[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 34 (Tuesday, February 21, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Pages 10637-10640]
[FR Doc No: 2023-03505]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

[Docket No. FMCSA-2021-0174]

Agency Information Collection Activities; Approval of a New
Information Collection Request: Effectiveness of Third-Party Testing
and Minimum Standards for Commercial Driver's License (CDL) Knowledge
and Skills Tests

AGENCY: Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), Department
of Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Notice and request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, FMCSA
announces its plan to submit the Information Collection Request (ICR)
described below to the Office of

Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval. This ICR is
related to the collection of information to determine the effectiveness
of (a) third-party testing programs as they relate to commercial
driver's license (CDL) skills and knowledge tests and (b) minimum
testing standards for CDL skills and knowledge tests.

DATES: Comments on this notice must be received on or before March 23,
2023.

ADDRESSES: Written comments and recommendations for the proposed
information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of
this notice to www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain. Find this information
collection by selecting ``Currently under 30-day Review--Open for
Public Comments'' or by using the search function.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kelly Stowe, Research Division, Office
of Analysis, Research, and Technology, DOT, FMCSA, West Building 6th
Floor, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590-0001; 617-386-
6807; [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    Title: Effectiveness of Third-Party Testing and Minimum Standards
for Commercial Driver's License (CDL) Knowledge and Skills Tests.
    OMB Control Number: 2126-00XX.
    Type of Request: New ICR.
    Respondents: State and local Government employees (management,
professional and related); one respondent per State and one respondent
for the District of Columbia.
    Estimated Number of Respondents: 51 respondents.
    Estimated Time per Response: 1.42 hours per respondent.
    Expiration Date: N/A. This is a new ICR.
    Frequency of Response: There is a one-time response to the survey
per respondent.
    Estimated Total Annual Burden: 72.42 hours (1.42 hours per response
x 51 respondents).
    Background: The CDL program was enacted through the Commercial
Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1986 (CMVSA) (Pub. L. 99-570, 100 Stat.
3207-170) in response to jurisdiction concerns about avoidable
commercial motor vehicle (CMV) crashes and commercial driver
qualifications. The CMVSA required the Secretary of Transportation to
promulgate regulations establishing minimum Federal requirements for
CMV driver licensing, testing, qualifications, and driver
classifications depending on the vehicle configuration. CMVSA further
established the ``one driver, one license'' requirement, prohibiting
any person who does not hold a valid CDL or learner's permit issued by
their jurisdiction of domicile from operating a CMV that requires a
driver with a CDL and established additional requirements for drivers
who transport hazardous materials. The prohibition further affected
driver training activities by requiring trainees to receive the
training and behind-the-wheel experience necessary to acquire their CDL
in their jurisdiction of domicile. CMVSA's requirements became
effective in 1992 and the requirements of the Act are implemented in
Title 49, Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), parts 383 and 384, with
section 383.51 establishing disqualifications and penalties for drivers
convicted of traffic violations.
    In 2005, the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators
(AAMVA) developed a model testing system that FMCSA approved, thus
ensuring that jurisdictions using the Test Model maintain compliance
with Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations governing CDL program
training and licensing standards. In 2011, FMCSA established by
regulation a requirement that all jurisdictions utilize a testing
system that substantially conforms with the 2005 AAMVA CDL Test Model
(76 FR 26854). The Test Model, which was upgraded in 2010 and 2014, is
currently being used to some degree in all 51 jurisdictions; however,
the safety benefits and other potential benefits of utilizing the 2005
AAMVA CDL Test Model have not been fully evaluated.
    In the Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act
legislation signed into law on July 6, 2012, Congress passed a
requirement for FMCSA to establish an entry level driver training
(ELDT) program that both enhanced existing training standards and
established minimum-level CDL requirements consistent across all
jurisdictions (Pub. L. 112-141, 126 Stat. 405). FMCSA's goal was to
raise the standard of training, improve the quality of training, and
reduce commercial vehicle accidents in every jurisdiction. Implemented
in 49 CFR part 380, subpart F, the ELDT rule revised the mandatory
training requirements for entry-level CMV operators who are required to
possess a Class A or B CDL; seek to upgrade their CDL; or wish to
obtain a hazardous material, school bus, or passenger endorsement (86
FR 34631). The ELDT program was implemented beginning February 7, 2022.
    An additional benefit of implementing ELDT is that the training
standards and minimum-level CDL requirements will apply to both
jurisdiction and third-party examiners. Many jurisdictions rely
extensively on third-party entities to provide training and conduct
knowledge and skills tests. FMCSA currently prohibits the same third-
party entity from serving as both trainer and examiner. Current
prohibitions limit the ability jurisdictions have to increase training
capacity. This has resulted in the more frequent use of third-party
entities to make up shortfalls between the demand for CDLs and a
jurisdiction's ability to provide training and examinations. There is a
well-documented driver shortfall in the trucking industry and the use
of third-party entities to conduct training and examinations helps with
increasing examiner capacity and reducing delays in drivers being
issued CDLs. However, a challenge for FMCSA and jurisdictions is that
to date, there is limited research available correlating driver
performance with the type of training received (jurisdiction or third
party).
    An additional challenge that has faced the CDL program since its
inception has been fraud associated with the current AAMVA CDL Test
Model. The provisions of 49 CFR 384.228 and 384.229 are intended to
provide States with a mechanism for detecting potential fraud and
ensuring that all requirements are being addressed. Maintaining proper
oversight and auditing third-party training providers remains a
challenge. The Training Provider Registry requirement for self-
certification of compliance with ELDT and State CMV instruction
requirements adds to this challenge and will require FMCSA and the
State Driver Licensing Agencies (SDLAs) to ensure third-party training
provider self-certifications are accurate and meet all requirements, in
accordance with 49 CFR part 380 and 49 CFR 383.73(p).
    To address these information gaps, FMCSA is conducting a project
titled ``Effectiveness of Third-Party Testing and Minimum Standards for
CDL Knowledge and Skills Tests,'' which will assess the effectiveness
of the ELDT program, assess third-party training provider performance,
and verify/validate compliance with ELDT minimum standards. This
project is intended to address the following research questions:
    1. Is there evidence of increasing or decreasing fraud among third-
party examiners based on the pass rates and subsequent safety history
of CDL holders who were tested by third-party testers?

    2. Are there significant differences in the outcomes of third-party
testing on CDL testing?
    3. Would it be feasible to conduct a future study on the safety
impacts of delegating CDL knowledge testing to third-party testers
based on available data?
    4. How do the driving histories of drivers who received behind-the-
wheel training (pre-ELDT requirements) compare to drivers who completed
the new ELDT requirements?
    5. How do the driving histories of drivers who received theory
instruction (pre-ELDT requirements) compare to drivers who completed
the new ELDT requirements?
    6. How do skills test pass rates of drivers pre-ELDT compliance
compare to pass rates of drivers after the ELDT compliance date?
    7. Are there identifiable safety benefits that have been realized
by the adoption of the 2005 AAMVA CDL Test Model?
    8. Are there external factors preventing SDLAs and the CDL
community from achieving the full potential of safety benefits of the
2005 AAMVA CDL Test Model?
    This one-time survey is necessary to determine institutional and
programmatic issues in assessing the effectiveness of the ELDT program
and where improvements should be made; this will ultimately contribute
to the safety of our transportation system. The survey will allow
researchers to determine which version of the AAMVA CDL Test Model (or
equivalent) is being utilized, as required by 49 CFR 383.131 through
133.

Response to Public Comments

    On September 21, 2022, FMCSA published a 60-day notice in the
Federal Register seeking public comment on this proposed information
collection. FMCSA received five comments. Below are summaries of the
comments received, along with FMCSA's responses.

