate program offered to
Floor Brokers. The Exchange notes that while the new ADV Discount
program includes only customer volume (``C'' origin code) as compared
to Customer and Professional Customer/Voluntary Professional, the
amount of Professional Customer/Voluntary Professional volume was de
minimis and the Exchange does not believe the absence of such volume
will have a significant impact.\120\ Additionally, the Exchange notes
that while the ADV requirements under the proposed ADV Discount program
are higher than are required under the current rebate program, the
proposed ADV Discount counts volume from all products towards the
thresholds as compared to the current rebate program which excludes
volume from Underlying Symbol List A (except RLG, RLV, RUI, and UKXM),
DJX, XSP, and subcabinet trades. Moreover, the ADV Discount is designed
to encourage the execution of orders in all classes via open outcry,
which may increase volume, which would benefit all market participants
(including Floor Brokers who do not hit the ADV thresholds) trading via
open outcry (and indeed, this increased volume could make it possible
for some Floor Brokers to hit the ADV thresholds). The Exchange
believes the proposed discounts are equitable and not unfairly
discriminatory because all Floor Brokers are eligible. While the
Exchange has no way of predicting with certainty how many and which
TPHs will satisfy the various thresholds under the ADV Discount, the
Exchange anticipated approximately 3 Floor Brokers to receive a rebate
under the program. In December 2019, 2 Floor Brokers received a rebate
under the program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \120\ Furthermore, post-migration the Exchange will not have
Voluntary Professionals.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes its proposed MM EAP Appointment fees are
reasonable in light of the Exchange's elimination of appointment costs
tied to Trading Permits. Other exchanges also offer a similar structure
with respect to fees for appointment classes.\121\ Additionally, the
proposed MM EAP Appointment fee structure results in approximately 36%
electronic MMs paying lower fees for trading permit and appointment
costs. For example, in order to have the ability to make electronic
markets in every class on the Exchange, a Market-Maker would need 1
Market-Maker Trading Permit and 37 Appointment Units post-migration.
Under, the current pricing structure, in order for a Market-Maker to
quote the entire universe of available classes, a Market-Maker would
need 33 Appointment Credits, thus necessitating 33 Market-Maker Trading
Permits. With respect to fees for Trading Permits and Appointment Unit
Fees, under the proposed pricing structure, the cost for a TPH wishing
to quote the entire universe of available classes is approximately 29%
less (if they are not eligible for the MM TP Sliding Scale) or
approximately 2% less (if they are eligible for the MM TP Sliding
Scale). To further demonstrate the potential cost savings/value added,
the Exchange is providing the following examples comparing current
Market-Maker connectivity and access fees to projected connectivity and
access fees for different scenarios. The Exchange notes that the below
examples not only compare Trading Permit and Appointment Unit costs,
but also the cost incurred for logical connectivity and bandwidth.
Particularly, the first example demonstrates the total minimum cost
that would be incurred today in order for a Market-Maker to have the
same amount of capacity as a Market-Maker post-migration that would
have only 1 MM EAP and 1 Logical Port (i.e., 15,000 quotes/3 sec). The
Exchange is also providing examples that demonstrate the costs of

