[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 221 (Monday, November 16, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 73095-73099]
[FR Doc No: 2020-25180]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-90383; File No. SR-BX-2020-033]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Nasdaq BX, Inc.; Notice of Filing
of Proposed Rule Change To Utilize the FIX Protocol To Submit Orders to
BX's Price Improvement Auction Mechanism

November 9, 2020.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that
on October 27, 2020, Nasdaq BX, Inc. (``BX'' or ``Exchange'') filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'') the
proposed rule change as described in Items I and II below, which Items
have been prepared by the Exchange. The Commission is publishing this
notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change from interested
persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange proposes to amend Options 3, Section 7(d)(1)(A)
relating to ``Financial Information eXchange'' or ``FIX'' in connection
with offering BX Participants the ability to utilize FIX to submit
orders to its Price Improvement Auction (``PRISM'') mechanism.
    The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's
website at https://listingcenter.nasdaq.com/rulebook/bx/rules, at the
principal office of the Exchange, and at the Commission's Public
Reference Room.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to offer BX Participants a manner in which to
send messages through FIX, to other BX Participants, for the specific
purpose of requesting another BX Participant submit an ``Initiating
Order'' \3\ along with the sender's PRISM Order \4\ into the Price
Improvement Auction (``PRISM'') mechanism for execution pursuant to
Options 3, Section 13. Specifically, the Exchange proposes to amend BX
Options 3, Section 7(d)(1)(A) relating to ``Financial Information
eXchange'' or ``FIX'' in connection with this offering. This
functionality would provide an additional workflow to BX Participants
seeking to enter paired orders into PRISM. This proposal does not amend
the PRISM rule within Options 3, Section 13 in connection with offering
Participants the ability to submit a Request for PRISM through FIX.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ An Initiating Order is an order executed against principal
interest or against any other order it represents as agent. See
Options 3, Section 13.
    \4\ A PRISM Order is an order submitted by a BX Participant that
it represents as agent on behalf of a Public Customer, broker
dealer, or any other entity, electronically, for execution. See
Options 3, Section 13.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FIX is an interface that allows Participants and their Sponsored
Customers to connect, send, and receive messages related to orders and
auction orders and responses to and from the Exchange. Features include
the following: (1) Execution messages; (2) order messages; and (3) risk
protection triggers and cancel notifications.\5\ Today, all BX
Participants utilize FIX to submit orders to BX.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See Options 3, Section 7(d)(1)(A).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This proposal would expand the capabilities of the FIX protocol to
allow a BX Participant (sender) to utilize FIX to send a message to
other BX Participants (responders) with an order the sender represents
as agent (``PRISM Order'') on behalf of a Public Customer, broker
dealer or other entity requesting the responders provide a contra-side
Initiating Order (a ``response'') and begin a PRISM auction
(collectively a ``Request for PRISM'').\6\ Today, Participants
communicate their desire to have their orders paired in other ways,\7\
which may be less efficient. This proposal would permit BX Participants
to streamline their workflow and utilize FIX as a tool to message a
Request for PRISM to all BX Participants that opted to receive these
notifications, as described below. If a BX Participant desires to
respond to the request, the BX Participant would add an Initiating
Order to the sender's PRISM Order and submit the paired order directly
into PRISM, through FIX, for processing in accordance with Options 3,
Section 13. BX Participants may elect to ``opt in'' to receive Requests
for PRISM. BX Participants that do not elect to ``opt in'' will not
receive such requests. Once a BX Participant elects to receive Requests
for PRISM, they would receive all requests from any BX Participant
submitting a Request for PRISM. The BX Participant cannot elect to only
receive requests from certain Participants and the sender may not elect
to send the request to a select group of BX Participants.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ The Request for PRISM, if accepted and submitted into PRISM,
would become the ``PRISM Order'' pursuant to Options 3, Section 13.
    \7\ This proposal represents an alternative to the other methods
of submitting an order which may include: telephone, electronically
using an external order management system, or utilizing instant
message.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Specifically, the Request for PRISM created by the BX Participant
would be systematized so that a BX Participant may add an Initiating
Order to the previously submitted sender PRISM Order and directly
submit the PRISM Order through FIX. The Exchange will set a certain
time period up to one second \8\ within which the PRISM Order must be
submitted or it would otherwise cancel or book pursuant to the sending

Participant's instructions, as described in more detail below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ The Exchange will initially set the time period to 100
milliseconds to respond to the Request for PRISM or otherwise not
respond before the Request for PRISM would become unavailable. The
Exchange will post the time period on its System settings page.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Request for PRISM would include the price, size, symbol, side
and instruction for handling of the order, in the event there are no
responses. A response must match the PRISM Order and may not improve
the price, or the response will be rejected. A response may be
configured to improve the PRISM Order stop price \9\ pursuant to
Options 3, Section 13(ii)(A)(1)(c). The configuration would apply if
this response initiated a PRISM auction.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ BX Options 3, Section 13(ii)(A)(1) permits Participants to
submit a No Worse Than price.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    BX Participants are not obligated to respond to the request. If a
BX Participant elects not to respond they would ignore the request. If
no BX Participant responds, pursuant to the sender's instruction, the
PRISM Order would be placed on the Order Book as a Limit Order or
cancelled. In any event, no order would be submitted into the PRISM
mechanism in the instance that no BX Participant responded to the
request.
    By way of example, BX Firm A elects to send a Request for PRISM. BX
Firm A would enter a Request for PRISM with a PRISM Order, for example
an order to sell 100 contracts in AAPL at $1.00 with an instruction to
enter the order on the Order Book if no one responds with an Initiating
Order into PRISM. This Request for PRISM is entered into FIX. The
Request for PRISM would be sent to all BX Participants who opted in to
receive this request, also a timer not to exceed one second would
commence. Assume in this example that 3 firms responded (Firm B, C, and
D, in that order of response) with each firm willing to buy 100
contracts \10\ in AAPL at $1.00 and they respond within 50
milliseconds. The System would process Firm B's Initiating Order along
with the PRISM Order by entering the paired order, through FIX, into
PRISM for execution pursuant to Options 3, Section 13. The System would
send the other 2 responders (C and D) a reject message.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ As noted above, a response must match the PRISM Order and
may not improve the price, or the response will be rejected.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Assume the same example, that Firm B had responded that it was
willing to buy 100 contracts in AAPL at $1.00, and Firm B also
configured the response with a No Worse Than price. Because in this
example Firm B's Initiating Order, along with the PRISM Order was sent
into PRISM for execution pursuant to Options 3, Section 13, the No
Worse Than price would be considered in the allocation and the
Initiating Order will auto-match unrelated orders and PANs that provide
the PRISM Order price improvement up to the No Worse Than price.
    Assume the same example, except in this scenario no Participant
responds during the timer, the Initiating Order would post to the Order
Book as a Limit Order and be handled in accordance with Options 3,
Section 10 (Order Book Allocation) pursuant to the Participant's
instructions. The System would disseminate a PRISM notification to all
Participants if a responder submitted an Initiating Order into the
PRISM mechanism. The System would retain an audit trail of the Request
for PRISM and the responses, if any, received.
    As noted above, a Request for PRISM would be sent to all BX
Participants that elected to opt in to receive these requests. Unlike
the workflow today, wherein a Participant may call one or multiple
members to enter into a PRISM Order, all BX Participants that opted in
would receive any Request for PRISM. The System will submit the first
Initiating Order response received, during the timer, into a PRISM.
Once the recipient of a Request for PRISM has responded to the Request
for PRISM by adding the Initiating Order, the PRISM may not be
cancelled. The sender may not cancel a Request for PRISM once that
Request for PRISM has been sent. The identity of the sender and
recipients would not be known to any party. Further, the Exchange would
not disclose a list of Participants that opted in to receive Requests
for PRISM.
    The Exchange believes this new FIX feature will enhance the
workflow of BX Participants desiring to enter orders into PRISM for
execution and price improvement. The Exchange believes that this new
functionality will offer market participants another method to directly
engage with other BX Participants to locate an Initiating Order for
submission of a paired order into the PRISM mechanism.
    The Exchange proposes to amend Options 3, Section 7(d)(1)(A) to add
the following sentence to the description of the FIX protocol, ``In
addition, a BX Participant may elect to utilize FIX to send a message
and PRISM Order, as defined within Options 3, Section 13, to all BX
Participants that opt in to receive Requests for PRISM requesting that
it submit the sender's PRISM Order with responder's Initiating Order,
as defined within Options 3, Section 13, into the Price Improvement
Auction (`PRISM') mechanism, pursuant to Options 3, Section 13
(`Request for PRISM').''
    (a) BX Participants must ``opt in'' to receive Requests for PRISM.
A Participant who opts in to receive Requests for PRISM will receive
all requests from a Participant submitting a Request for PRISM.
    (b) The Exchange will set a certain time period up to one second
within which a recipient of a Request for PRISM may utilize FIX to
submit the sender's PRISM Order, along with an Initiating Order (a
``response'') into the System for execution into PRISM pursuant to
Options 3, Section 13. The System will permit the first responder to
start a PRISM Auction and will send a reject message to subsequent
responders. A response must match the PRISM Order and may not improve
the price, or the response will be rejected. A response may be
configured to improve the PRISM Order stop price pursuant to Options 3,
Section 13(ii)(A)(1)(c); the configuration would apply if this response
initiated a PRISM auction. If no BX Participant responds to the Request
for PRISM, the PRISM Order would be placed on the Order Book as a Limit
Order or cancelled, consistent with the sending Participant's
instruction.
    (c) A Request for PRISM will be sent simultaneously to all BX
Participants who opted in to receive Requests for PRISM.
    (d) Once the recipient of a Request for PRISM has responded to the
Request for PRISM by adding the Initiating Order, the PRISM may not be
cancelled.
    (e) The sender may not cancel a Request for PRISM once that Request
for PRISM has been sent.
    (f) The identity of the sender and recipients will not be known to
any party. The Exchange will not disclose a list of Participants that
opted in to receive Requests for PRISM.
    (g) It would be deemed conduct inconsistent with just and equitable
principles of trade and a violation of Options 9, Section 1, and other
Exchange Rules, to utilize non-public information in connection with a
Request for PRISM to a Participant's economic advantage.
    BX will employ surveillances to prevent misuse of non-public
information specifically related to a Request for PRISM. Today, Options
3, Section 13(iv) \11\ and (v) \12\ describes