Iowa Department of Transportation (DOT)

    Comments: Overall, the Iowa DOT was supportive of the study. They
raised concerns over a reference in the 60-day notice to SDLA
challenges associated with maintaining proper oversight of third-party
training providers and allocating resources to ensure third-party
training providers' self-certifications are accurate and meet all
requirements (87 FR 57748, 57749-50). The Iowa DOT stated that it is
not a requirement for SDLAs to audit or oversee the training provided
by ELDT providers. Separately, the Iowa DOT raised questions about the
objectives of the planned research effort, the availability of
necessary data to assess the effectiveness of ELDT and the 2005 AAMVA
CDL Test Model, and the ability of States to provide specific data
fields from driving history records. The Iowa DOT also recommended
future ELDT-related research topics.
    Agency Response: FMCSA or its authorized representative will audit
ELDT providers' training operations in accordance with 49 CFR part 380,
to ensure providers are meeting the criteria set forth in the
regulation. Separately, 49 CFR 383.73(p) states that after February 7,
2022, States must notify FMCSA that a training provider in the State
does not meet applicable State requirements for CMV instruction. While
States are not required to actively investigate training providers,
when a State does become aware that a training provider conducting
training in their State does not meet applicable State requirements for
CMV instruction, the State is required to notify FMCSA. Thus, if a
State has requirements for CMV instruction (for example, if a State
requires training providers to provide a minimum number of hours of
behind-the-wheel training), the State is responsible for ensuring ELDT
providers in the State are meeting those requirements. If an ELDT
provider is not meeting the State's CMV instruction requirements, the
State must notify FMCSA. FMCSA has adjusted the wording in this notice
to improve clarity around this issue.
    The Iowa DOT raised concerns about the objectives of the study and
the availability of necessary data to evaluate the effectiveness of
ELDT. FMCSA has developed specific research questions for the current
study, outlined in this notice. A broad objective of the study is to
evaluate the effectiveness of the ELDT program; however, the research
questions narrow that objective to focus on the effect of the ELDT
program on driver histories and Safety Measurement System (SMS) scores.
The Agency will use data from the Training Provider Registry, the
Commercial Driver's License Information System, the Commercial Skills
Test Information Management System, AAMVA's Report Out-of-State Test
Results web application, the Motor Carrier Management Information
System, and driver history records to answer the ELDT-related research
questions. The Iowa DOT noted that it may be difficult for States to
provide specific data fields from driver history records to accommodate
this study. FMCSA does not anticipate requesting data fields that SDLAs
are not already providing through the systems listed above. For
example, FMCSA does not expect SDLAs to provide data regarding the
training received by their drivers prior to the implementation of ELDT,
nor does FMCSA expect SDLAs to perform comparisons of training data.
FMCSA welcomes the State's suggestion to provide bulk driver history
data so that FMCSA may perform its own analysis of the data.
    Regarding FMCSA's plans to assess the benefits of the 2005 AAMVA
CDL Test Model, the Iowa DOT questioned whether FMCSA would be able to
draw comparisons between the 2005 AAMVA CDL Test Model and former
models, as many States have been using the 2005 AAMVA Test Model for
many years, and some States (like Iowa) will be implementing a
modernized version in 2023. FMCSA is not drawing comparisons between
the 2005 AAMVA CDL Test Model and former test models that States may
have used prior to adopting the 2005 AAMVA CDL Test Model. Instead,
FMCSA is interested in assessing the benefits of the AAMVA CDL Test
Model in general. The Agency will attempt to identify the version of
the AAMVA CDL Test Model that each State is using by examining the road
skills test score sheets being used by the State. Each variant of the
road skills test sheet represents updates to the testing model (e.g.,
2010 score sheet or later) and the way that the skills test was
conducted. FMCSA plans to look at data related to skills tests from
various States, including in States that have historically implemented
each version of the AAMVA CDL Test Model as it was released (including,
if possible, the modernized version released in 2022).
    Finally, the Iowa DOT recommended several research topics to fully
assess the effectiveness of the ELDT program. FMCSA acknowledges the
Iowa DOT's suggested research topics and will consider them in future
research planning cycles.

Montana Department of Justice (DOJ) Motor Vehicle Division

    Comments: The Montana DOJ Motor Vehicle Division was supportive of
the study; however, they raised concerns about some of the language in
the 60-day notice pertaining to the role of SDLAs in the oversight of
third-party ELDT providers.
    Agency Response: The Iowa DOT identified similar concerns in its
comments. See FMCSA's response to the Iowa DOT, above.

New York State Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV)

    Comments: The New York State DMV provided responses to the eight
research questions listed in the 60-day Federal Register notice.
    Agency Response: FMCSA thanks the New York State DMV for its
responses to the study research questions. The Agency will reach out to
gather more information once data collection begins.

National School Transportation Association (NSTA)

    Comments: NSTA did not comment on the proposed information
collection; however, the organization did state that it supports third-
party testing implementation for CDL licensing, due to its potential to
streamline the CDL process and address the nationwide bus driver
shortage. Conversely, NSTA raised concerns that ELDT requirements
negatively affect the ability of school bus contractors to recruit
drivers, as ``applicants have to learn and be tested in areas not
germane to their role as a school bus driver.'' NSTA also stated that
ELDT requirements can be duplicative of State programs already in
place, which can impede the licensing process for school bus drivers.
NSTA stated that ``removal of redundancies is paramount'' to alleviate
the national school bus driver shortage.
    Agency Response: FMCSA invites NSTA to work with the Agency to
identify redundancies in ELDT and State bus driver licensing
requirements.

Alexandria Technical and Community College

    Comments: Alexandria Technical and Community College, a learning
institution that provides professional truck driver training, indicated
support for third-party testing and advocated for ``broad sweeping''
annual audits of ELDT providers, more stringent requirements for ELDT
providers and third-party CDL examiners, and minimum timeframe
requirements for theory, behind-the-wheel range, and road training.
    Agency Response: FMCSA is developing plans for an ELDT audit
program. The Agency will continue to conduct research to support
decision-making around the CDL and ELDT programs.
    Title 23, United States Code (U.S.C.), chapter 4, section 403
authorizes the Secretary to use funds appropriated to carry out that
section to conduct research and development activities, including
demonstration projects and the collection and analysis of highway and
motor vehicle safety data and related information with respect to all
aspects of highway and traffic safety systems and conditions relating
to vehicle, highway, driver, passenger, motorcyclist, bicyclist, and
pedestrian characteristics; accident causation and investigations;
human behavioral factors and their effect on highway and traffic
safety, including driver education, impaired driving and distracted
driving; research on, evaluations of, and identification of best
practices related to driver education programs (including driver
education curricula, instructor training and certification, program
administration, and delivery mechanisms) and recommendations for
harmonizing driver education and multistage graduated licensing
systems; and the effect of State laws on any aspects, activities, or
programs described above (see 23 U.S.C. 403(b)(1)(A)(i) through (ii),
23 U.S.C. 403(b)(1)(B)(i) through (iii), 23 U.S.C. 403(b)(1)(E), 23
U.S.C. 403(b)(1)(F)).
    Public Comments Invited: You are asked to comment on any aspect of
this information collection, including: (1) whether the proposed
collection is necessary for the performance of FMCSA's functions; (2)
the accuracy of the estimated burden; (3) ways for FMCSA to enhance the
quality, usefulness, and clarity of the collected information; and (4)
ways that the burden could be minimized without reducing the quality of
the collected information.
    Issued under the authority of 49 CFR 1.87.

Thomas P. Keane,
Associate Administrator, Office of Research and Registration.
[FR Doc. 2023-03505 Filed 2-17-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 101 (Friday, May 26, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 24412-24417]
[FR Doc No: 2017-10807]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-80740; File No. SR-CHX-2017-04]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Chicago Stock Exchange, Inc.;
Order Instituting Proceedings To Determine Whether To Approve or
Disapprove a Proposed Rule Change To Adopt the CHX Liquidity Enhancing
Access Delay

May 22, 2017.

I. Introduction

    On February 10, 2017, the Chicago Stock Exchange, Inc. (``CHX'' or
``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission''), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (``Exchange Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4
thereunder,\2\ a proposed rule change to adopt the CHX Liquidity
Enhancing Access Delay (``LEAD''). The proposed rule change was
published for comment in the Federal Register on February 21, 2017.\3\
On April 3, 2017, the Commission designated a longer period within
which to approve the proposed rule change, disapprove the proposed rule
change, or institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule
change should be disapproved.\4\ The Commission received eleven comment
letters on the proposed rule change, including a response from the
Exchange.\5\ This order institutes proceedings under Section
19(b)(2)(B) of the Exchange Act \6\ to determine whether to approve or
disapprove the proposed rule change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 80041 (February 14,
2017), 82 FR 11252 (``Notice'').
    \4\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 80364, 82 FR 11252
(April 7, 2017).
    \5\ See letters from: (1) Ryan Hitch, Head of Equities Trading,
XR Securities LLC, dated February 24, 2017 (``XR Securities
Letter''); (2) Douglas A. Cifu, Chief Executive Officer, Virtu
Financial LLC, dated February 27, 2017 (``Virtu Letter''); (3)
Joanna Mallers, Secretary, FIA Principal Traders Group, dated March
13, 2017 (``FIA PTG Letter''); (4) Adam Nunes, Head of Business
Development, Hudson River Trading LLC, dated March 13, 2017
(``Hudson River Trading Letter''); (5) R.T. Leuchtkafer, dated March
14, 2017 (``Leuchtkafter Letter''); (6) Stephen John Berger,
Managing Director, Government & Regulatory Policy, Citadel
Securities, dated March 14, 2017 (``Citadel Letter''); (7) Tyler
Gellasch, Executive Director, Healthy Markets Association, March 17,
2017 (``Healthy Markets Letter''); (8) Elizabeth K. King, General
Counsel and Corporate Secretary, New York Stock Exchange, dated
March 20, 2017 (``NYSE Letter''); (9) James G. Ongena, Executive
Vice President and General Counsel, CHX, dated March 24, 2017 (``CHX
Letter''); (10) Steve Crutchfield, Head of Market Structure, CTC
Trading Group, LLC, dated April 4, 2017 (``CTC Trading Letter'');
and (11) Theodore R. Lazo, Managing Director and Associate General
Counsel, Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association,
dated May 17, 2017 (``SIFMA Letter''). All comments on the proposed
rule change are available at: https://www.sec.gov/comments/sr-chx-2017-04/chx201704.htm.
    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2)(B).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Summary of the Proposal

