[Federal Register: January 9, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 6)]
[Notices]
[Page 978-979]
[DOCID:fr09ja09-79]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Notice of Availability of the Record of Decision (ROD) for the
Final Environmental Impact Statement (Final EIS) for the Development
and Expansion of Runway 9R/27L and Other Associated Airport Projects at
Fort Lauderdale-Hollywood International Airport (FLL), Broward County,
FL, Published in June 2008

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), U.S. Department of
Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Notice of Availability of Record of Decision (ROD).

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

SUMMARY: The FAA is issuing this notice to advise the public that it
has issued a ROD for the Final EIS that evaluated the proposed
expansion of Runway 9R/27L and other associated airport projects at
FLL. Broward County, the Airport Sponsor, owns and operates FLL. The
Airport Sponsor has proposed airport development at FLL to address
existing and forecast aviation demand. This ROD provides final agency
determinations and approvals for those federal actions by the FAA
necessary for the proposed airport projects.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The FAA has completed and is publishing its

ROD for the proposed expansion of Runway 9R/27L and other associated
airport projects at FLL. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
published a notice of availability of the Final EIS for this proposed
airport project in the Federal Register on June 27, 2008. The Final EIS
was prepared in compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act
of 1969 (NEPA) [42 U.S.C. 4321, et seq.], the implementing regulations
of the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) [40 CFR Parts 1500-1508]
and FAA directives [Order 1050.1E and Order 5050.4B], and assessed the
potential impacts of eight runway development alternatives, as well as
the No Action Alternative. The FAA accepted comments on the Final EIS
and these comments, along with the FAA's responses, are included in
Appendix A of the ROD. The FAA identified Alternative B1b as its
preferred alternative in the Final EIS and selected alternative in the
ROD.
    The selected alternative B1b includes the expansion of Runway 9R/
27L to an overall length of 8,000 feet and width of 150 feet with an
Engineered Materials Arresting System (EMAS) at both runway ends. The
runway extends to the east without encroaching onto NE 7th Avenue and
would be elevated over the Florida East Coast (FEC) Railway and U.S.
Highway 1. The western extent of the runway is the Dania Cut-Off Canal.
The selected alternative includes the following: construct a new full-
length parallel taxiway 75 feet wide on the north side of Runway 9R/27L
with separation of 400 feet from 9R/27L; construct an outer dual
parallel taxiway that would be separated from the proposed north side
parallel taxiway by 276 feet; construct connecting taxiways from the
proposed full-length parallel taxiway to existing taxiways; construct
an Instrument Landing System (ILS) for landings on Runways 9R and 27L;
Runway ends 9R and 27L would have a Category I ILS, which includes a
Medium Intensity Approach Light System with runway alignment indicator
lights (MALSR), localizer, and glideslope.
    Runway 13/31 would be decommissioned and permanently closed due to
the increased elevation of the expanded Runway 9R/27L at its
intersection with Runway 13/31. The terminal redevelopment envelope can
accommodate a total of 67 to 77 gates and would accommodate the FAA-
forecast levels of passenger-related activity through 2020. The
terminal redevelopment envelope accommodates the potential
redevelopment of Terminals 2, 3, and 4 including aircraft parking
positions, taxilanes, and remote parking positions. During project
design, the Airport Sponsor will consider the refinement of airfield
and terminal area elements that include the design, location, and
number of taxiway exits, aircraft holding pads, and runway access
areas.
    Connected actions associated with the selected alternative include:
close Airport Perimeter Road located within the approach to Runway 9R;
relocate Airport Surveillance Radar (ASR-9); acquire all, or a portion,
of the Hilton Fort Lauderdale Airport Hotel (formerly the Wyndham Fort
Lauderdale Airport Hotel); acquire all, or a portion, of the Dania Boat
Sales.
    The FAA is granting approval to amend the airport layout plan (ALP)
with the conditions noted in Section 8 of the ROD, Conditions of
Approval, for the projects summarized in Section 1 of the ROD,
Description of Airport Sponsor's Proposed Action, which constitutes the
selected alternative in the ROD--FAA's Preferred Alternative (B1b).
    Paper copies and CD copies of the ROD are available for review at
various libraries in Broward County, the FAA Headquarters Office in
Washington, D.C. and its Southern Regional Office in College Park,
Georgia and Airports District Office in Orlando, Florida and at the
administrative offices of the City of Cooper City, City of Dania Beach,
City of Fort-Lauderdale, City of Hollywood, City of Lauderhill, City of
Pembroke Pines, City of Plantation, City of Sunrise, and the Town of
Davie, as well as the Fort Lauderdale-Hollywood International Airport.
The addresses and telephone numbers for these locations are provided in
the Final EIS, in Chapter Nine.
    The Final EIS is available on Broward County's airport Web site:
http://www.broward.org/airport/community_airportexpansion.htm. This
ROD is available on the FAA's Web site: http://www.faa.gov/airports_
airtraffic/airports/environmental/records_decision/.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Virginia Lane, Environmental
Specialist, Federal Aviation Administration, Orlando Airports District
Office, 5950 Hazeltine National Drive, Suite 400, Orlando, Florida
32822, Telephone<PHONE_NUMBER> Extension 129.