certain activity prohibited by BX related to PRISM.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ BX Options 3, Section 13(iv) provides, ``A pattern or
practice of submitting multiple orders in response to a PAN at a
particular price point that exceed, in the aggregate, the size of
the PRISM Order, will be deemed conduct inconsistent with just and
equitable principles of trade and a violation of General 9, Section
1.''
    \12\ BX Options 3, Section 13(v) provides, ``A pattern or
practice of submitting unrelated orders or quotes that cross the
stop price, causing a PRISM Auction to conclude before the end of
the PRISM Auction period will be deemed conduct inconsistent with
just and equitable principles of trade and a violation of General 9,
Section 1. It will also be deemed conduct inconsistent with just and
equitable principles of trade and a violation of General 9, Section
1 to engage in a pattern of conduct where the Initiating Participant
breaks up a PRISM Order into separate orders for the purpose of
gaining a higher allocation percentage than the Initiating
Participant would have otherwise received in accordance with the
allocation procedures contained in subparagraph (ii)(E) and (ii)(F)
above.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Implementation
    The Exchange intends to begin implementation of the proposed rule
change by June 30, 2021. The Exchange will issue an Options Trader
Alert to Participants with the date of implementation.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section
6(b) of the Act,\13\ in general, and furthers the objectives of Section
6(b)(5) of the Act,\14\ in particular, in that it is designed to
promote just and equitable principles of trade, to remove impediments
to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national
market system, and, in general to protect investors and the public
interest, by proposing another method for BX Participants to submit
PRISM Orders, while effectively reducing certain workflow. In
particular, the proposal provides greater flexibility for Participants
submitting orders into PRISM, specifically providing an avenue for BX
Participants desiring to send orders to the PRISM mechanism to locate
an Initiating Order to pair their PRISM Order with and participate in a
PRISM Auction. The Exchange also believes the proposal will provide an
opportunity for Participants to achieve better handling of orders by
providing Participants with an ability to solicit interest from any BX
Participant who opts in to receive a Request for PRISM. A BX
Participant sending a Request for PRISM via FIX would have the
opportunity to have their order responded to by a broader array of
market participants in a more direct fashion Adopting this proposal and
providing the ability for BX Participants to anonymously solicit
interest from other BX Participants desiring to enter a Initiating
Order into PRISM will promote just and equitable principles of trade
and foster cooperation and coordination with persons engaged in
facilitating transactions in securities. Any BX Participant may respond
to a PRISM Auction and therefore all BX Participants benefit from the
ability to interact with additional order flow that this functionality
would generate as a result of matching PRISM Orders to Initiating
Orders, thereby removing impediments to and perfecting the mechanism of
a free and open market and a national market system.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    Today, Participants communicate their desire to have their orders
paired in other ways,\15\ which may be less efficient. For example,
today parties on trading floors negotiate paired orders prior to entry
into a trading crowd.\16\ This proposal would permit BX Participants to
streamline their workflow and utilize FIX as a tool to message a
Request for PRISM to all BX Participants opting to receive these
requests. This proposal would not amend the manner in which PRISM
operates. There are no amendments proposed to BX Options 3, Section 13
herein. This feature, which expands the FIX protocol offering to allow
any BX Participant to send a Request for PRISM to all BX Participants
opting to receive these requests, would offer BX Participants a manner
in which to effectively communicate an interest to initiate a PRISM
Auction. The functionality, which systematizes the Request for PRISM
for streamlined entry to PRISM through FIX, provides an avenue for BX
Participants who have no order flow arrangements to locate interest. If
no one responds to the Request for PRISM, then the sending Participant
may elect to have the System post the PRISM Order to the Order Book as
a Limit Order or cancel the PRISM Order. If a Participant responds to a
Request for PRISM then the paired order will be entered into PRISM by
the System and any BX Participant may respond. All BX Participants
benefit from the ability to interact with order flow on BX.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ This proposal represents an alternative to the other
methods of submitting an order which may include: telephone,
electronically using an external order management system, or
utilizing instant message.
    \16\ See PHLX Options 8, Section 30(c) which provides that a
Phlx member or member organization representing an order in options
(``originating order'') may solicit another member, member
organization or nonmember broker-dealer outside the trading crowd
(``solicited party'') to participate in the transaction on a
proprietary basis, provided the paired order is exposed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Permitting Participants to opt in to receive a Request for PRISM is
consistent with the Act and promotes free and open markets because
anyone can opt in and participate. Also, if a BX Participant does not
want to opt in, it prevents Participants from receiving unwanted
solicitations. Once a Participant elects to receive Requests for PRISM,
they would receive a request from any BX Participant.\17\ The Exchange
believes that it is consistent with the Act to not allow Participants
to selectively exclude interest from certain Participants, if they
chose to utilize this workflow. Additionally, the Exchange believes
that no BX Participant should be required to accept solicitations of
interest from other Participants if they elect not to receive such
notifications.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ While Participants will have a certain time period, up to
one second, to act if they elect to participate in the Request for
PRISM, the Participant also may elect not to respond. If no
recipient Participants respond this would cause the cancellation of
the initial Request for PRISM and no order would be submitted into
the PRISM mechanism.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The identity of the sender and the recipients would not be known to
any party. The Exchange believes that it is consistent with the Act to
not disclose the identities of any party as the Exchange believes that
anonymity will prevent potential manipulation that may result if the
Request for PRISM is not responded to and eventually rests on the Order
Book as a Limit Order. Further, parties may feel free to solicit
interest without disclosing information as the identity of the sender
will remain unknown. Finally, selectively responding to certain senders
would be avoided by not disclosing identifying information about the
parties. The Exchange would permit BX Participants to opt in and
subsequently opt out as they desire. The Exchange would not disclose
the parties that have opted in to further create an anonymous
communication among BX Participants.
    The PRISM auction will be governed by Options 3, Section 13. Any
paired order entered into PRISM must comply with the required price to
commence the auction and NBBO requirements to prevent trade-through as
provided for within Options 3, Section 13. The auction eligibility
requirements apply to all paired orders entered into PRISM even those
that were submitted as a result of a Request for PRISM.
    BX will employ surveillances to prevent misuse of non-public
information specifically related to a Request for PRISM similar to the
manner in which it employs surveillances today to ensure that
information available in auctions is not misused. The Exchange would
have information regarding the Request for PRISM and would be able to
monitor entries into both the Order Book and PRISM Auction. Today,
Options 3, Section 13(iv) \18\ and (v) \19\ describes certain activity
prohibited by BX related