    The Exchange proposes to adopt the LEAD, which would subject all
new incoming orders,\7\ cancel and cancel/replace messages to a 350-
microsecond intentional access delay, provided that certain types of
messages would not be subject to the delay: (1) New incoming orders
submitted by LEAD Market Makers (``LEAD MM''), a new class of CHX
Market Maker \8\ with heightened quoting and trading obligations
(referred to collectively as the ``minimum performance standards''),
which would be immediately ranked on the CHX book without executing
against any resting orders on the CHX book; (2) certain cancel messages
related to resting orders that were submitted by LEAD MMs; (3) cancel/
replace messages related to resting orders that were submitted by LEAD
MMs (except that any part of the replace portion of the order that
would immediately execute against a resting order would be
intentionally delayed); and (4) the portion of a routable order that is
to be routed away, regardless of who submitted the routable order. A
message will be subject to a 350

microsecond delay after initial receipt by the Exchange (``Fixed LEAD
Period''), but will only be processed after the Exchange's matching
system\9\ has evaluated and processed, if applicable, all messages in
the security received by the Exchange during the Fixed LEAD Period. A
delayed message will retain its original sequence number and may be
delayed only once. The LEAD would be applied to all securities traded
on the Exchange throughout the trading day.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ New incoming orders are orders received by the Matching
System for the first time. The LEAD would not apply to other
situations where existing orders or portions thereof are treated as
incoming orders, such as: (1) Resting orders that are price slid
into a new price point pursuant to the CHX only price sliding or
limit up-limit down price sliding processes; and (2) unexecuted
remainders of routed orders released into the matching system.
    \8\ See CHX Article 1, Rule 1(tt) (defining ``Market Maker'');
see also generally CHX Article 16 (Market Makers).
    \9\ The matching system is an automated order execution system,
which is a part of the Exchange's ``Trading Facilities,'' as defined
under CHX Article 1, Rule 1(z).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange states that the LEAD is designed to enhance displayed
liquidity and price discovery by minimizing the effectiveness of
``latency arbitrage'' strategies,\10\ which the Exchange says diminish
displayed liquidity and impair price discovery. According to the
Exchange, latency arbitrage is and has been effected at CHX by low-
latency market participants that leverage microsecond speed advantages
to take resting liquidity at stale prices from the CHX limit order
book. Specifically, in 2016, the Exchange experienced a decline in
volume in the SPDR S&P 500 trust exchange-traded fund (``SPY''), which
the Exchange attributes to latency arbitrage activity in SPY first
observed at CHX in January 2016. Between January and July 2016, the
Exchange found that SPY latency arbitrage activity caused CHX liquidity
providers to dramatically reduce displayed trading interest in SPY (and
at times withdraw from the market altogether).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ The Exchange defines ``latency arbitrage'' as the practice
of exploiting disparities in the price of a security or related
securities that are being traded in different markets by taking
advantage of the time it takes to access and respond to symmetric
public information.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that the LEAD would not materially impact the
ability of liquidity takers not engaged in latency arbitrage, such as
retail investors, to access displayed liquidity at CHX.\11\ The
Exchange also contends that, to the extent a sophisticated market
participant seeks to take displayed liquidity pursuant to better or
different information (as opposed to the same information exploited by
latency arbitrageurs), the LEAD would be too short to have an
incrementally negative impact on such non-latency arbitrage
strategies.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See Notice, supra note 3, 82 FR at 11268.
    \12\ See id. at 11253.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A LEAD MM would be required to meet the proposed minimum
performance standards in return for undelayed access to submit
liquidity providing orders and to cancel its resting orders. The
proposed minimum performance standards require:

     a LEAD MM to satisfy the Quotation Requirements and
Obligations prescribed under current CHX Article 16, Rule 4(d),\13\
except that the Designated Percentages described under current Article
16, Rule 4(d)(2)(B) shall be halved; \14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ Currently, CHX Market Makers must disseminate throughout
the ``Open Trading State'' a continuous two-sided quote with bids
and offers being no further away from the National Best Bid
(``NBB'') and National Best Offer (``NBO''), respectively, than the
Designated Percentage or Defined Limit, as applicable. See CHX
Article 16, Rule 4(d).
    \14\ See proposed CHX Article 16, Rule 4(f)(2)(A). For example,
the 8% Designated Percentage for securities subject to the Article
20, Rule 2A(c)(1)(A) pursuant to current CHX Article 16, Rule
4(d)(2)(A) and (B) would be 4% for LEAD MMs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     a LEAD MM to maintain a ``Monthly Average NBBO Quoting
Percentage,'' as defined in proposed CHX Article 16, Rule
4(f)(2)(B)(iv), in each of the securities assigned to the LEAD MM
(``LEAD MM Securities''), of at least 10% over the course of a calendar
month; \15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ See proposed CHX Rule Article 16, Rule 4(f)(2)(B). For each
such security, the Exchange will determine: (1) The ``Daily NBB
Quoting Percentage'' by determining the percentage of time the LEAD
MM has at least one Round Lot (as defined in CHX Article 1, Rule
2(f)(3)) of displayed interest in an Exchange bid at the NBB during
the Open Trading State (as defined in CHX Article 1, Rule 1(qq)) of
each trading day for a calendar month; (2) the ``Daily NBO Quoting
Percentage'' by determining the percentage of time the LEAD MM has
at least one Round Lot of displayed interest in an Exchange offer at
the NBO during the Open Trading State of each trading day for a
calendar month; (3) the ``Average Daily NBBO Quoting Percentage''
for each trading day by summing the ``Daily NBB Quoting Percentage''
and the ``Daily NBO Quoting Percentage'' then dividing such sum by
two; and (4) the ``Monthly Average NBBO Quoting Percentage'' for
each security by summing the security's ``Average Daily NBBO Quoting
Percentages'' for each trading day in a calendar month then dividing
the resulting sum by the total number of trading days in such
calendar month.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     a LEAD MM's Qualified Executions; \16\ in each of its LEAD
MM Securities must comprise on an equally-weighted daily average at
least 2% of all Qualified Executions in the same security over the
course of a calendar month; \17\ and
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ ``Qualified Executions'' are all executed shares at CHX,
during all trading sessions resulting from single-sided orders,
excluding any executed shares resulting from auctions. See proposed
CHX Article 16, Rule 4(f)(1)(D).
    \17\ See proposed CHX Article 16, Rule 4(f)(2)(C).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     that at least 80% of the LEAD MM's Qualified Executions in
each of its LEAD MM Securities must result from its resting orders that
originated from the corresponding LEAD MM trading account \18\ over the
course of a calendar month.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ Prior to commencing LEAD market making activities in a
security, a LEAD MM must, among other things, establish at least one
separately designated LEAD MM trading account through which all and
only LEAD market making activities in LEAD MM Securities must
originate. See proposed CHX Article 16, Rule 4(f)(3)(B)(i).
    \19\ See proposed CHX Article 16, Rule 4(f)(2)(D). Unlike the
standards provided under proposed paragraphs (f)(2)(A)-(C), this
standard would be measured based on aggregate activity over the
course of a calendar month. Trading days on which the Exchange does
not open for trading would be excluded from the Exchange's
calculations regarding compliance with the proposed minimum
performance standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed rule change also establishes the procedure for CHX to
designate LEAD MMs in a security. Only a Market Maker could apply to be
a LEAD MM in one or more securities,\20\ and Market Makers must receive
written approval from the Exchange to be assigned securities as a LEAD
MM. LEAD MMs would be selected by the Exchange based on factors
including, but not limited to, experience with making markets in
securities, adequacy of capital, willingness to promote the Exchange as
a marketplace, issuer preference, operational capacity, support
personnel and history of adherence to Exchange rules and securities
laws. Current Article 16, Rules 2(c)-(e) govern Market Maker withdrawal
from assigned securities, and would apply to LEAD MMs and LEAD MM
Securities. The Exchange could approve at its discretion more than one
LEAD MM to be assigned to any LEAD MM Security and limit the number of
LEAD MMs assigned to any security.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ See proposed CHX Article 16, Rule 4(f)(3)(A).
    \21\ See proposed CHX Article 16, Rule 4(f)(3)(C).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Proposed CHX Article 16, Rule 4(f)(3)(D) outlines requirements
regarding LEAD MM trading accounts and, according to the Exchange,
facilitates the ability of the Exchange to monitor compliance with the
proposed minimum performance standards. The Exchange would review each
LEAD MM's quoting and trading activity on a monthly basis to determine
whether the LEAD MM has met the minimum performance standards.\22\ A
LEAD MM's failure to meet the minimum performance standards on any
given month would result in the Exchange: (1) Suspending or terminating
a LEAD MM's registration as a Market Maker pursuant to current Article
16, Rule 1(d); or (2) suspending or terminating assignment to a LEAD MM
Security pursuant to proposed CHX Article 16,