    Issued in Orlando, Florida on December 19, 2008.
W. Dean Stringer,
Manager, Orlando Airports District Office.
[FR Doc. E9-190 Filed 1-8-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


L2.73 (> 250 mm). L2.73 (> 250 mm). L2.73 (> 250 mm). L2.73 (> 250 mm). L2.73 (> 250 mm). L2.73 (> 250 mm). L2.73 (> 250 mm). L2.73 (> 250 mm). L2.73 (> 250 mm). L2.73 (> 250 mm). L2.73 (> 250 mm). L2.73 (> 250 mm). L2.73 (> 250 mm). L2.73 (> 250 mm). L2.73 (> 250 mm). L2.73 (> 250 mm). L2.73 (> 250 mm). L2.73 (> 250 mm). L2.73 (> 250 mm). L2.73 (> 250 mm). L2.73 (> 250 mm). L2.73 (> 250 mm). species stage fraction. mature mean. fecundity notes. fraction. mature notes. mean. fecundity lifetime. fecundity dummy dummy  999  999 dummy dummy  999 logperch age01 0.5 NA http:// www. kenschultz. coNA NA logperch age02 1 NA http:// www. kenschultz. coNA NA logperch age03 1 NA http:// www. kenschultz. coNA 2000 muskellunge age01 0 NA assumed by AGRET NA NA muskellunge age02 0 NA assumed by AGRET NA NA muskellunge age03 0.5 NA http:// www. kenschultz. coNA NA muskellunge age04 0.5 NA http:// www. kenschultz. coNA NA muskellunge age05 1 NA http:// www. kenschultz. coNA NA muskellunge age06 1 NA http:// www. kenschultz. coNA NA muskellunge age07 1 NA http:// www. kenschultz. coNA NA muskellunge age08 1 NA http:// www. kenschultz. coNA NA muskellunge age09 1 NA http:// www. kenschultz. coNA NA muskellunge age10 1 NA http:// www. kenschultz. coNA NA muskellunge age11 1 NA http:// www. kenschultz. coNA NA muskellunge age12 1 NA http:// www. kenschultz. coNA NA muskellunge age13 1 NA http:// www. kenschultz. coNA NA muskellunge age14 1 NA http:// www. kenschultz. coNA NA muskellunge age15 1 NA http:// www. kenschultz. coNA NA muskellunge age16 1 NA http:// www. kenschultz. coNA NA muskellunge age17 1 NA http:// www. kenschultz. coNA NA muskellunge age18 1 NA http:// www. kenschultz. coNA NA muskellunge age19 1 NA http:// www. kenschultz. coNA NA muskellunge age20 1 NA http:// www. kenschultz. coNA NA muskellunge age21 1 NA http:// www. kenschultz. coNA NA muskellunge age22 1 NA http:// www. kenschultz. coNA NA muskellunge age23 1 NA http:// www. kenschultz. coNA NA muskellunge age24 1 NA http:// www. kenschultz. coNA NA muskellunge age25 1 NA http:// www. kenschultz. coNA NA muskellunge age26 1 NA http:// www. kenschultz. coNA NA muskellunge age27 1 NA http:// www. kenschultz. coNA 2,000,000 yellow. perch age01 0.01 17000 Assumed based on S69V21, as cited in CarlandNA yellow. perch age02 0.47 23000 S697, as cited in CarlanV21, as cited in CarlandNA yellow. perch age03 0.51 27000 S697, as cited in CarlanV21, as cited in CarlandNA yellow. perch age04 0.86 27000 S697, as cited in CarlanV21, as cited in CarlandNA