to PRISM in addition to Options 3, Section 22. Participants receiving
such Requests for PRISM may not utilize the information to a
Participant's economic advantage as provided for in proposed Options 3,
Section 7(d)(1)(A)(1)(f). The Exchange notes the requests are subject
to the restrictions noted within Options 3, Section 22, Limitations on
Order Entry, as well as restriction noted with Options 3, Section 13.
The communications that would occur, through FIX, would be available to
the Exchange and these communications would be maintained. The Exchange
would have information regarding the Request for PRISM and would be
able to monitor entries into both the Order Book and PRISM Auction.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ See note 11 above.
    \19\ See note 12 above.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Broker-dealers are required to obtain best execution of customer
orders,\20\ including taking into account price improvement
opportunities. All broker-dealers have a duty to obtain best execution
when representing orders on an agency basis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ The duty of best execution requires broker-dealers to
periodically assess the quality of competing markets to assure that
order flow is directed to the markets providing the most beneficial
terms for their customer orders.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that this proposal removes impediments to and
perfects the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market
system by promoting a more efficient workflow to seek to pair BX
Participants who desire to initiate a PRISM Auction with Initiating
Orders. This functionality permits Participants to further pair buyers
and sellers for the purpose of executing transactions on its facility.
Further, this proposal promotes competition by allowing Participants to
seek the best execution through the Request for PRISM which offers a
means for BX Participants to effectively solicit all BX Participants to
locate interest for participation in a PRISM Order. Finally, the
Exchange believes this proposal protect investors and the public
interest by creating an auditable method of surveilling Requests for
PRISM.
    Price improvement auctions are widely recognized by market
participants as invaluable, both as a tool to access liquidity, and a
mechanism to help meet their best execution obligations. The proposed
rule change will further the ability of BX Participants to submit
orders into PRISM. Finally, the proposal serves as a competitive
response to price improvement auctions on other options exchanges by
providing for another manner in which BX Participants may solicit
interest for the purpose of entering a paired order into PRISM in a
more widespread fashion. The Exchange believes the Request for PRISM
will attract more liquidity in PRISM.

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The Exchange's proposal offers
all BX Participants the ability to send a Request for PRISM, through
FIX, to any BX Participant who opts in to receive such requests.
    The proposed rule creates a new modality for Participants to send
orders to BX Participants for representation. Today, all BX
Participants utilize FIX to submit orders to BX and all Participants
who utilize FIX may submit orders into PRISM. Any Participant may
respond to the PRISM Auction.
    The Exchange notes that it is providing BX Participants an ability
to anonymously solicit interest for the purpose of entering a paired
order into PRISM. Today, BX Participants locate interest by other
methods. This functionality would allow all BX Participants another
method to enter a paired order into PRISM by anonymously permitting a
solicitation of interest to seek an Initiating Order to pair with their
PRISM Order. The Exchange believes that this functionality will allow a
greater number of BX Participants to utilize PRISM. Any BX Participant
may contact other market participants to continue to solicit interest,
as is the case today. The Exchange believes that this proposal will
benefit all BX Participants by offering an increased opportunity to
trade on the Exchange.

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

    No written comments were either solicited or received.

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

    Within 45 days of the date of publication of this notice in the
Federal Register or within such longer period up to 90 days (i) as the
Commission may designate if it finds such longer period to be
appropriate and publishes its reasons for so finding or (ii) as to
which the Exchange consents, the Commission will: (a) By order approve
or disapprove 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 email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-BX-2020-033 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-BX-2020-033. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's internet website (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml).
Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written
statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with
the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed
rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those
that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions
of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for website viewing and printing in
the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC
20549, on official business days between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and
3:00 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available for inspection
and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All comments
received will be posted without change. Persons submitting comments are
cautioned that we do not redact or edit personal identifying
information from comment submissions. You should submit only
information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions
should refer to File Number SR-BX-2020-033 and should be submitted on
or before December 7, 2020.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

J. Matthew DeLesDernier,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2020-25180 Filed 11-13-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: May 4, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 86)]
[Notices]
[Page 26365-26366]
[DOCID:fr04my06-52]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[FRL-8167-1; Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-ORD-2006-0223]

Considerations for Developing Alternative Health Risk Assessment
Approaches for Addressing Multiple Chemicals, Exposures and Effects;
External Review Draft

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of peer-review workshop.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is announcing that Eastern Research Group, Inc., an EPA
contractor for external scientific peer review, plans to convene an
independent panel of experts and organize and conduct an external peer-
review workshop to review the external review draft document titled,
``Considerations for Developing Alternative Health Risk Assessment
Approaches for Addressing Multiple Chemicals, Exposures and Effects;
External Review Draft'' (EPA/600/R-06/013A). The draft document was
prepared by the National Center for Environmental Assessment (NCEA)
within EPA's Office of Research and Development.
    The external peer-review workshop provides an opportunity for all
interested parties to comment on the document. EPA is releasing this
draft document solely for the purpose of pre-dissemination peer review
under applicable information quality guidelines. This document has not
been formally disseminated by EPA. It does not represent and should not
be construed to represent any Agency policy or determination.
    Eastern Research Group, Inc. invites the public to register to
attend this workshop as observers. In addition, Eastern Research Group,
Inc. invites the public to give oral and/or provide written comments at
the workshop regarding the draft document under review. The draft
document and EPA's peer-review charge are available primarily via the
Internet on NCEA's home page under the Recent Additions and the Data
and Publications menus at http://www.epa.gov/ncea. On March 31, 2006,

EPA announced a 45-day public comment period on the draft document (71
FR 16306). In preparing a final report, EPA will consider public
comments it received during the public comment period and will consider
the Eastern Research Group, Inc. report of the comments and
recommendations from the external peer-review workshop.

DATES: The peer-review panel workshop will begin on May 25, 2006, at 9
a.m., adjourning at 5:30 p.m. and will continue on May 26, 2006 at 9
a.m., adjourning at 3 p.m.