Rule 4(f)(3)(A).\23\ These proposed provisions would not limit any
other power of the Exchange to discipline a LEAD MM pursuant to other
CHX rules.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ See proposed CHX Article 16, Rule 4(f)(3)(D).
    \23\ See id.
    \24\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Summary of the Comments

    The Commission has received eleven comments on the proposed rule
change, including a response letter from the Exchange.\25\ Two
commenters expressed support for the proposal,\26\ and eight commenters
expressed opposition to the proposal.\27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ See supra note 5.
    \26\ See Virtu Letter, supra note 5; and CTC Trading Group
Letter, supra note 5.
    \27\ See XR Securities Letter, supra note 5; FIA PTG Letter,
supra note 5; Hudson River Trading Letter, supra note 5; Leuchtkafer
Letter, supra note 5; Citadel Letter, supra note 5; Healthy Markets
Letter, supra note 5; NYSE Letter, supra note 5; and SIFMA Letter,
supra note 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Some commenters questioned whether, as asserted by CHX, latency
arbitrage is to blame for the decline in CHX's market share, and
whether the LEAD would solve the purported problem.\28\ One commenter
questioned CHX's assertion that there is structural bias against
displayed liquidity, and the need for an asymmetrical remedy.\29\
Another commenter opined that the proposed rule change is overbroad
because the proposed LEAD is a systemic solution to a problem--namely a
decline in CHX's market share in one security--that CHX has not
demonstrated to be market-wide.\30\ In addition, a commenter questioned
whether CHX could address what it perceives as latency arbitrage by
improving its technology to reduce the time to cancel for liquidity
providers.\31\ Another commenter suggested other ways to confront
latency arbitrage, including that the Exchange could move its servers
closer to the Chicago Mercantile Exchange's (``CME'') servers or to New
Jersey, apply a delay to messages coming from CME's data centers,
implement a random delay for everyone, or prohibit latency arbitrage by
rule.\32\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ See FIA PTG Letter, supra note 5, at 2; and Hudson River
Trading Letter, supra note 5, at 2, 5.
    \29\ See FIA PTG Letter, supra note 5, at 2.
    \30\ See Citadel Letter, supra note 5, at 7.
    \31\ See SIFMA Letter, supra note 5, at 7-8.
    \32\ See Leuchtkafer Letter, supra note 5, at 6-7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Several commenters discussed the potential impact of the proposal
on displayed liquidity and price discovery. Two commenters asserted
that the LEAD would enable liquidity providers to improve displayed
liquidity.\33\ Six commenters, however, expressed concern that the LEAD
could deteriorate the accessibility of quotes and overall market
quality.\34\ For example, one commenter predicted that, while overall
spreads and liquidity may improve, the increased liquidity would be
more conditional and less accessible.\35\ In addition, a commenter
predicted that spreads made by ``real'' liquidity providers--as
distinguished from ``fleeting'' quotes submitted by LEAD MMs--would
widen.\36\ In response, the Exchange asserted that the proposal would
promote tighter spreads and larger size, and that there is no evidence
that it would result in CHX quotes being less accessible to ``natural''
buyers and sellers.\37\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \33\ See Virtu Letter, supra note 5, at 2 (stating that the
proposal would improve displayed liquidity available to
institutional investors without limiting the ability of ``natural''
buyers and sellers to access liquidity); and CTC Trading Letter,
supra note 5, at 3 (asserting that the LEAD would result in tighter
bid-ask spreads).
    \34\ See Healthy Markets Letter, supra note 5, at 4-5; XR
Securities Letter, supra note 5, at 2; FIA PTG Letter, supra note 5,
at 4; SIFMA Letter, supra note 5, at 6; Citadel Letter, supra note
5, at 3; and Hudson River Trading Letter supra note 5, at 6.
    \35\ See Hudson River Trading Letter, supra note 5, at 6.
Another commenter similarly predicted that the LEAD would result in
complex trickle-down impacts on the NBBO including CHX quotes that
would not be accessible. See FIA PTG Letter, supra note 5, at 3.
    \36\ See XR Securities Letter, supra note 5, at 2. See also FIA
PTG Letter, supra note 5, at 4 (expressing concern that non-LEAD MMS
would be forced to widen their bid/ask spreads across the
marketplace).
    \37\ See CHX Letter, supra note 5, at 4-5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, some commenters stated that the LEAD would impinge
upon price discovery across the national market system.\38\ Some
commenters noted that an asymmetric delay on TSX Alpha, a Canadian
exchange, degraded overall market quality, harmed institutional order
routers, and increased effective spreads.\39\ One commenter noted that
while quoted depth increased on TSX Alpha, the exchange did not
demonstrate tighter spreads, and the accessibility of quotes
significantly degraded.\40\ In addition, a commenter asserted that the
only counterbalance to the negative impact on market quality caused by
an asymmetric delay (such as that exhibited due to TSX Alpha) would be
coupling it with ``robust and rigorous'' affirmative obligations for
those benefitting from the delay.\41\ In response, the Exchange
asserted that the TSX Alpha delay is materially different from LEAD
because it is randomized and, unlike CHX, TSX Alpha utilizes an
inverted maker-taker model.\42\ The Exchange also observed that TSX
Alpha does not require its liquidity providers to meet heightened
requirements designed to enhance market quality.\43\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \38\ See XR Securities Letter, supra note 5, at 3; FIA PTG
Letter, supra note 5, at 3-4, and Hudson River Trading Letter supra
note 5, at 5.
    \39\ See Hudson River Trading Letter, supra note 5, at 2. See
also Healthy Markets Letter, supra note 5, at 5; and SIFMA Letter,
supra note 5, at 6. These commenters cite a recent study regarding
TSX Alpha: See Chen, Haoming, Foley, Sean, Goldstein, Michael, and
Ruf, Thomas, ``The Value of a Millisecond: Harnessing Information in
Fast, Fragmented Markets'' https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2860359.
    \40\ See Hudson River Trading Letter, supra note 5, at 2.
    \41\ See Healthy Markets Letter, supra note 5, at 5.
    \42\ See CHX Letter, supra note 5, at 8.
    \43\ See id. at 8-9.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    One commenter asserted that the indeterminacy of the proposed delay
may result in the LEAD producing delays that are not de minimis.\44\ In
response, the Exchange stated that processing delays and message
queuing currently exists in every market.\45\ The Exchange also
asserted that these delays would not provide LEAD MMs with more than a
350 microsecond window to adjust or cancel their resting orders at
CHX.\46\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \44\ See Leuchtkafer Letter, supra note 5, at 2. See also
Healthy Markets Letter, supra note 5, at 5 (urging the Commission to
consider concerns about the delay being implemented by software as
opposed to hardware, what happens in periods of high volume, and how
CHX would ensure that the delay does not vary under different
circumstances).
    \45\ See CHX Letter, supra note 5, at 9. See also CTC Letter,
supra note 5, at 5.
    \46\ See CHX Letter, supra note 5, at 9.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Several commenters stated that the LEAD would unfairly discriminate
in favor of the LEAD MMs.\47\ Specifically, commenters asserted that
the LEAD would harm market participants seeking to access liquidity
provided by LEAD MMs as the LEAD MMs may alter their prices while
incoming orders are being delayed.\48\ In addition, a commenter stated
that the LEAD would give LEAD MMs an unfair advantage.\49\ One
commenter asserted that the LEAD could make it more difficult for non-
LEAD MMs to quote better prices at larger size.\50\ Two commenters
stated that the LEAD would unfairly discriminate against market
participants that are primarily liquidity takers, such