yellow. perch age05 1.00 27000 Assumed based on S69V21, as cited in CarlandNA yellow. perch age06 1.00 34000 Assumed based on S69V21, as cited in CarlandNA yellow. perch age07 1.00 34000 Assumed based on S69V21, as cited in CarlandNA yellow. perch age08 1.00 34000 Assumed based on S69V21, as cited in CarlandNA yellow. perch age09 1.00 34000 Assumed based on S69V21, as cited in CarlandNA yellow. perch age10 1.00 34000 Assumed based on S69V21, as cited in CarlandNA darter. spp age01 0.5 NA http:// www. kenschultz. coNA NA darter. spp age02 1 NA http:// www. kenschultz. coNA NA darter. spp age03 1 NA http:// www. kenschultz. coNA 2000 burbot age01 0 0 burbot age02 0.5 45600 assumed based on [ 270[ 27012] egg number in 343 mm female burbot age03 1 210150.875 assumed based on [ 270extrapolated burbot age04 1 374701.75 assumed based on [ 270extrapolated burbot age05 1 539252.625 assumed based on [ 270extrapolated burbot age06 1 703803.5 assumed based on [ 270extrapolated burbot age07 1 868354.375 assumed based on [ 270extrapolated burbot age08 1 1032905.25 assumed based on [ 270extrapolated burbot age09 1 1197456.125 assumed based on [ 270extrapolated burbot age10 1 1362007 assumed based on [ 270[ 27012] egg number in 643 mm female bluntnose. minnow age01 0.00 0 W26; as cited in CarlanAssumed 0 NA bluntnose. minnow age02 1.00 2447 W26; as cited in CarlanH91, as cited in CarlandNA bluntnose. minnow age03 1.00 2447 W26; as cited in CarlanH91, as cited in CarlandNA darter. spp age01 0.5 NA http:// www. kenschultz. coNA NA darter. spp age02 1 NA http:// www. kenschultz. coNA NA darter. spp age03 1 NA http:// www. kenschultz. coNA 2000 notes. lifetime. fecundity dummy logperch. Max. lifetime = 3000, therefore: average ~ 2,000Froese, R. and D. Pauly ( eds.). 2001. FishBase. www. fishbase. org. Accessed Sep. 10, 20 Max. lifetime = 3,000,000, therefore: average ~ 2,000,000 Froese, R. and D. Pauly ( eds.). 2001. FishBase. www. fishbase. org. Accessed Sep. 10, 20 logperch. Max. lifetime = 3000, therefore: average ~ 2,000Froese, R. and D. Pauly ( eds.). 2001. FishBase. www. fishbase. org. Accessed Sep. 10, 20 calculated using Saila method , 2001Hugg, D. O., 1996. MAPFISH georeferenced mapping database. Freshwater and estuarine fishes of North America. Life Science S , 2001Hugg, D. O., 1996. MAPFISH georeferenced mapping database. Freshwater and estuarine fishes of North America. Life Science S , 2001Hugg, D. O., 1996. MAPFISH georeferenced mapping database. Freshwater and estuarine fishes of North America. Life Science S e Software. Dennis O. and Steven Hugg, 1278 Turkey Point Road, Edgewater, Maryland, USA./ Ohio River e Software. Dennis O. and Steven Hugg, 1278 Turkey Point Road, Edgewater, Maryland, USA.