ADDRESSES: The peer-review workshop will be held at the Andrew W.
Briedenbach Environmental Research Building, 26 W. Martin Luther King
Dr., Cincinnati, OH, 45268, in room AG-30. The EPA contractor, Eastern
Research Group, Inc., is organizing, convening, and conducting the
peer-review workshop. Observers may attend the meeting of the expert
panel by filling out the form available on the Internet at https://www2.ergweb.com/projects/conferences/ncea/
 or by calling Eastern

Research Group, Inc.'s conference line between the hours of 9 a.m. and
5:30 p.m. EST at<PHONE_NUMBER> or toll free at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or by
faxing a registration request to<PHONE_NUMBER> (include full address and
contact information). Pre-registration is strongly recommended as space
is limited, and registrations will be accepted on a first-come, first-
served basis. The deadline for online pre-registration is May 18, 2006.
Telephone and fax registrations will continue to be accepted after this
date, including on-site registration, if space allows.
    The draft ``Considerations for Developing Alternative Health Risk
Assessment Approaches for Addressing Multiple Chemicals, Exposures and
Effects; External Review Draft'' (EPA/600/R-06/013A) is available
primarily via the Internet on the National Center for Environmental
Assessment's home page under the Recent Additions and

the Data and Publications menus at http://www.epa.gov/ncea.

    A limited number of paper copies are available from Ms. Donna
Tucker, Technical Information Manager, NCEA-Cincinnati; telephone: 513-
569-7257; facsimile:<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>If you
are requesting a paper copy, please provide your name, your mailing
address, and the document title, ``Considerations for Developing
Alternative Health Risk Assessment Approaches for Addressing Multiple
Chemicals, Exposures and Effects,'' and its EPA publication number,
EPA/600/R-06/013A.
    Copies are not available from Eastern Research Group, Inc.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Questions regarding information,
registration, and logistics for the external peer-review workshop
should be directed to Eastern Research Group, Inc. at 10 Hartwell
Avenue, Lexington, MA 02421-3136; by telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER> or toll
free at<PHONE_NUMBER>; or by facsimile:<PHONE_NUMBER>; or by e-mail:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
    For technical information, contact Linda K. Teuschler, NCEA-
Cincinnati, by telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; facsimile:<PHONE_NUMBER>; or e-
mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Summary of Information About the Project/Document

    In EPA's 2003 ``Framework for Cumulative Risk Assessment,''
cumulative risk assessment is defined as the evaluation of risks from
exposures to multiple chemicals and other stressors, and having a
population focus rather than a source-to-receptor focus. Several
reports and environmental justice concerns published over the past 11
years have highlighted the importance of estimating cumulative risks.
EPA has published several guidance documents dealing with specific
aspects of cumulative risk, such as chemical mixture risk assessment,
planning and scoping, stakeholder involvement, and the toxicity from a
mixture of pesticides sharing a common mode of action. This draft
document is one contribution to EPA's efforts to address issues related
to cumulative health risk assessment.
    Existing EPA guidance addresses some of the combination aspects of
cumulative risk, but none addresses all of the multiples included in
this report, such as consideration of the composite impact of multiple
health effects. Among the distinctive new approaches are those for
grouping chemicals based on exposure characteristics and toxic
endpoints, multi-route combination of relative potency factors,
integration of categorical regression modeling of multiple effects with
additivity approaches, and the emphasis on the iteration and
collaboration between exposure assessment and dose-response assessment
to ensure compatible and relevant information. Major findings and
conclusions in this document are as follows:
     This draft report provides a set of approaches that deal
with certain complications in cumulative risk assessment, specifically
those caused by multiple chemicals, exposures and effects, including
toxicological interactions and environmental transformations of mixture
component chemicals.
     The scope is focused on the evaluation of health risks
from exposures to multiple chemicals, including multiple exposure
routes and times as well as multiple health endpoints.
     Areas of cumulative health risk assessment emphasized in
this report can often be performed with existing information.
     Exposure and toxicity characterizations of mixtures are
strongly dependent on mixture composition (chemicals and
concentrations) and timing of exposures and health effects.
     Qualitative and semiquantitative approaches provided can
simplify the number of potential combinations of chemicals, exposures,
and effects to make the cumulative health risk assessment more
feasible.

II. Workshop Information

    Members of the public may attend the workshop as observers, and
there will be a limited time for comments from the public in the
afternoon. Please let Eastern Research Group, Inc. know if you wish to
make comments during the workshop. (See ADDRESSES section above for
contact information.) Space is limited, and reservations will be
accepted on a first-come, first-served basis.

    Dated: May 1, 2006.
P.W. Preuss,
Director, National Center for Environmental Assessment.
 [FR Doc. E6-6755 Filed 5-3-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 228 (Wednesday, November 26, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 70600-70604]
[FR Doc No: 2014-28026]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-73662; File No. SR-NASDAQ-2014-106]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC;
Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change
Relating to Short Interest Reports

November 20, 2014.
    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 November 12, 2014, The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC (``Nasdaq'' or
``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``SEC'' or ``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in
Items I, II, and III, below, which Items have been prepared by the
Exchange. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments
on the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange proposes to change the model of pricing for Short
Interest Reports under the category of Historical Research and
Administrative Reports under NASDAQ Rule 7022. Specifically, NASDAQ
proposes to replace the current subscriber-based model with a fee based
on internal or external distribution of the reports. Although the
proposed rule is effective upon filing, NASDAQ plans to implement the
fee on January 1, 2015.
    The text of the proposed rule change is below; proposed new
language is italicized; proposed deletions are in brackets.
* * * * *

7022. Historical Research and Administrative Reports

    (a) No Change.
    (b) The charge to be paid by the purchaser of an Historical
Research Report regarding a Nasdaq security that wishes to obtain a
license to redistribute the information contained in the report to
subscribers shall be determined in accordance with the following
schedule:

                                              Number of Subscribers
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                       1-500          501-999       1,000-4,999     5,000-9,999       10,000+
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A. Market Summary Statistics:
    More often than once a month            $250            $350            $450            $550            $750
    Once a month, quarter, or                125             175             225             275             375
     year.......................
B. Reserved.
C. Nasdaq Issues Summary
 Statistics:
    More often than once a month            [500             600             700             800          1,000]
        Internal Distribution...           1,000           1,000           1,000           1,000           1,000
        External Distribution...           2,500           2,500           2,500           2,500           2,500
    Once a month, quarter, or                250             300             350             400             500
     year.......................
    Aggregation of data on an              3,000           3,000           3,000           3,000           3,000
     annual basis...............
D. Intra-Day Quote and Intra-Day
 Time and Sales Data:
    For a security and/or a                  200             300             400             500             700
     market participant for a
     day........................
    For all market participants            1,000           1,500           2,500           3,500           5,000
     for a day or for all
     securities for a day.......
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (c) No change.
    (d) No change.
* * * * *