as retail investors or institutions.\51\ Another commenter expressed
concern that, unlike other examples of ``permissible'' discrimination,
the LEAD would affect the regulatory mechanics of trading because, in
some cases, traders would be required to route orders to the Exchange
pursuant to Rule 611 of Regulation NMS.\52\ In addition, one commenter
asserted that the delay would only benefit market participants who
become LEAD MMs and subscribe to the CME's data feeds.\53\ In response,
CHX stated that the LEAD would discriminate on fair terms because it is
designed to correct the current asymmetry that CHX says currently
exists in the market.\54\ In addition, CHX asserted that the LEAD would
reduce the cost of providing liquidity to the LEAD MMs, which CHX
asserted would result in efficient price discovery for retail and
institutional investors.\55\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \47\ See FIA PTG Letter, supra note 5, at 2-3; Leuchtkafer
Letter, supra note 5, at 4; Citadel Letter, supra note 5, at 4;
Hudson River Trading Letter, supra note 5, at 5-6. See also XR
Securities Letter, supra note 5, at 2 (stating that the LEAD would
give LEAD MMs an ``unfair advantage''); and Healthy Markets Letter,
supra note 5, at 4 (stating that the proposal would ``venture into
unchartered discriminatory waters, and offers little explanation or
justification''). See also SIFMA Letter, supra note 5, at 5
(asserting that any intentional delay should be universally applied
to all market participants in a non-discriminatory manner).
    \48\ See Hudson River Trading Letter, supra note 5, at 2.
    \49\ See XR Securities Letter, supra note 5, at 2.
    \50\ See Hudson River Trading Letter, supra note 5, at 1-2.
    \51\ See Citadel Letter, supra note 5, at 5-6; Leuchtkafer
Letter, supra note 5, at 4.
    \52\ See FIA PTG Letter, supra note 5, at 4.
    \53\ See Leuchtkafer Letter, supra note 5, at 4.
    \54\ See CHX Letter, supra note 5, at 10-11.
    \55\ See id. at 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Other commenters expressed concern that the proposal would be
unfairly discriminatory because only firms selected by CHX as LEAD MMs
would be given the speed advantage,\56\ and LEAD MMs would be named
based on subjective criteria.\57\ CHX responded that the LEAD MM
factors are designed to forecast how well that applicant would perform
as a LEAD MM if approved.\58\ CHX further noted that the criteria are
``virtually identical'' to the criteria under Bats BZX's rules for its
lead market maker program.\59\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \56\ See XR Securities Letter, supra note 5, at 1; and FIA PTG
Letter, supra note 5, at 2.
    \57\ See Citadel Letter, supra note 5, at 4.
    \58\ See CHX Letter, supra note 5, at 11-12.
    \59\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Several commenters commented on the proposed minimum performance
standards. Two commenters expressed support for the proposed minimum
performance standards.\60\ One of these commenters asserted that the
proposal would effectively couple heightened quoting and trading
requirements with the ability to adequately manage the heightened risks
of such requirements.\61\ Other commenters expressed concern that the
minimum performance standards may not be adequate to justify the
benefits that LEAD MMs would receive under the proposal.\62\ Two
commenters suggested that CHX should provide data regarding the
materiality of the minimum performance standards, how they will improve
market quality, and whether CHX market makers already satisfy these
criteria.\63\ In response, the Exchange asserted that the proposed
minimum performance standards are ``substantial and proportionate to
the benefits conferred upon LEAD MMs,'' and that they would minimize
the risk of incremental quote fading and other non-bona fide liquidity
provision strategies.\64\ Further, the Exchange stated that the minimum
performance standards are appropriate in light of the requirements
imposed upon and benefits incurred by market makers on other
exchanges.\65\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \60\ See Virtu Letter, supra note 5, at 2; and CTC Trading
Letter, supra note 5, at 4.
    \61\ See Virtu Letter, supra note 5, at 2.
    \62\ See Leuchtkafter Letter, supra note 5, at 5; NYSE Letter,
supra note 5, at 4-5 (stating that the benefit is
``disproportionate'' to the proposed standards); Citadel Letter,
supra note 5, at 7 (asserting that the minimum performance standards
appear to be ``largely immaterial in substance'' and the benefits of
the LEAD would be ``entirely disproportionate'' to these
obligations).
    \63\ See Citadel Letter, supra note 5, at 3; and Healthy Markets
Letter, supra note 5, at 4.
    \64\ See CHX Letter, supra note 5, at 6. Another commenter
agreed with CHX that the proposed quoting requirements are
``substantial and proportionate.'' See CTC Trading Letter, supra
note 5, at 4.
    \65\ See CHX Letter, supra note 5, at 6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Some commenters suggested that the LEAD could increase the risk of
manipulative activity. One commenter argued that the LEAD would enable
intra-exchange latency arbitrage because CHX would impose neither
negative obligations on its LEAD MMs nor information barriers to
segregate LEAD market making from other proprietary trading.\66\
Another commenter expressed concern that the LEAD would frustrate
strategies that involve taking prices across multiple venues by giving
extra time to LEAD MMs to pull their quotes in the middle of a multi-
venue order.\67\ The Exchange responded that sophisticated order
routing strategies would minimize incremental leakage, and that the
LEAD is much shorter than the time that it would take for information
regarding a CHX routed order that is executed away to be consumed and
processed by the LEAD MM.\68\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \66\ See Leuchtkafer Letter, supra note 5, at 6.
    \67\ See FIA PTG Letter, supra note 5, at 3.
    \68\ See CHX Letter, supra note 5, at 8.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    One commenter asserted that the LEAD would unduly burden
competition among CHX members and among national securities
exchanges.\69\ Another commenter stated that the LEAD would alter the
competitive balance in the market by benefitting only LEAD MMs.\70\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \69\ See Hudson River Trading Letter, supra note 5, at 8.
    \70\ See Citadel Letter, supra note 5, at 8.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, some commenters asserted that the LEAD may be
inconsistent with the ``firm quote'' provisions of Rule 602 of
Regulation NMS (``Quote Rule'') because commenters asserted that it
would allow liquidity providers to back away from their quotes.\71\ The
Exchange responded that the LEAD would not violate the Quote Rule
because the duty of a broker or dealer to stand behind its quote would
not vest because the LEAD would prevent the liquidity provider from
receiving (i.e., being presented with) a marketable contra-side
order.\72\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \71\ See FIA PTG Letter, supra note 5, at 5; Hudson River
Trading Letter, supra note 5, at 6; Citadel Letter, supra note 5, at
5; NYSE Letter, supra note 5, at 2.
    \72\ See CHX Letter, supra note 5, at 12.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Several commenters asserted that the adoption of the LEAD could be
inconsistent with CHX's protected quotation status under Regulation
NMS.\73\ In particular, some commenters asserted that by providing LEAD
MMs with a structural advantage, the LEAD would frustrate the purposes
of Rule 611 by impairing fair and efficient access to an exchange's
quotations.\74\ In response, the Exchange stated that it believes that
LEAD would be a de minimis delay so short as not to: (1) Frustrate the
purposes of the Rule 611 by impairing fair and efficient access to the
Exchange's quotations; and (2) neither provide an incremental advantage
other than neutralizing structural bias nor permit a LEAD MM to back
away from a quote on a quotation-by-quotation basis.\75\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \73\ See Hudson River Trading Letter, supra note 5, at 7;
Citadel Letter, supra note 5, at 6; NYSE Letter, supra note 5, at 4;
XR Securities Letter, supra note 5, at 1. See also SIFMA Letter,
supra note 5, at 7 (suggesting that the Commission should
``carefully consider the implications'' of market participants
routing orders to CHX to access a protected quote when the
accessibility of such quote is ``questionable'').
    \74\ See FIA PTG Letter, supra note 5, at 2; Hudson River
Trading Letter, supra note 5, at 7; Citadel Letter, supra note 5, at
6; NYSE Letter, supra note 5, at 4; XR Securities, supra note 5, at
1; and SIFMA Letter, supra note 5, at 6 (questioning the effect of
an access delay coupled with existing geographic or technological
latencies on the fair and efficient access to an exchange's
protected quotations).
    \75\ See CHX Letter, supra note 5, at 14.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Certain commenters also asserted that the LEAD would result in
unfair allocation of consolidated market data revenue by generating an
increase in quoting, but not necessarily trading, on the Exchange.\76\
The Exchange responded that the LEAD would not encourage non-bona fide
quote activity for the purpose of earning rebates because quotes
cancelled within the 350-microsecond LEAD would not be eligible for
market data revenue rebates,

and cancellation of such quotes could result in the CHX participant
being assessed an order cancellation fee.\77\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \76\ See Hudson River Trading Letter, supra note 5, at 7;
Citadel Letter, supra note 5, at 6; and SIFMA Letter, supra note 5,
at 7.
    \77\ See CHX Letter, supra note 5, at 10.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Proceedings To Determine Whether To Approve or Disapprove SR-CHX-
2017-04 and Grounds for Disapproval Under Consideration

    The Commission is instituting proceedings pursuant to Section
19(b)(2)(B) of the Exchange Act \78\ to determine whether the proposed
rule change should be approved or disapproved. Institution of such
proceedings is appropriate at this time in view of the legal and policy
issues raised by the proposed rule change. Institution of proceedings
does not indicate that the Commission has reached any conclusions with
respect to any of the issues involved. Rather, as stated below, the
Commission seeks and encourages interested persons to provide comments
on the proposed rule change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \78\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2)(B).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(2)(B) of the Exchange Act,\79\ the
Commission is providing notice of the grounds for disapproval under
consideration. The Commission is instituting proceedings to allow for
additional analysis of the proposed rule change's consistency with: (1)
Section 6(b)(5) of the Exchange Act, which requires, among other
things, that the rules of a national securities exchange not be
designed to permit unfair discrimination between customers, issuers,
brokers, or dealers; \80\ (2) Section 6(b)(8) of the Exchange Act,
which requires that the rules of a national securities exchange not
impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Exchange Act; \81\ and (3) Section
11A of the Exchange Act.\82\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \79\ Id.
    \80\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
    \81\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(8).
    \82\ 15 U.S.C. 78k-1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Procedure: Request for Written Comments