(i) a Market-Maker with small capacity needs and appointment unit of
1.0 and (ii) a Market-Maker with large capacity needs and appointment
cost/unit of 30.0:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \121\ See e.g., PHLX Section 8. Membership Fees, B, Streaming
Quote Trader (``SQT'') Fees and C. Remote Market Maker Organization
(RMO) Fee.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                      Current fee     Post-migration fee
                                       structure           structure
------------------------------------------------------------------------
       Market-Maker that needs capacity of 15,000/quotes/3 seconds
------------------------------------------------------------------------
MM Permit/MM EAP................  $5,000............  $5,000.
Appointment Unit Cost...........  N/A (1 appointment  $0 (1 appointment
                                   cost).              unit).
CMI Login/Logical Port..........  $750 \122\........  $750.
Bandwidth Packets...............  $5,500 ([email protected]$2,750).  N/A.
Total Bandwidth Available.......  15,000 quotes/3     15,000 quotes/3
                                   sec.                sec.
Total Cost......................  $11,250...........  $5,750.
Total Cost per message allowed..  $0.75/quote/3 sec.  $0.38/quote/3 sec.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Market Maker that needs capacity of no more than 5,000 quotes/3 secs
------------------------------------------------------------------------
MM Permit/MM EAP................  $5,000............  $5,000.
Appointment Unit Cost...........  N/A (1 appointment  $0 (1 appointment
                                   cost).              unit).
CMI Login/Logical Port..........  $750..............  $750.
Bandwidth Packets...............  0.................  N/A.
Total Bandwidth Available.......  5,000 quotes/3 sec  15,000 quotes/3
                                                       sec.
Total Cost......................  $5,750............  $5,750.
Total Cost per message allowed..  $1.15/quote/3 sec.  $0.38/quote/3 sec.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Market-Maker that needs 30 Appointment Units and capacity of 300,000
                              quotes/3 sec
------------------------------------------------------------------------
MM Permits/MM EAP...............  $105,000 (30 MM     $5,000.
                                   Permits assumes
                                   eligible for MM
                                   TP Sliding Scale)
                                   \123\.
Appointment Units Cost..........  N/A (30             $95,500 (30
                                   appointment         appointment
                                   costs).             units).
CMI Logins/BOE Bulk Port........  $3,000 ([email protected]$750)     $3,000 (2 BOE
                                   \124\.              [email protected]$1,500).
Bandwidth Packets...............  $82,500([email protected]$2750).  N/A.
Total Bandwidth Available.......  300,000 quotes/3    \*\450,000 quotes/
                                   sec.                3 sec.
Total Cost......................  $190,500..........  $103,500.
Total Cost per message allowed..  $0.63/quotes/3 sec  $0.23/quote/3 sec.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* possible performance degradation at 15,000 messages per second.

    The Exchange believes its proposal to provide separate fees for
Tier Appointments for MM EAPs and MM Floor Permits as the Exchange will
be issuing separate Trading Permits for on-floor and off-floor market
making as discussed above. The proposal to eliminate the volume
threshold for the electronic SPX Tier Appointment fee is reasonable as
no TPHs in the past several months have electronically traded more than
1 SPX contract or less than 100 SPX contracts per month and therefore
will not be negatively impacted by the proposed change, and because it
aligns the electronic SPX Tier Appointment with the floor SPX Tier
Appointment, which has no volume threshold. The Exchange believes the
proposal to increase the electronic volume thresholds for VIX and RUT
are reasonable as those that do not regularly trade VIX or RUT in open-
outcry will continue to not be assessed the fee. In fact, any TPH that
executes more than 100 contracts but less than 1,000 in the respective
classes will no longer have to pay the proposed Tier Appointment fee.
As noted above, the Exchange is not proposing to change the amounts
assessed for each Tier Appointment Fee. The proposed change is
equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because it will apply
uniformly to all TPHs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \122\ The maximum quoting bandwidth that may be applied to a
single Login Id is 80,000 quotes/3 sec.
    \123\ For simplicity of the comparison, this assumes no
appointments in SPX, VIX, RUT, XEO or OEX (which are not included in
the TP Sliding Scale).
    \124\ Given the bandwidth limit per Login Id of 80,000 quotes/3
sec, example assumes Market-Maker purchases minimum amount of Login
IDs to accommodate 300,000 quotes/3 sec.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Trading Permit Holder Regulatory Fee
    The Exchange believes it's reasonable to eliminate the Trading
Permit Holder Regulatory fee because TPHs will not pay this fee and
because the Exchange is restructuring its Trading Permit structure. The
Exchange notes that although it will less closely be covering the costs
of regulating all TPHs and performing its regulatory responsibilities,
it still has sufficient funds to do so. The proposed change is
equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because it will apply
uniformly to all TPHs.
    The Exchange believes corresponding changes to eliminate obsolete
language in connection with the proposed changes described above and to
relocate and reorganize its fees in connection with the proposed
changes maintain clarity in the Fees Schedule and alleviate potential
confusion, thereby removing impediments to and perfecting the mechanism
of a free and open market and a national market system, and, in
general, protecting investors and the public interest.