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
    NASDAQ proposes to modify the pricing model for historical research
and administrative reports categorized as Nasdaq Issues Summary
Statistics under subsection C of NASDAQ Rule 7022(b). The current
pricing schedule for Nasdaq Issues Summary Statistics

reports currently includes only short interest information.\3\ The fee
schedule is currently divided into two tranches depending upon whether
the report is distributed once per month or less, or more than once
monthly. Within each tranche, the fee depends upon how many subscribers
receive the report from a given Distributor. This proposal affects only
the tranches of reports that are distributed more than once per month,
meaning it will apply only to Short Interest Reports.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ In 2013, NASDAQ moved the Daily List and Fundamental Data
formerly covered by this rule into new NASDAQ Rule 7022(d). See
Exchange Act Release No. 68636 (Jan. 11, 2013). In the future, this
category may include other information that properly falls within
the category of Nasdaq Issues Summary Statistics.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For this category only, NASDAQ has determined to replace the
subscriber-based tiers with a fee based on internal versus external
distribution, a model already utilized by NASDAQ for multiple products.
Internal distribution is defined as distribution of NASDAQ data by a
given firm or other entity that receives data from NASDAQ only to
recipients within that firm or entity. Conversely, external
distribution is defined as distribution of NASDAQ data by a given firm
or other entity that receives data from NASDAQ to recipients either
outside of the entity or both within and outside of that firm or
entity. Replacing the per-subscriber fee with a Distributor fee will
reduce the administrative burden on firms by eliminating the
requirement to control and/or count the number of recipients of the
report. In addition, external distributors will continue to be
permitted to use the Information internally without additional charges.
    NASDAQ has determined to assess a monthly per Distributor fee of
$1,000 for internal distribution and $2,500 for external distribution.
NASDAQ determined to assess higher fees for external Distributors based
on historical experience that external distributors offer wider
distribution than internal Distributors, and they therefore derive
higher value than internal Distributors while typically maintaining a
lower fee per unit.
2. Statutory Basis
    NASDAQ believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with
the provisions of Section 6 of the Act,\4\ in general, and with Section
6(b)(4) and 6(b)(5) of the Act,\5\ in particular, in that it provides
an equitable allocation of reasonable fees among Subscribers and
recipients of NASDAQ data and is not designed to permit unfair
discrimination between them. In adopting Regulation NMS, the Commission
granted self-regulatory organizations and broker-dealers increased
authority and flexibility to offer new and unique market data to the
public.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Commission concluded that Regulation NMS--by deregulating the
market in proprietary data--would itself further the Act's goals of
facilitating efficiency and competition:

[E]fficiency is promoted when broker-dealers who do not need the
data beyond the prices, sizes, market center identifications of the
NBBO and consolidated last sale information are not required to
receive (and pay for) such data. The Commission also believes that
efficiency is promoted when broker-dealers may choose to receive
(and pay for) additional market data based on their own internal
analysis of the need for such data.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Securities Exchange Act Release No. 51808 (June 9, 2005), 70
FR 37496 (June 29, 2005).

By removing ``unnecessary regulatory restrictions'' on the ability of
exchanges to sell their own data, Regulation NMS advanced the goals of
the Act and the principles reflected in its legislative history. If the
free market should determine whether proprietary data is sold to
broker-dealers at all, it follows that the price at which such data is
sold should be set by the market as well.
    On July 21, 2010, President Barack Obama signed into law H.R. 4173,
the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2010
(``Dodd-Frank Act''), which amended Section 19 of the Act. Among other
things, Section 916 of the Dodd-Frank Act amended paragraph (A) of
Section 19(b)(3) of the Act by inserting the phrase ``on any person,
whether or not the person is a member of the self-regulatory
organization'' after ``due, fee or other charge imposed by the self-
regulatory organization.'' As a result, all self-regulatory
organization (``SRO'') rule proposals establishing or changing dues,
fees, or other charges are immediately effective upon filing regardless
of whether such dues, fees, or other charges are imposed on members of
the SRO, non-members, or both. Section 916 further amended paragraph
(C) of Section 19(b)(3) of the Act to read, in pertinent part, ``At any
time within the 60-day period beginning on the date of filing of such a
proposed rule change in accordance with the provisions of paragraph (1)
[of Section 19(b)], the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend
the change in the rules of the self-regulatory organization made
thereby, 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 this title. If the
Commission takes such action, the Commission shall institute
proceedings under paragraph (2)(B) [of Section 19(b)] to determine
whether the proposed rule should be approved or disapproved.''
    The decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the District
of Columbia Circuit in NetCoalition v. SEC, No. 09-1042 (D.C. Cir.
2010), although reviewing a Commission decision made prior to the
effective date of the Dodd-Frank Act, upheld the Commission's reliance
upon competitive markets to set reasonable and equitably allocated fees
for market data. ``In fact, the legislative history indicates that the
Congress intended that the market system `evolve through the interplay
of competitive forces as unnecessary regulatory restrictions are
removed' and that the SEC wield its regulatory power `in those
situations where competition may not be sufficient,' such as in the
creation of a `consolidated transactional reporting system.' ''
NetCoalition, at 15 (quoting H.R. Rep. No. 94-229, at 92 (1975), as
reprinted in 1975 U.S.C.C.A.N. 321, 323).
    For the reasons stated above, NASDAQ believes that the allocation
of the proposed fee is fair and equitable in accordance with Section
6(b)(4) of the Act, and not unreasonably discriminatory in accordance
with Section 6(b)(5) of the Act. As described above, the proposed fee
is based on pricing conventions and distinctions that exist in NASDAQ's
current fee schedule. These distinctions are each based on principles
of fairness and equity that have helped for many years to maintain
fair, equitable, and not unreasonably discriminatory fees, and that
apply with equal or greater force to the current proposal.
    NASDAQ believes that the $1,000 and $2,500 Distributor fees for the
short interest report are fair and equitable and not unreasonably
discriminatory. The Internal Distributor Fee represents an increase of
no more than $500 per month, with many Distributors paying a smaller
increase or no increase at all. The higher External Distributor Fee is
fair and equitable because External Distributors derive higher value
from the report and, therefore, should bear a higher burden than
internal Distributors. In addition, all Distributors benefit from the
reduced administrative burden of counting subscribers. NASDAQ further
believes that the distinction between internal and external
distribution is fair and

equitable and not unreasonably discriminatory because external
distributors have the potential to, and generally do, distribute to a
larger number of subscribers. As noted earlier, NASDAQ and other
exchanges have utilize this pricing model for many years.
    As described in greater detail below, if NASDAQ has calculated
improperly and the market deems the proposed fees to be unfair,
inequitable, or unreasonably discriminatory, firms can discontinue the
use of their data because the proposed product is entirely optional to
all parties. Firms are not required to purchase data and NASDAQ is not
required to make data available or to offer specific pricing
alternatives for potential purchases. NASDAQ can discontinue offering a
pricing alternative (as it has in the past) and firms can discontinue
their use at any time and for any reason (as they often do), including
due to their assessment of the reasonableness of fees charged. NASDAQ
continues to establish and revise pricing policies aimed at increasing
fairness and equitable allocation of fees among Subscribers.