    The Commission requests that interested persons provide written
submissions of their views, data, and arguments with respect to the
issues identified above, as well as any other concerns they may have
with the proposal. In particular, the Commission invites the written
views of interested persons concerning whether the proposal is
consistent with Sections 6(b)(5), 6(b)(8), and 11A of the Exchange Act,
any other provision of the Exchange Act, or any other rule or
regulation under the Exchange Act. Although there do not appear to be
any issues relevant to approval or disapproval that would be
facilitated by an oral presentation of views, data, and arguments, the
Commission will consider, pursuant to Rule 19b-4, any request for an
opportunity to make an oral presentation.\83\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \83\ Section 19(b)(2) of the Exchange Act, as amended by the
Securities Act Amendments of 1975, Public Law 94-29 (June 4, 1975),
grants the Commission flexibility to determine what type of
proceeding--either oral or notice and opportunity for written
comments--is appropriate for consideration of a particular proposal
by a self-regulatory organization. See Securities Act Amendments of
1975, Senate Comm. on Banking, Housing & Urban Affairs, S. Rep. No.
75, 94th Cong., 1st Sess. 30 (1975).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and
arguments regarding whether the proposal should be approved or
disapproved by June 16, 2017. Any person who wishes to file a rebuttal
to any other person's submission must file that rebuttal by June 30,
2017. The Commission asks that commenters address the sufficiency of
the Exchange's statements in support of the proposal, in addition to
any other comments they may wish to submit about the proposed rule
change. In particular, the Commission seeks comment on the following:
    1. Would the proposed minimum performance standards for LEAD MMs
enhance market quality? Why or why not? What metrics would help
determine any enhancement to market quality? How should enhancements to
market quality be measured with the delay in effect?
    2. How would the proposal affect price volatility during stressed
trading conditions?
    3. How would the proposal affect transaction costs for retail and
institutional investors?
    4. How would the proposal affect an institutional investor's
experience providing liquidity and removing liquidity on CHX?
    5. Would the proposal provide an unfair advantage to LEAD MMs
providing liquidity vis-[agrave]-vis other liquidity providers and in
particular when the price of a security moves?
    6. Do commenters agree with the Exchange's assertion that the
proposed rule change would increase displayed liquidity on the
Exchange?
    7. Do the obligations for LEAD MMs to comply with the proposed
minimum performance standards justify the LEAD MMs' speed advantage?
    8. According to several commenters, liquidity provided by LEAD MMs
would be ``fleeting'' because they could update their quotations while
incoming orders are delayed. Do commenters agree? If so, what are
commenters' views on how significant ``fleeting'' liquidity would be in
comparison to the overall liquidity provided on the Exchange?
    9. How would the proposal affect the national market system if
exchanges with a larger percentage of overall trading volume were to
adopt a similar proposal? In particular, how would the proposal affect
market quality?
    10. One of the stated goals of the proposal is to minimize the
effectiveness of latency arbitrage strategies. What metrics would help
determine if latency arbitrage is currently a problem on CHX? Is 350
microsecond necessary to minimize the effectiveness of latency
arbitrage strategies? Should the delay be shorter or longer to
accomplish this goal? Is the 350 microsecond delay appropriate for
trading at both CHX's Chicago data center and its East Coast data
center? Why or why not?
    11. Does the proposal's protection against latency arbitrage
strategies for LEAD MMs warrant the benefits of the delay?
    12. Is the delay short enough that it would not harm liquidity
takers or providers other than those engaging in latency arbitrage?
    13. What are commenters' views on how the proposal would affect
liquidity providers on CHX other than LEAD Market Makers as well as
liquidity providers on other markets?
    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-CHX-2017-04 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 Numbers SR-CHX-2017-04. 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 these filings also will be available for inspection
and copying at the principal office 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-CHX-2017-04 and should be
submitted on or before June 16, 2017. Rebuttal comments should be
submitted by June 30, 2017.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\84\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \84\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(57).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Eduardo A. Aleman,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2017-10807 Filed 5-25-17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 133 (Tuesday, July 14, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Pages 34065-34067]
[FR Doc No: E9-16548]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-60255; File No. SR-NYSE-2009-58]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; New York Stock Exchange LLC;
Notice of Filing and Order Granting Accelerated Approval of Proposed
Rule Change to Amend the Scope of the Exchange's Prior Approval to
Receive Inbound Routes from Archipelago Securities LLC (``ArcaSec''),
an Affiliated Member

July 7, 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 23, 2009, the New York Stock Exchange LLC (``NYSE'' or the
``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 substantially prepared by the Exchange.
The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the
proposed rule change from interested persons, and is approving the
proposal on an accelerated basis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \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 the scope of the Exchange's prior
approval to receive inbound routes of PO Plus Orders from Archipelago
Securities LLC (``ArcaSec''), an NYSE affiliated member. The text of
the proposed rule change is available at the Exchange, the Commission's
Public Reference Room, and http://www.nyse.com.

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 self-regulatory organization
included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the
proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the
proposed rule change. The text of those statements may be examined at
the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared
summaries, set forth in Sections A, B, and C below, of the most
significant parts of such statements.

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

1. Purpose
    ArcaSec is the approved outbound order routing facility of the
NYSE, NYSE Arca Inc. (``NYSE Arca'') and NYSE Amex LLC.\3\ In this
context, the Exchange has been previously authorized, on a pilot basis,
to receive inbound PO Plus Orders from ArcaSec, acting in its capacity
as the outbound order routing facility for NYSE Arca.\4\ The Exchange
hereby proposes that, in addition to PO Plus Orders, the Commission
authorize the NYSE to receive all NYSE Arca order types approved or
implemented on or after the date of approval of this proposal. The
Exchange does not propose any further changes to its authorization to
receive inbound routes from ArcaSec or to the term of the pilot period.
All existing conditions currently in place with respect to ArcaSec
routing orders to the NYSE, in its capacity as an outbound order
routing facility for NYSE Arca, will continue to apply. The Exchange
believes that this proposal, if approved, will authorize the Exchange
to receive any NYSE Arca order types approved subsequent to the
approval of this proposal and going forward through the end of the
pilot period.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 52497 (September 22,
2005), 70 FR 56949 (September 29, 2005) (SR-PCX-2005-90); see also
Securities Exchange Act Release No. 44983 (October 25, 2001), 66 FR
55225 (November 1, 2001) (SR-PCX-00-25); see also Securities
Exchange Act Release No. 58681 (September 29, 2008), 73 FR 58285
(October 6, 2008) (order approving NYSEArca-2008-90). See Securities
Exchange Act Release No. 55590 (April 5, 2007), 72 FR 18707 (April
13, 2007) (notice of immediate effectiveness of SR-NYSE-2007-29);
see also Securities Exchange Act Release No. 58680 (September 29,
2008), 73 FR 58283 (October 6, 2008) (order approving SR-NYSE-2008-
76). See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 59009 (November 24,
2008), 73 FR 73363 (December 2, 2008) (SR-NYSEALTR-2008-07).
    \4\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 58680 (September 29,
2008), 73 FR 58283 (October 6, 2008) (order approving SR-NYSE-2008-
76). ArcaSec had been previously authorized to deliver inbound
routes to the NYSE, acting in its capacity as an order routing
facility for NYSE Arca. See supra note 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b) \5\ of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the ``Act''), in general, and furthers
the objectives of Section 6(b)(5),\6\ in particular, in that it is
designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to
promote just and equitable principles of trade, to foster

cooperation and coordination with persons engaged in facilitating
transactions in securities, and to remove impediments to and perfect
the mechanisms of a free and open market and a national market system.
The Exchange believes authorizing the Exchange to receive inbound
routes, via ArcaSec, of all NYSE Arca order types approved or
implemented on or after the date of approval of this proposal reflects
the Exchange's ongoing efforts to effectively address the concerns
previously identified by the Commission regarding the potential for
informational advantages favoring ArcaSec vis-[agrave]-vis other non-
affiliated NYSE members.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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.

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

    No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the
proposed rule change.

III. 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-NYSE-2009-58 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-NYSE-2009-58. 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, on official business
days between the hours of 10 a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of the filing also
will be available for inspection and copying at the principal office of
the Exchange. 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-
NYSE-2009-58 and should be submitted on or before August 4, 2009.