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate
in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
    With respect to intra-market competition, the Exchange does not
believe that the proposed rule change would place certain market
participants at the Exchange at a relative disadvantage compared to
other market participants or affect the ability of such market
participants to compete. As stated above, the Exchange does not believe
its proposed pricing will impose a barrier to entry to smaller
participants and notes that its proposed connectivity pricing is
associated with relative usage of the various market participants. For
example, market participants with modest capacity needs can buy the
less expensive 1 Gb Physical Port and utilize only one Logical Port.
Moreover, the pricing for 1 Gb Physical Ports and FIX/

BOE Logical Ports are no different than are assessed today (i.e.,
$1,500 and $750 per port, respectively), yet the capacity and access
associated with each is greatly increasing. While pricing may be
increased for larger capacity physical and logical ports, such options
provide far more capacity and are purchased by those that consume more
resources from the network. Accordingly, the proposed connectivity fees
do not favor certain categories of market participants in a manner that
would impose a burden on competition; rather, the allocation reflects
the network resources consumed by the various size of market
participants--lowest bandwidth consuming members pay the least, and
highest bandwidth consuming members pays the most, particularly since
higher bandwidth consumption translates to higher costs to the
Exchange.
    The Exchange also does not believe that the proposed rule change
will result in any burden on inter-market competition that is not
necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. As
discussed in the Statutory Basis section above, options market
participants are not forced to connect to (or purchase market data
from) all options exchanges, as shown by the number of TPHs at Cboe and
shown by the fact that there are varying number of members across each
of Cboe's Affiliated Exchanges. The Exchange operates in a highly
competitive environment, and as discussed above, its ability to price
access and connectivity is constrained by competition among exchanges
and third parties. As discussed, there are other options markets of
which market participants may connect to trade options. There is also a
possible range of alternative strategies, including routing to the
exchange through another participant or market center or accessing the
Exchange indirectly. For example, there are 15 other U.S. options
exchanges, which the Exchange must consider in its pricing discipline
in order to compete for market participants. In this competitive
environment, market participants are free to choose which competing
exchange or reseller to use to satisfy their business needs. As a
result, the Exchange believes this proposed rule change permits fair
competition among national securities exchanges. Accordingly, the
Exchange does not believe its proposed fee change imposes any burden on
competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the
purposes of the Act.

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

    The Exchange neither solicited nor received written comments on the
proposed rule change.

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

    The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \125\ and paragraph (f) of Rule 19b-4 \126\
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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \125\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \126\ 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 (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-CBOE-2020-086 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-CBOE-2020-086. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's internet website (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml).
Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written
statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with
the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed
rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those
that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions
of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for website viewing and printing in
the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC
20549 on official business days between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and
3:00 p.m. Copies of such filing also will be available for inspection
and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All comments
received will be posted without change. Persons submitting comments are
cautioned that we do not redact or edit personal identifying
information from comment submissions. You should submit only
information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions
should refer to File Number SR-CBOE-2020-086, and should be submitted
on or before October 7, 2020.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \127\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\127\
J. Matthew DeLesDernier,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2020-20364 Filed 9-15-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: July 16, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 135)]
[Notices]
[Page 34613-34615]
[DOCID:fr16jy09-90]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-60265; File No. SR-NASDAQ-2009-058]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC;
Notice of Filing of Proposed Rule Change To Modify Port Fees

July 8, 2009.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that
on June 24, 2009, The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC (``NASDAQ'') 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 NASDAQ. The Commission is publishing this notice
to solicit comments on the proposed rule 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

    NASDAQ proposes to modify fees charged to members and non-members
for ports used to enter orders into NASDAQ systems. The text of the
proposed rule change is available from the principal office of NASDAQ
and from the Commission, and is also available at http://
www.cchwallstreet.com/nasdaq. NASDAQ will implement the proposed rule
change on the first day of the month immediately following Commission
approval (or on the date of approval, if on the first business day of a
month).

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

    In its filing with the Commission, NASDAQ 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. NASDAQ has prepared summaries, set forth in Sections A,
B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.