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. Notwithstanding its
determination that the Commission may rely upon competition to
establish fair and equitably allocated fees for market data, the
NetCoalition court found that the Commission had not, in that case,
compiled a record that adequately supported its conclusion that the
market for the data at issue in the case was competitive. NASDAQ
believes that a record may readily be established to demonstrate the
competitive nature of the market in question.
    There is intense competition between trading platforms that provide
transaction execution and routing services and proprietary data
products. Transaction execution and proprietary data products are
complementary in that market data is both an input and a byproduct of
the execution service. In fact, market data and trade execution are a
paradigmatic example of joint products with joint costs. Data products
are valuable to many end Subscribers only insofar as they provide
information that end Subscribers expect will assist them or their
customers in making trading decisions.
    The costs of producing market data include not only the costs of
the data distribution infrastructure, but also the costs of designing,
maintaining, and operating the exchange's transaction execution
platform and the cost of regulating the exchange to ensure its fair
operation and maintain investor confidence. The total return that a
trading platform earns reflects the revenues it receives from both
products and the joint costs it incurs. Moreover, an exchange's
customers view the costs of transaction executions and of data as a
unified cost of doing business with the exchange. A broker-dealer will
direct orders to a particular exchange only if the expected revenues
from executing trades on the exchange exceed net transaction execution
costs and the cost of data that the broker-dealer chooses to buy to
support its trading decisions (or those of its customers). The choice
of data products is, in turn, a product of the value of the products in
making profitable trading decisions. If the cost of the product exceeds
its expected value, the broker-dealer will choose not to buy it.
Moreover, as a broker-dealer chooses to direct fewer orders to a
particular exchange, the value of the product to that broker-dealer
decreases, for two reasons. First, the product will contain less
information, because executions of the broker-dealer's orders will not
be reflected in it. Second, and perhaps more important, the product
will be less valuable to that broker-dealer because it does not provide
information about the venue to which it is directing its orders. Data
from the competing venue to which the broker-dealer is directing orders
will become correspondingly more valuable.
    Thus, an increase in the fees charged for either transactions or
data has the potential to impair revenues from both products. ``No one
disputes that competition for order flow is `fierce'.'' NetCoalition at
24. However, the existence of fierce competition for order flow implies
a high degree of price sensitivity on the part of broker-dealers with
order flow, since they may readily reduce costs by directing orders
toward the lowest-cost trading venues. A broker-dealer that shifted its
order flow from one platform to another in response to order execution
price differentials would both reduce the value of that platform's
market data and reduce its own need to consume data from the disfavored
platform. Similarly, if a platform increases its market data fees, the
change will affect the overall cost of doing business with the
platform, and affected broker-dealers will assess whether they can
lower their trading costs by directing orders elsewhere and thereby
lessening the need for the more expensive data.
    Analyzing the cost of market data distribution in isolation from
the cost of all of the inputs supporting the creation of market data
will inevitably underestimate the cost of the data. Thus, because it is
impossible to create data without a fast, technologically robust, and
well-regulated execution system, system costs and regulatory costs
affect the price of market data. It would be equally misleading,
however, to attribute all of the exchange's costs to the market data
portion of an exchange's joint product. Rather, all of the exchange's
costs are incurred for the unified purposes of attracting order flow,
executing and/or routing orders, and generating and selling data about
market activity. The total return that an exchange earns reflects the
revenues it receives from the joint products and the total costs of the
joint products.
    Competition among trading platforms can be expected to constrain
the aggregate return each platform earns from the sale of its joint
products, but different platforms may choose from a range of possible,
and equally reasonable, pricing strategies as the means of recovering
total costs. For example, some platforms may choose to pay rebates to
attract orders, charge relatively low prices for market information (or
provide information free of charge) and charge relatively high prices
for accessing posted liquidity. Other platforms may choose a strategy
of paying lower rebates (or no rebates) to attract orders, setting
relatively high prices for market information, and setting relatively
low prices for accessing posted liquidity. In this environment, there
is no economic basis for regulating maximum prices for one of the joint
products in an industry in which suppliers face competitive constraints
with regard to the joint offering. This would be akin to strictly
regulating the price that an automobile manufacturer can charge for car
sound systems despite the existence of a highly competitive market for
cars and the availability of after-market alternatives to the
manufacturer-supplied system.
    The market for market data products is competitive and inherently
contestable because there is fierce competition for the inputs
necessary to the creation of proprietary data and strict pricing
discipline for the proprietary products themselves. Numerous exchanges
compete with each other for listings, trades, and market data itself,
providing virtually limitless opportunities for entrepreneurs who wish
to produce and distribute their own market data. This proprietary

data is produced by each individual exchange, as well as other
entities, in a vigorously competitive market.
    Broker-dealers currently have numerous alternative venues for their
order flow, including thirteen SRO markets, as well as internalizing
broker-dealers (``BDs'') and various forms of alternative trading
systems (``ATSs''), including dark pools and electronic communication
networks (``ECNs''). Each SRO market competes to produce transaction
reports via trade executions, and two FINRA-regulated Trade Reporting
Facilities (``TRFs'') compete to attract internalized transaction
reports. Competitive markets for order flow, executions, and
transaction reports provide pricing discipline for the inputs of
proprietary data products.
    The large number of SROs, TRFs, BDs, and ATSs that currently
produce proprietary data or are currently capable of producing it
provides further pricing discipline for proprietary data products. Each
SRO, TRF, ATS, and BD is currently permitted to produce proprietary
data products, and many currently do or have announced plans to do so,
including NASDAQ, New York Stock Exchange LLC (``NYSE''), NYSE MKT LLC,
NYSE Arca LLC, and BATS Exchange, Inc. (``BATS'').
    Any ATS or BD can combine with any other ATS, BD, or multiple ATSs
or BDs to produce joint proprietary data products. Additionally, order
routers and market data vendors can facilitate single or multiple
broker-dealers' production of proprietary data products. The potential
sources of proprietary products are virtually limitless.
    The fact that proprietary data from ATSs, BDs, and vendors can by-
pass SROs is significant in two respects. First, non-SROs can compete
directly with SROs for the production and sale of proprietary data
products, as BATS and Arca did before registering as exchanges by
publishing data on the Internet. Second, because a single order or
transaction report can appear in an SRO proprietary product, a non-SRO
proprietary product, or both, the data available in proprietary
products is exponentially greater than the actual number of orders and
transaction reports that exist in the marketplace.
    Market data vendors provide another form of price discipline for
proprietary data products because they control the primary means of
access to end Subscribers. Vendors impose price restraints based upon
their business models. For example, vendors such as Bloomberg and
Thomson Reuters that assess a surcharge on data they sell may refuse to
offer proprietary products that end Subscribers will not purchase in
sufficient numbers. Internet portals, such as Google, impose a
discipline by providing only data that will enable them to attract
``eyeballs'' that contribute to their advertising revenue. Retail
broker-dealers, such as Schwab and Fidelity, offer their customers
proprietary data only if it promotes trading and generates sufficient
commission revenue. Although the business models may differ, these
vendors' pricing discipline is the same: They can simply refuse to
purchase any proprietary data product that fails to provide sufficient
value. NASDAQ and other producers of proprietary data products must
understand and respond to these varying business models and pricing
disciplines in order to market proprietary data products successfully.
    In addition to the competition and price discipline described
above, the market for proprietary data products is also highly
contestable because market entry is rapid, inexpensive, and profitable.
The history of electronic trading is replete with examples of entrants
that swiftly grew into some of the largest electronic trading platforms
and proprietary data producers: Archipelago, Bloomberg Tradebook,
Island, RediBook, Attain, TracECN, BATS Trading and Direct Edge. A
proliferation of dark pools and other ATSs operate profitably with
fragmentary shares of consolidated market volume.
    Regulation NMS, by deregulating the market for proprietary data,
has increased the contestability of that market. While broker-dealers
have previously published their proprietary data individually,
Regulation NMS encourages market data vendors and broker-dealers to
produce proprietary products cooperatively in a manner never before
possible. Multiple market data vendors already have the capability to
aggregate data and disseminate it on a profitable scale, including
Bloomberg, and Thomson Reuters.
    The vigor of competition for information is significant. NASDAQ has
made a determination to adjust the fees associated with this product in
order to reflect more accurately the value of its products and the
investments made to enhance them, as well as to keep pace with changes
in the industry and evolving customer needs. This product is entirely
optional and is geared towards attracting new customers, as well as
retaining existing customers.
    The Exchange has witnessed competitors creating new products and
innovative pricing in this space over the course of the past year.
NASDAQ continues to see firms challenge its pricing on the basis of the
Exchange's explicit fees being higher than the zero-priced fees from
other competitors such as BATS. In all cases, firms make decisions on
how much and what types of data to consume on the basis of the total
cost of interacting with NASDAQ or other exchanges. Of course, the
explicit data fees are but one factor in a total platform analysis.
Some competitors have lower transactions fees and higher data fees, and
others are vice versa.

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

    No written comments were either solicited or received.