IV. Commission's Findings and Order Granting Accelerated Approval of a
Proposed Rule Change

    The Commission finds that the proposed rule change is consistent
with the requirements of the Act and the rules and regulations
thereunder applicable to a national securities exchange.\7\ In
particular, the Commission finds that the proposed rule change is
consistent with Section 6(b)(5) of the Act,\8\ which requires, among
other things, that the rules of a national securities exchange be
designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices; to
promote just and equitable principles of trade; to foster cooperation
and coordination with persons engaged in regulating, clearing,
settling, processing information with respect to, and facilitating
transactions in securities; to remove impediments to and perfect the
mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system; and,
in general, to protect investors and the public interest; and are not
designed to permit unfair discrimination between customers, issuers,
brokers, or dealers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ In approving this proposed rule change, the Commission has
considered the proposed rule's impact on efficiency, competition,
and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).
    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the past, the Commission has expressed concern that the
affiliation of an exchange with one of its members raises potential
conflicts of interest, and the potential for unfair competitive
advantage.\9\Although the Commission continues to be concerned about
potential unfair competition and conflicts of interest between an
exchange's self-regulatory obligations and its commercial interests
when the exchange is affiliated with one of its members, the Commission
believes that it is consistent with the Act to permit ArcaSec to
provide inbound routing to the NYSE from NYSE Arca for all NYSE Arca
order types approved or implemented on or after the date of this
approval order on a pilot basis and subject to certain conditions. The
Commission notes that this proposal seeks to expand a previously
approved pilot program that allows the NYSE to receive PO Plus Orders
from NYSE Arca via ArcaSec \10\ to include any additional order types
approved or implemented on or after the date of this approval order.
The Commission also notes that all existing conditions currently in
place with respect to ArcaSec routing orders to the NYSE, in its
capacity as an outbound routing facility for NYSE Arca, will continue
to apply.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See, e.g., Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 54170 (July
18, 2006), 71 FR 42149 (July 25, 2006) (SR-NASDAQ-2006-006) (order
approving Nasdaq's proposal to adopt Nasdaq Rule 2140, restricting
affiliations between Nasdaq and its members); and 53382 (February
27, 2006), 71 FR 11251 (March 6, 2006) (SR-NYSE-2005-77) (order
approving the combination of the New York Stock Exchange, Inc. and
Archipelago Holdings) at 11255; see also Securities Exchange Act
Release No. 58681, supra note 3.
    \10\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 58680, supra note
4.
    \11\ See id at notes 16-21 and accompanying text. ArcaSec's
routing of orders to the NYSE, in its capacity as an outbound
routing facility for NYSE Arca with respect to order types in effect
prior to the establishment of the pilot program for PO Plus Orders,
is not subject to the pilot program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The NYSE has asked the Commission to accelerate approval of the
proposed rule change. The NYSE notes that the proposed rule change
reflects the Exchange's efforts to effectively include within the pilot
program authorizing the NYSE to receive certain inbound orders routed
via ArcaSec, all NYSE Arca order types approved or implemented on or
after the date of approval of this proposal.\12\ NYSE also states that
accelerated approval will authorize the Exchange to receive such order
types through the end of the pilot period, including certain pending
NYSE Arca proposed order types.\13\ The Commission finds good cause for
approving the proposed rule change before the thirtieth day after the
date of publication of notice of filing thereof in the Federal
Register. The Commission notes that the protections currently in place
with respect to ArcaSec routing orders to the NYSE, in its capacity as
an outbound routing facility for NYSE

Arca, which are designed to address conflicts of interest concerns
identified by the Commission in connection with inbound routing of
orders to an exchange when the routing broker-dealer is an affiliate of
the exchange, will continue to apply and were previously approved by
the Commission.\14\ The Commission also notes that no comments were
received in connection with SR-NYSE-2008-76.\15\ Accordingly, the
Commission finds good cause, consistent with Section 19(b)(2) of the
Act,\16\ to approve the proposed rule change on an accelerated basis
for a pilot period expiring September 29, 2009.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ See SR-NYSE-2009-58, Item 7.
    \13\ See id. See also SR-NYSEArca-2009-56.
    \14\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 58680, supra note
4.
    \15\ See id.
    \16\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

V. Conclusion

    It is therefore ordered, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act,
that the proposed rule change (SR-NYSE-2009-58) is hereby approved on
an accelerated basis for a pilot period to expire on September 29,
2009.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Elizabeth M. Murphy,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E9-16548 Filed 7-13-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8010-01-P 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 187 (Friday, September 25, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Page 60455]
[FR Doc No: 2020-21196]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2017-0720; FRL-10015-05]

Pesticide Registration Review; Draft Human Health and/or
Ecological Risk Assessments for Chlorpyrifos; Notice of Availability

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice announces the availability of EPA's revised draft
human health risk assessment and ecological risk assessment for the
registration review of chlorpyrifos.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
    For pesticide specific information contact: The contact information
for the pesticide of interest identified in the Table in Unit IV.
    For general questions on the registration review program, contact:
Melanie Biscoe, Pesticide Re-Evaluation Division (7508P), Office of
Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania
Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>;
email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

Does this action apply to me?

    This action is directed to the public in general, and may be of
interest to a wide range of stakeholders including environmental, human
health, farm worker, and agricultural advocates; the chemical industry;
pesticide users; and members of the public interested in the sale,
distribution, or use of pesticides. Since others also may be
interested, the Agency has not attempted to describe all the specific
entities that may be affected by this action. If you have any questions
regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity,
consult the contact identified in the Table in Unit IV.

II. Background

    Registration review is EPA's periodic review of pesticide
registrations to ensure that each pesticide continues to satisfy the
statutory standard for registration, that is, the pesticide can perform
its intended function without unreasonable adverse effects on human
health or the environment. As part of the registration review process,
the Agency has completed comprehensive draft human health and
ecological risk assessments for chlorpyrifos as listed in the Table in
Unit IV. Through this program, EPA is ensuring that each pesticide's
registration is based on current scientific and other knowledge,
including its effects on human health and the environment.

III. Authority

    EPA is conducting its registration review of the chemicals listed
in the Table in Unit IV pursuant to section 3(g) of the Federal
Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) and the Procedural
Regulations for Registration Review at 40 CFR part 155, subpart C.
Section 3(g) of FIFRA provides, among other things, that the
registrations of pesticides are to be reviewed every 15 years. Under
FIFRA, a pesticide product may be registered or remain registered only
if it meets the statutory standard for registration given in FIFRA
section 3(c)(5) (7 U.S.C. 136a(c)(5)). When used in accordance with
widespread and commonly recognized practice, the pesticide product must
perform its intended function without unreasonable adverse effects on
the environment, that is, without any unreasonable risk to man or the
environment, or a human dietary risk from residues that result from the
use of a pesticide in or on food that is inconsistent with the safety
standard of section 408 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act
(FFDCA).

IV. What action is the Agency taking?

    Pursuant to 40 CFR 155.53, EPA has evaluated available data and
conducted new human health and ecological risk assessments for
chlorpyrifos. This notice announces the availability of EPA's revised
human health risk assessment and ecological risk assessment for the
pesticides shown in the following table.

  Table--Draft Risk Assessments Being Made Available for Public Comment
------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Registration review case name                             Contact
             and No.                 Docket ID No.        information
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chlorpyrifos....................  EPA-HQ-OPP-2008-08  OPPChlorpyrifoslnq
                                   50.                 [email protected]
<PHONE_NUMBER>.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA will provide an opportunity for interested parties to provide
comments and input concerning the Agency's draft human health and/or
ecological risk assessments for the pesticides listed in the Table in
Unit IV concurrently with the issuance of Proposed Interim Decision.
The Agency will consider all comments received during the public
comment period and make changes, as appropriate, to a draft human
health and/or ecological risk assessment. EPA may then issue a revised
risk assessment, explain any changes to the draft risk assessment, and
respond to comments.
    As provided in 40 CFR 155.58, the registration review docket for
each pesticide case will remain publicly accessible through the
duration of the registration review process; that is, until all actions
required in the final decision on the registration review case have
been completed.

    Authority: 7 U.S.C. 136 et seq.