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

1. Purpose
    NASDAQ is proposing to increase the monthly fee that it charges for
ports used to enter orders in NASDAQ trading systems such as the NASDAQ
Market Center and the NASDAQ Options Market. The change, which
increases the charge from $400 to $500 per month, applies to ports
using FIX, RASH, and OUCH. The change does not affect ports used to
receive market data, to enter quotes, or to enter trade reports into
the FINRA/NASDAQ Trade Reporting Facility. The change applies both to
members that obtain ports for direct access, and non-member service
bureaus that act as a conduit for orders entered by NASDAQ members that
are their customers.
    NASDAQ has not made any significant changes to the fees that it
charges for access to its market facilities since it began to operate
as a national securities exchange in 2006. During that period, however,
the market has undergone dramatic changes, including the implementation
of Regulation NMS, the entry of several significant new trading venues,
extreme market volatility resulting from the credit crisis in the late
2008, and a marked increase in the percentage of orders being executed
away from transparent public markets. Accordingly, NASDAQ believes that
an increase in access services fees is now warranted to help ensure
that its market technology continues to perform at a high level of
responsiveness and efficiency.
    NASDAQ is also modifying the language of Rule 7015 to make it clear
that access service fees apply to access provided to all NASDAQ-
operated systems, to replace references to NASD with references to
FINRA, and remove obsolete language regarding a trial discount that
ended in 2007. Finally, NASDAQ is removing language regarding the
applicability of the rule to members and non-members. Because the
current rule has been previously approved for applicability to members
and non-members, and because this filing likewise applies to both
members and non-members, the existing language is unnecessary and
potentially confusing to the reader.
2. Statutory Basis
    NASDAQ believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with
the provisions of Section 6 of the Act,\3\ in general and with Section
6(b)(4) of the Act,\4\ as stated above [sic], in that it provides an
equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees, and other charges among
its members and other persons using the [sic] its facilities. NASDAQ
believes that its modified access services fees are reasonable in light
of the benefits to members of direct market access, and are equitably
allocated among members based upon the number of access ports that they
require to submit orders to the market. NASDAQ believes that its fees
for access services will enable it to cover its costs and earn an
appropriate return on its investment in market technology and services.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    NASDAQ does not believe that the proposed rule change will result
in any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act, as amended. Fees for market
access are a component of the overall fees charged by NASDAQ to execute
and route orders through the NASDAQ Market Center. As the Commission
has recognized, the market for execution and routing services is
extremely competitive.\5\ Market participants that choose not to
connect directly to NASDAQ can readily access liquidity available on
NASDAQ by directing their order flow to other venues that, under
Regulation NMS, must route to NASDAQ if it has posted the best price.
Accordingly, NASDAQ must set its fees, including access services fees,
at a level that will not deter market participants from connecting to
NASDAQ: Otherwise, potential users of NASDAQ's services will simply
direct order flow to NASDAQ's multiple competitors.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Securities Exchange Act Release No. 59039 (December 2,
2008), 73 FR 74770 (December 9, 2008) (SR-NYSEArca-2006-21).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    Written comments were neither solicited nor received.

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

    Within 35 days of the date of publication of this notice in the
Federal Register or within such longer period (i) as the Commission may
designate up to 90 days of such date if it finds such longer period to
be appropriate and publishes its reasons for so finding or (ii) as to
which the self-regulatory organization consents, the Commission will:
    A. By order approve such proposed rule change, or
    B. Institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule
change should be disapproved.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://
www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-NASDAQ-2009-058 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NASDAQ-2009-058. This
file number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used.
To help the Commission process and review your comments more
efficiently, please use only one method. The Commission will post all
comments on the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/
rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments,
all written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that
are filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating
to the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person,
other than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance
with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for inspection
and copying in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street,
NE., Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours
of 10 a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available for
inspection and copying at the principal office of NASDAQ. All comments
received will be posted without change; the Commission does not edit
personal identifying information from submissions. You should submit
only information that you wish to make available publicly. All
submissions should refer to File Number SR-NASDAQ-2009-058 and

should be submitted on or before August 6, 2009.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Elizabeth M. Murphy,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E9-16856 Filed 7-15-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 135 (Friday, July 13, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 32708-32709]
[FR Doc No: 2018-15026]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

[Docket No. NHTSA-2017-0029; Notice 1]

Notice of Receipt of Petition for Decision That Nonconforming
Model Year 2014 BMW X3 Multipurpose Passenger Vehicles Are Eligible for
Importation

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

ACTION: Receipt of petition.