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

    The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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-NASDAQ-2014-106 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NASDAQ-2014-106. 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 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 Web site 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 offices of the Exchange. All comments received will be posted
without change; the Commission does not edit personal identifying
information from submissions. You should submit only information that
you wish to make available publicly. All submissions should refer to
File Number SR-NASDAQ-2014-106, and should be submitted on or before
December 17, 2014.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\8\
Kevin M. O' Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2014-28026 Filed 11-25-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 120 (Friday, June 23, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Page 41185]
[FR Doc No: 2023-13394]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

[Docket No. FAA-2023-1426]

Agency Information Collection Activities: Requests for Comments;
Clearance of a Renewed Approval of Information Collection: Protection
of Voluntarily Submitted Information

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice and request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, FAA
invites public comments about our intention to request the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) approval to renew an information
collection. The collection involves protection of voluntarily submitted
information. Part 193 of the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA)
regulations provides that certain information submitted to the FAA on a
voluntary basis is not to be disclosed. This part implements a
statutory provision. The purpose of part 193 is to encourage the
aviation community to voluntarily share information with the FAA so
that the agency may work cooperatively with industry to identify
modifications to rules, policies, and procedures needed to improve
safety, security, and efficiency of the National Airspace System (NAS).
The information collection associated with part 193 also supports the
Department of Transportation's Strategic Goal of Safety and Security.

DATES: Written comments should be submitted by August 22, 2023.

ADDRESSES: Please send written comments:
    By Electronic Docket: www.regulations.gov (Enter docket number into
search field).
    By mail: Sandra Ray, Federal Aviation Administration, AFS-260, 1187
Thorn Run Road, Suite 200, Coraopolis, PA 15108.
    By fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sandra Ray by email at:
[email protected]; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    Public Comments Invited: You are asked to comment on any aspect of
this information collection, including (a) Whether the proposed
collection of information is necessary for FAA's performance; (b) the
accuracy of the estimated burden; (c) ways for FAA to enhance the
quality, utility and clarity of the information collection; and (d)
ways that the burden could be minimized without reducing the quality of
the collected information. The agency will summarize and/or include
your comments in the request for OMB's clearance of this information
collection.
    OMB Control Number: 2120-0646.
    Title: Protection of Voluntarily Submitted Information.
    Form Numbers: None.
    Type of Review: Renewal of an information collection.
    Background: Part 193 of the FAA regulations provides that certain
information submitted to the FAA on a voluntary basis is not to be
disclosed. Part 193 implements a statutory provision. Section 40123 was
added to title 49, United States Code, in the Federal Aviation
Reauthorization Act of 1996 to encourage people to voluntarily submit
desired information. Section 40123 allows the Administrator, through
FAA regulations, to protect from disclosure voluntarily provided
information relating to safety and security issues.
    The purpose of part 193 is to encourage the aviation community to
voluntarily share information with the FAA so that the agency may work
cooperatively with industry to identify modifications to rules,
policies, and procedures needed to improve safety, security, and
efficiency of the National Airspace System. FAA programs that are
covered under part 193 are Voluntary Safety Reporting Programs, Air
Traffic and Technical Operations Safety Action programs, the Aviation
Safety Action Program, and the Voluntary Disclosure Reporting Program.
This rule imposes a negligible paperwork burden for certificate holders
and fractional ownership programs that choose to submit a letter
notifying the Administrator that they wish to participate in a current
program.
    The number of respondents has greatly increased since the initial
approval of this information collection. In order to accurately reflect
the burden of this information collection going forward, the FAA has
included total current participants in the programs.
    Respondents: 2604.
    Frequency: Varies per response time.
    Estimated Average Burden per Response: Varies per response time.
    Estimated Total Annual Burden: 493,723 Hours.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on June 20, 2023.
Sandra L. Ray,
Aviation Safety Inspector, AFS-260.
[FR Doc. 2023-13394 Filed 6-22-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 109 (Tuesday, June 7, 2022)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 34607-34609]
[FR Doc No: 2022-11977]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[Docket Number USCG-2022-0333]
RIN 1625-AA87

Security Zone; Lower Mississippi River, Mile Marker 94 to 97
Above Head of Passes, New Orleans, LA

AGENCY: Coast Guard, Homeland Security (DHS).

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard proposes to establish a permanent security
zone for all navigable waters of the Lower Mississippi River (LMR) from
mile marker (MM) 94 to MM 97, Above Head of Passes (AHP), New Orleans,
LA. This security zone is necessary to expedite the establishment and
enforcement of the security zones to protect vessels, waterfront
facilities, the public, and other surrounding areas from destruction,
loss, or injury caused by sabotage, subversive acts, accidents, or
other actions of a similar nature. This proposed rulemaking would
prohibit entry of vessels or persons from entering the security zone
unless specifically authorized by the Captain of the Port Sector New
Orleans (COTP) or a designated representative. This proposed security
zone would be enforced only as necessary by the COTP through a
notification of enforcement published in the Federal Register and
announced through Vessel Traffic Service Advisories, Broadcast Notices
to Mariners (BNMs), Local Notice to Mariners (LNMs), and/or Marine
Safety Information Bulletins (MSIBs) as appropriate. We invite your
comments on this proposed rulemaking.

DATES: Comments and related material must be received by the Coast
Guard on or before July 7, 2022.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by docket number USCG-
2022-0333 using the Federal Decision Making Portal at https://www.regulations.gov. See the ``Public Participation and Request for
Comments'' portion of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for further
instructions on submitting comments.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions about this
proposed rulemaking, call or email Lieutenant Commander William A.
Stewart, Sector New Orleans, U.S. Coast Guard; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>,
email [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Table of Abbreviations

AHP Above Head of Passes
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
COTP Captain of the Port New Orleans
DHS Department of Homeland Security
FR Federal Register
LMR Lower Mississippi River
MM Mile Marker
NPRM Notice of proposed rulemaking
NOE Notice of Enforcement
Sec.  Section
U.S.C. United States Code

II. Background, Purpose, and Legal Basis

    During the preceding several years, the COTP has published multiple
temporary final rules (TFRs) to implement heightened security measures
to protect waterfront facilities, visiting dignitaries, large volumes
of festival participants, and/or vessels from destruction, loss, or
injury from sabotage, subversive acts, or other malicious or potential
terrorist acts within the LMR from MM 94 to MM 97, AHP, New Orleans,
LA. The COTP expects that events requiring heightened protection will
increase as New Orleans continues to hold popular annual events, like
Mardi Gras and French Quarter Fest, as well as remains a top
destination for events of national significance, such as sporting
events and Navy Fleet Week.
    The COTP proposes to establish a permanent security zone for all
navigable waters of the LMR from MM 94 to MM 97, AHP, New Orleans, LA,
and, thus, expedite the establishment and enforcement of the security
zones. The enforcement of security zones within this area of the LMR is
usually limited in duration, lasting a few hours to a few days for each
waterway closure, creating minimal impact to vessel traffic. Moreover,
the proposed rule would allow vessels to seek permission to enter the
security zone from the COTP or a designated representative. The Coast
Guard is proposing this rulemaking under authority in 46 U.S.C. 70034
(previously 33 U.S.C. 1231).

III. Discussion of Proposed Rule

    The COTP is proposing to establish a permanent security zone for
all navigable waters of the LMR from MM 94 to MM 97, AHP, New Orleans,
LA. This security zone is necessary to protect vessels, waterfront
facilities, the public, and other surrounding areas from destruction,
loss, or injury caused by sabotage, subversive acts, accidents, or
other actions of a similar nature. While this zone would encompass a
three-mile section of the waterway, the COTP would limit the
enforcement of

the zone only to the areas specified in the notification of enforcement
published in the Federal Register. No vessel or person would be
permitted to enter the security zone without obtaining permission from
the COTP or a designated representative. In accordance with 33 CFR
165.7, for each enforcement of the security zone established under this
proposed rule, the COTP would publish a notification of enforcement in
the Federal Register as early as practicable. The COTP or a designated
representative would inform the public of the enforcement area and
period of this security zone through Vessel Traffic Services, Broadcast
Notices to Mariners (BNMs), Local Notice to Mariners (LNMs), and/or
Marine Safety Information Bulletins (MSIBs) as appropriate. The
regulatory text we are proposing appears at the end of this document.