    Dated: September 16, 2020.
Mary Reaves,
Acting Director, Pesticide Re-Evaluation Division, Office of Pesticide
Programs.
[FR Doc. 2020-21196 Filed 9-24-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 147 (Wednesday, August 2, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Pages 50937-50939]
[FR Doc No: 2023-16390]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-98010; File No. SR-EMERALD-2023-16]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; MIAX Emerald, LLC; Notice of
Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To Make
Minor, Non-Substantive Edits to Rules 100, 515A, and 521

July 27, 2023.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that
on July 17, 2023, MIAX Emerald, LLC (``MIAX Emerald'' 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 make a number of minor, non-substantive
edits to Interpretations and Policies .01(b) of Exchange Rule 100,
Definitions, Exchange Rule 515A, MIAX Emerald Price Improvement
Mechanism (``PRIME'') and PRIME Solicitation Mechanism, and
Interpretations and Policies .03 of Exchange Rule 521, Nullification
and Adjustment of Options Transactions Including Obvious Errors.
    The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's
website at https://www.miaxglobal.com/markets/us-options/emerald-options/rule-filings, at MIAX Emerald's principal office, 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
Amendment to Exchange Rule 515A
    The Exchange proposes to amend Exchange Rule 515A to make minor,
non-substantive edits and clarifying changes to provide accuracy and
precision within the rule text.
    Specifically, the Exchange proposes to amend current subparagraphs
(a)(1)(ii) and (a)(1)(iii) to remove the periods at the end of the
sentences and replace them with semicolons for grammatical correctness
and clarity in the Rule text. Additionally, the Exchange proposes to
remove the word ``and'' at the end of subparagraph (a)(1)(i) and add
the word ``and'' at the end of subparagraph (a)(1)(iii). Furthermore,
the Exchange proposes to amend current subparagraph (a)(1)(iii) by
changing the first word ``With'' to lowercase at the beginning of the
sentence. Accordingly, with the proposed changes, subparagraphs
(a)(1)(i) through (a)(1)(iv) will read as follows:

    (i) the Agency Order is in a class designated as eligible for
PRIME as determined by the Exchange and within the designated
Auction order eligibility size parameters as such size parameters
are determined by the Exchange;
    (ii) the Initiating Member must stop the entire Agency Order as
principal or with a solicited order at the better of the NBBO or the
Agency Order's limit price (if the order is a limit order);
    (iii) with respect to Agency Orders that have a size of less
than 50 contracts, if at the time of receipt of the Agency Order,
the NBBO has a bid/ask differential of $0.01, the System will reject
the Agency Order; and
    (iv) Post-only OQs may not participate in PRIME as an Agency
Order, principal interest or solicited interest.
Amendment to the Interpretations and Policies of Exchange Rules 100 and
521
    The Exchange proposes to amend the Interpretations and Policies of
Exchange Rules 100 and 521 to make minor, non-substantive edits and
clarifying changes to provide accuracy and precision within the
Interpretations and Policies of the Rule text.
    Specifically, the Exchange proposes to amend current subparagraph
.01(b) of the Interpretations and Policies of Exchange Rule 100 to
replace the capitalized word ``Complex'' with the lowercase word
``complex'' at the beginning of the second sentence. Accordingly, with
the proposed changes, subparagraph .01(b) will provide as follows:

    (b) Complex orders comprised of eight (8) options legs or fewer
shall be counted as a single order. For complex orders comprised of
nine (9) options legs or more, each leg shall count as its own
separate order.

    Similarly, the Exchange proposes to amend current paragraph ``.03
Complex Orders'' of the Interpretations and Policies of Exchange Rule
521 to replace all the capitalized occurrences of the word ``Complex''
with the lowercase word ``complex''. Accordingly, with the proposed
changes, paragraph ``.03 Complex Orders'' will provide as follows:

    .03 Complex Orders.
    (a) If a complex order executes against individual legs and at
least one of the legs qualifies as an Obvious Error under paragraph
(c)(1) or a Catastrophic Error under paragraph (d)(1), then the
leg(s) that is an Obvious or Catastrophic Error will be adjusted in
accordance with paragraphs (c)(4)(A) or (d)(3), respectively,
regardless of whether one of the parties is a Customer. However, any
Customer order subject to this paragraph (a) will be nullified if
the adjustment would result in an execution price higher (for buy
transactions) or lower (for sell transactions) than the Customer's
limit price on the complex order or individual leg(s). If any leg of
a complex order is nullified, the entire transaction is nullified.

    (b) If a complex order executes against another complex order
and at least one of the legs qualifies as an Obvious Error under
paragraph (c)(1) or a Catastrophic Error under paragraph (d)(1),
then the leg(s) that is an Obvious or Catastrophic Error will be
adjusted or busted in accordance with paragraph (c)(4) or (d)(3),
respectively, so long as either: (i) the width of the National
Spread Market for the complex order strategy just prior to the
erroneous transaction was equal to or greater than the amount set
forth in the wide quote table of paragraph (b)(3), or
    (ii) the net execution price of the complex order is higher
(lower) than the offer (bid) of the National Spread Market for the
complex order strategy just prior to the erroneous transaction by an
amount equal to at least the amount shown in the table in paragraph
(c)(1). If any leg of a complex order is nullified, the entire
transaction is nullified. For purposes of this Rule 521, the
National Spread Market for a complex order strategy is determined by
the National Best Bid/Offer of the individual legs of the strategy.

    The purpose of all these proposed changes is to provide consistency
and uniformity within the Exchange's Rulebook.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule changes are consistent
with Section 6(b) of the Act \3\ in general, and furthers the
objectives of Section 6(b)(1) of the Act \4\ in particular, in that
they are designed to enforce compliance by its Members \5\ and persons
associated with its Members, with the provisions of the rules of the
Exchange. In particular, the Exchange believes that the proposed rule
changes will provide greater clarity to Members and the public
regarding the Exchange's Rules by correcting grammatical errors and
providing consistency within the Exchange's Rulebook. The proposed
changes will also make it easier for Members to interpret the
Exchange's Rulebook.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \4\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(1).
    \5\ The term ``Member'' means an individual or organization
approved to exercise the trading rights associated with a Trading
Permit. Members are deemed ``members'' under the Exchange Act. See
Exchange Rule 100.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule changes will
impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act. Specifically, the Exchange
believes the proposed changes will not impose any burden on intra-
market competition as there is no functional change to the Exchange's
System \6\ and because the rules of the Exchange apply to all MIAX
Emerald participants equally. The Exchange believes the proposed rule
changes will not impose any burden on intra-market competition as the
proposed changes are not designed to address any competitive issue but
rather are designed to remedy minor non-substantive issues and provide
added precision and accuracy to the rule text of Exchange Rule 515A and
the Interpretations and Policies of Exchange Rules 100 and 521. In
addition, the Exchange does not believe the proposal will impose any
burden on inter-market competition as the proposal does not address any
competitive issues and is intended to protect investors by providing
further transparency and precision for referencing the Exchange's
Rules.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ The term ``System'' means the automated trading system used
by the Exchange for the trading of securities. See Exchange Rule
100.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange has filed the proposed rule change pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act \7\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder.\8\
Because the proposed rule change does not: (i) significantly affect the
protection of investors or the public interest; (ii) impose any
significant burden on competition; and (iii) become operative prior to
30 days from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as
the Commission may designate, if consistent with the protection of
investors and the public interest, the proposed rule change has become
effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \9\ and Rule 19b-
4(f)(6)(iii) thereunder.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(iii).
    \8\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \10\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). In addition, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)
requires a self-regulatory organization to give the Commission
written notice of its intent to file the proposed rule change, along
with a brief description and text of the proposed rule change, at
least five business days prior to the date of filing of the proposed
rule change, or such shorter time as designated by the Commission.
The Exchange has satisfied this requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of such proposed rule
change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule
change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or
appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or
otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission
takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings under
Section 19(b)(2)(B) \11\ of the Act to determine whether the proposed
rule change should be approved or disapproved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2)(B).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's internet comment form (https://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to [email protected]. Please include
file number SR-EMERALD-2023-16 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-EMERALD-2023-16. This
file number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's internet website (https://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for website viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE,
Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of 10
a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available for
inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. Do not
include personal identifiable information in submissions; you should
submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. We
may redact in part or

withhold entirely from publication submitted material that is obscene
or subject to copyright protection. All submissions should refer to
file number SR-EMERALD-2023-16 and should be submitted on or before
August 23, 2023.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Sherry R. Haywood,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2023-16390 Filed 8-1-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: May 15, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 95)]
[Notices]
[Page 28147-28148]
[DOCID:fr15my08-72]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[FEMA-1748-DR]

Missouri; Amendment No. 1 to Notice of a Major Disaster
Declaration

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice amends the notice of a major disaster declaration
for the State of Missouri (FEMA-1748-DR), dated March 12, 2008, and
related determinations.

DATES: Effective Date: May 7, 2008.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Peggy Miller, Disaster Assistance
Directorate, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street, SW.,
Washington, DC 20472,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Federal Emergency Management Agency
(FEMA) hereby gives notice that pursuant to the authority vested in the
Administrator, under Executive Order 12148, as amended, Michael L.
Karl, of FEMA is appointed to act as the Federal Coordinating Officer
for this declared disaster.
    This action terminates my appointment of Michael L. Parker as
Federal Coordinating Officer for this disaster.

(The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers (CFDA)
are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030, Community
Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis Counseling;
97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster Unemployment
Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance Grant; 97.048,
Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and Households In
Presidential Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049, Presidential Declared
Disaster Assistance--Disaster Housing Operations for Individuals and
Households; 97.050, Presidential Declared Disaster Assistance to
Individuals and Households--Other Needs; 97.036, Disaster Grants--
Public Assistance (Presidentially Declared Disasters); 97.039,
Hazard Mitigation Grant.)

R. David Paulison,
Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. E8-10873 Filed 5-14-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 9110-10-P