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

SUMMARY: This document announces receipt by the National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) of a petition for a decision that
model year (MY) 2014 BMW X3 multipurpose passenger vehicles (MPVs) that
were not originally manufactured to comply with all applicable Federal
motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS), are eligible for importation
into the United States because they are substantially similar to
vehicles that were originally manufactured for sale in the United
States and that were certified by their manufacturer as complying with
the safety standards (the U.S.-certified version of the 2014 BMW X3
MPV) and they are capable of being readily altered to conform to the
standards.

DATES: The closing date for comments on the petition is August 13,
2018.

ADDRESSES: Interested persons are invited to submit written data,
views, and arguments on this petition. Comments must refer to the
docket and notice number cited in the title of this notice and may be
submitted by any of the following methods:
     Mail: Send comments by mail addressed to U.S. Department
of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor,
Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590.
     Hand Delivery: Deliver comments by hand to U.S. Department
of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor,
Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590. The
Docket Section is open on weekdays from 10 a.m. to 5 p.m. except
Federal Holidays.
     Electronically: Submit comments electronically by logging
onto the Federal Docket Management System (FDMS) website at https://www.regulations.gov/. Follow the online instructions for submitting
comments.
     Comments may also be faxed to<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Comments must be written in the English language, and be no greater
than 15 pages in length, although there is no limit to the length of
necessary attachments to the comments. If comments are submitted in
hard copy form, please ensure that two copies are provided. If you wish
to receive confirmation that comments you have submitted by mail were
received, please enclose a stamped, self-addressed postcard with the
comments. Note that all comments received will be posted without change
to https://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information
provided.
    All comments and supporting materials received before the close of
business on the closing date indicated above will be filed in the
docket and will be considered. All comments and supporting materials
received after the closing date will also be filed and will be
considered to the fullest extent possible.
    When the petition is granted or denied, notice of the decision will
also be published in the Federal Register pursuant to the authority
indicated at the end of this notice.
    All comments, background documentation, and supporting materials
submitted to the docket may be viewed by anyone at the address and
times given above. The documents may also be viewed on the internet at
https://www.regulations.gov by following the online instructions for
accessing the dockets. The docket ID number for this petition is shown
in the heading of this notice.
    DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement is available for review in a
Federal Register notice published on April 11, 2000, (65 FR 19477-78).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: George Stevens, Office of Vehicle
Safety Compliance, NHTSA<PHONE_NUMBER>).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    I. History: Under 49 U.S.C. 30141(a)(1)(A), a motor vehicle that
was not originally manufactured to conform to all applicable FMVSS
shall be refused admission into the United States unless NHTSA has
decided that the motor vehicle is substantially similar to a motor
vehicle originally manufactured for importation into and sale in the
United States, certified under 49 U.S.C. 30115, and of the same model
year as the model of the motor vehicle to be compared, and is capable
of being readily altered to conform to all applicable FMVSS.
    Petitions for eligibility decisions may be submitted by either
manufacturers or importers who have registered with NHTSA pursuant to
49 CFR part 592. As specified in 49 CFR 593.7, NHTSA publishes notice
in the Federal Register of each petition that it receives, and affords
interested persons an opportunity to comment on the petition. At the
close of the comment period, NHTSA decides, on the basis of the
petition and any comments that it has received, whether the vehicle is
eligible for importation. The agency then publishes this decision in
the Federal Register.
    II. Summary of Petition: Wallace Environmental Testing Laboratories
Inc. (WETL) of Houston, Texas (Registered Importer R-90-005) has
petitioned NHTSA to decide whether nonconforming 2014 BMW X3 MPVs are
eligible for importation into the United States. The vehicles which
WETL believes are substantially similar are MY 2014 BMW X3 MPVs sold in
the United States and certified by their manufacturer as conforming to
all applicable FMVSS.
    The petitioner claims that it compared non-U.S.-certified MY 2014
BMW X3 MPVs to their U.S.-certified