IV. Regulatory Analyses

    We developed this proposed rule after considering numerous statutes
and Executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our
analyses based on a number of these statutes and Executive orders, and
we discuss First Amendment rights of protestors.

A. Regulatory Planning and Review

    Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the
costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if
regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize
net benefits. This NPRM has not been designated a ``significant
regulatory action,'' under Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, the NPRM
has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).
    This regulatory action determination is based on the size,
location, and duration of the security zone. While this zone would be
permanent, it would only be enforced on an as needed basis where the
COTP would limit the enforcement to areas specified in the notification
of enforcement published in the Federal Register. Moreover, the Coast
Guard would inform the public of the enforcement area and period of
this security zone through Vessel Traffic Services, Broadcast Notices
to Mariners (BNMs), Local Notice to Mariners (LNMs), and/or Marine
Safety Information Bulletins (MSIBs) as appropriate, and the rule would
allow vessels to seek permission to enter the security zone.

B. Impact on Small Entities

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as
amended, requires Federal agencies to consider the potential impact of
regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term ``small
entities'' comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations
that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their
fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than
50,000. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this
proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities.
    While some owners or operators of vessels intending to transit the
security zone may be small entities, for the reasons stated in section
IV.A above, this rule will not have a significant economic impact on
any vessel owner or operator.
    If you think that your business, organization, or governmental
jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity and that this proposed rule
would have a significant economic impact on it, please submit a comment
(see ADDRESSES) explaining why you think it qualifies and how and to
what degree this rule would economically affect it.
    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small
entities in understanding this proposed rule. If the proposed rule
would affect your small business, organization, or governmental
jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or
options for compliance, please call or email the person listed in the
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. The Coast Guard will not
retaliate against small entities that question or complain about this
proposed rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard.

C. Collection of Information

    This proposed rule would not call for a new collection of
information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-
3520).

D. Federalism and Indian Tribal Governments

    A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132
(Federalism), if it has a substantial direct effect on the States, on
the relationship between the National Government and the States, or on
the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels
of government. We have analyzed this proposed rule under that order and
have determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism
principles and preemption requirements described in Executive Order
13132.
    Also, this proposed rule does not have tribal implications under
Executive Order 13175 (Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal
Governments) because it would not have a substantial direct effect on
one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal
Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. If
you believe this proposed rule has implications for federalism or
Indian tribes, please call or email the person listed in the FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538)
requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary
regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may
result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in
the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for
inflation) or more in any one year. Though this proposed rule would not
result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the potential effects of
this proposed rule elsewhere in this preamble.

F. Environment

    We have analyzed this proposed rule under Department of Homeland
Security Directive 023-01, Rev. 1, associated implementing
instructions, and Environmental Planning COMDTINST 5090.1 (series),
which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have made
a preliminary determination that this action is one of a category of
actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant
effect on the human environment. This proposed rule involves
establishing a security zone to protect the public in a designated area
of the Mississippi River near New Orleans, LA, for a limited number of
days. Normally such actions are categorically excluded from further
review under paragraph L60(a) of Appendix A, Table 1 of DHS Instruction
Manual 023-01-001-01, Rev. 1. A preliminary Record of Environmental
Consideration supporting this determination is available in the docket.
For instructions on locating the docket, see the ADDRESSES section of
this preamble. We seek any comments or information that may lead to the
discovery of a significant environmental impact from this proposed
rule.

G. Protest Activities

    The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters.
Protesters are asked to call or email the person listed in the FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to coordinate protest activities so
that your message can be received without jeopardizing the safety or
security of people, places, or vessels.

V. Public Participation and Request for Comments

    We view public participation as essential to effective rulemaking,
and will consider all comments and material received during the comment
period. Your comment can help shape the outcome of this rulemaking. If
you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this
rulemaking, indicate the specific section of this document to which
each comment applies, and provide a reason for each suggestion or
recommendation.
    Submitting comments. We encourage you to submit comments through
the Federal Decision Making Portal at https://www.regulations.gov. To
do so, go to https://www.regulations.gov, type USCG-2022-0333 in the
search box and click ``Search.'' Next, look for this document in the
Search Results column, and click on it. Then click on the Comment
option. If you cannot submit your material by using https://www.regulations.gov, call or email the person in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section of this proposed rule for alternate
instructions.
    Viewing material in docket. To view documents mentioned in this
proposed rule as being available in the docket, find the docket as
described in the previous paragraph, and then select ``Supporting &
Related Material'' in the Document Type column. Public comments will
also be placed in our online docket and can be viewed by following
instructions on the https://www.regulations.gov Frequently Asked
Questions web page. We review all comments received, but we will only
post comments that address the topic of the proposed rule. We may
choose not to post off-topic, inappropriate, or duplicate comments that
we receive.
    Personal information. We accept anonymous comments. Comments we
post to https://www.regulations.gov will include any personal
information you have provided. For more about privacy and submissions
to the docket in response to this document, see DHS's eRulemaking
System of Records notice (85 FR 14226, March 11, 2020).

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165

    Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, Waterways.

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard is
proposing to amend 33 CFR part 165 as follows:

PART 165--REGULATED NAVIGATION AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS

0
1. The authority citation for part 165 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  46 U.S.C. 70034, 70051; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-
6, and 160.5; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No.
00170.1, Revision No. 01.2.

0
2. Add Sec.  165.846 to read as follows:

Sec.  165.846  Security Zone; Lower Mississippi River, Mile Marker 94
to 97 Above Head of Passes, New Orleans, LA.

    (a) Location. The following area is a security zone: All navigable
waters of Lower Mississippi River from mile marker (MM) 94
(29[deg]57'32'' N, 90[deg]03'05'' W) to MM 97 (29[deg]55'19'' N,
90[deg]04'00'' W), NAD83 datum, Above Head of Passes in New Orleans,
LA.
    (b) Enforcement period. The security zone established by this
section will be enforced only upon notice of the Captain of the Port
New Orleans (COTP). In accordance with subpart A of this part, for each
enforcement of the security zone established under this section, the
COTP will publish a notification of enforcement in the Federal Register
as early as is practicable. In addition, the COTP will also inform the
public of the enforcement area and times of this section as indicated
in paragraph (d) of this section.
    (c) Regulations. (1) Under the general security zone regulations in
subpart D of this part, no person or vessel may enter the security zone
described in paragraph (a) of this section unless authorized by the
COTP or a designated representative. A designated representative means
any Coast Guard commissioned, warrant, or petty officer of the U.S.
Coast Guard assigned to units under the operational control of Sector
New Orleans; to include a Federal, State, and/or local officer
designated by or assisting the COTP in the enforcement of the security
zone.
    (2) To seek permission to enter, contact the COTP or a designated
representative by telephone at<PHONE_NUMBER> or VHF-FM Channel 16 or
67. Those in the security zone must transit at their slowest speed and
comply with all lawful orders or directions given to them by the COTP
or a designated representative.
    (d) Information broadcasts. The COTP or a designated representative
will inform the public of the enforcement period of this security zone
through Vessel Traffic Service Advisories, Broadcast Notices to
Mariners (BNMs), Local Notice to Mariners (LNMs), and/or Marine Safety
Information Bulletins (MSIBs) as appropriate.

    Dated: May 27, 2022.
K.K. Denning,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port New Orleans.
[FR Doc. 2022-11977 Filed 6-6-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P