counterparts, and found the vehicles to be substantially similar with
respect to compliance with most FMVSS.
    WETL submitted information with its petition intended to
demonstrate that non-U.S.-certified MY 2014 BMW X3 MPVs, as originally
manufactured, conform to many applicable FMVSS in the same manner as
their U.S.-certified counterparts, or are capable of being readily
altered to conform to those standards.
    Specifically, the petitioner claims that the non U.S.-certified MY
2014 BMW X3 MPVs, as originally manufactured, conform to: Standard Nos.
102 Transmission Shift Position Sequence, Starter Interlock, and
Transmission Braking Effect, 103 Windshield Defrosting and Defogging
Systems, 104 Windshield Wiping and Washing Systems, 106 Brake Hoses,
113 Hood Latch System, 116 Motor Vehicle Brake Fluids, 118 Power-
Operated Window, Partition, and Roof panel Systems, 124 Accelerator
Control Systems, 126 Electronic Stability Control Systems for Light
Vehicles, 135 Light Vehicle Brake Systems, 138 Tire Pressure Monitoring
Systems, 201 Occupant Protection in Interior Impact, 202a Head
Restraints, 204 Steering Control Rearward Displacement, 205 Glazing
Materials, 206 Door Locks and Door Retention Components, 207 Seating
Systems, 210 Seat Belt Assembly Anchorages, 212 Windshield Mounting,
214 Side Impact Protection, 216 Roof Crush Resistance, 219 Windshield
Zone Intrusion, 225 Child Restraint Anchorage Systems, and 302
Flammability of Interior Materials.
    The petitioner also contends that the subject non-U.S.-certified
vehicles are capable of being readily altered to meet the following
standards, in the manner indicated:
    Standard No. 101 Controls and Displays: Replacement of the
speedometer and brake warning indicator with the U.S.-model components
as described in the petition.
    Standard No. 108 Lamps, Reflective Devices and Associated
Equipment: Replacement of the headlamps, taillamps, and front and rear
side markers with U.S.-model components.
    Standard No. 110 Tire Selection and Rims and Motor Home/Recreation
Vehicle Trailer Load Carrying Capacity Information for Motor Vehicles
With a GVWR of 4,536 Kilograms (10,000 Pounds) or Less: Installation of
the required tire information placard.
    Standard No. 111 Rear Visibility: Inscription of the required
warning statement on the face of the passenger mirror.
    Standard No. 114 Theft Protection: Installation of a supplemental
key warning buzzer, or activation of the U.S.-version software to meet
the requirements of this standard.
    Standard No. 208 Occupant Crash Protection: Replacement of the
front and rear upper seatbelt assemblies, front driver and passenger
air bag modules, front knee pad air bag module, front passenger adapter
cable, and front passenger classification sensor. Removal of the
passenger air bag deactivation switch and reprogramming of the Advanced
Crash Safety Module (ACSM) with U.S.-version software.
    Standard No. 209 Seat Belt Assemblies: Replacement of seat belt
assemblies with U.S.-certified components as previously stated under
FMVSS No. 208.
    Standard No. 301 Fuel System Integrity: Installation of a rollover
valve in the fuel tank vent line to meet the requirements of this
standard.
    The petitioner additionally states that a vehicle identification
plate must be affixed to the vehicle near the left windshield pillar to
meet the requirements of 49 CFR part 565.
    III. Comments: All comments received before the close of business
on the closing date indicated above will be considered, and will be
available for examination in the docket at the above addresses both
before and after that date. To the extent possible, comments filed
after the closing date will also be considered. Notice of final action
on the petition will be published in the Federal Register pursuant to
the authority indicated below.

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 30141(a)(1)(A), (a)(1)(B), and (b)(1); 49
CFR 593.7; delegation of authority at 49 CFR 1.95 and 501.8.

Michael A. Cole,
Acting Director, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance.
[FR Doc. 2018-15026 Filed 7-12-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-59-P