e Software. Dennis O. and Steven Hugg, 1278 Turkey Point Road, Edgewater, Maryland, USA./ Ohio River age growth L oo Length K 1  25.2459982  252.459982 ( cm) type ( 1/ y)

2 0 0 168 TL 0.14 2 3 21.94781645 219.4781645 Max length of p. modified from Fmodified from Fishbase ( short 4 41.02833144 410.2833144 5 57.61613427 576.1613427 6 72.03687727 720.3687727 7 84.57366896 845.7366896 8 95.47263206 954.7263206 9 104.9477354 1049.477354 10 113.1849945 1131.849945 11 120.3461235 1203.461235 12 126.5717101 1265.717101 13 131.983975 1319.83975 14 136.689172 1366.89172 15 140.7796738 1407.796738 16 144.3357853 1443.357853 17 147.4273201 1474.273201 18 150.1149713 1501.149713 19 152.451503 1524.51503 20 154.4827861 1544.827861 21 156.2486987 1562.486987 22 157.7839095 1577.839095 23 159.1185576 1591.185576 24 160.2788449 1602.788449 25 161.2875502 1612.875502 26 162.1644765 1621.644765 27 162.9268396 1629.268396 28 163.5896062 1635.896062 29 164.1657878 1641.657878 30 164.6666961 1646.666961 31 165.1021648 1651.021648 32 165.4807431 1654.807431 33 165.8098633 1658.098633 34 166.0959866 1660.959866 35 166.3447303 1663.447303 36 166.5609776 1665.609776 37 166.748974 1667.48974 38 166.9124103 1669.124103 39 167.0544949 1670.544949 40 167.1780174 1671.780174 41 167.2854026 1672.854026 42 167.3787589 1673.787589 43 167.4599189 1674.599189 44 167.5304761 1675.304761 45 167.5918155 1675.918155 46 167.6451415 1676.451415 47 167.6915008 1676.915008 48 167.7318037 1677.318037 49 167.7668413 1677.668413 50 167.7973016 1677.973016 to ortnose sturgeon) from 2 to 0 Life history data for Phase III species. Derived from the workbook P:\ INTAKE\ Intake6\ data\ ie. modeling\ input. workbooks\ lifehistory\ greatlakes. LH. inp Workbook compiled for use in fish impingement/ entainment loss model. A. Gage, 11/ 19/ 2003 Updated 6/ 3/ 2004 with pallid. sturgeon and sturgeon. spp life history parameters.

Worksheet Description lifehistory02 Life history data for species impinged/ entrained lbs. from. mm03 Conversion factor ( lbs to mm) for each species species. growth04 Average growth per species per life stage fecundity05 Fecundity of each species input. data. xls


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 249 (Tuesday, December 29, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 81402-81405]
[FR Doc No: 2015-32650]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-76736; File No. SR-NSX-2015-07]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; National Stock Exchange, Inc.;
Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To
Adopt a Fee and Rebate Schedule Pursuant to Exchange Rule 16.1

December 22, 2015.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the ``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given
that on December 21, 2015, National Stock Exchange, Inc. (``NSX'' or
the ``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') the proposed rule change, as described in Items I, II,
and III below, which Items have been prepared by the Exchange. The
Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comment 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 is proposing to adopt a new Fee and Rebate Schedule
(the ``Fee Schedule'') pursuant to Exchange Rule 16.1 that the Exchange
will use upon the resumption of trading on the Exchange.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ On November 9, 2015, the Exchange filed with the Commission
a proposed rule change amending NSX Rule 11.1, Hours of Trading, to
Rescind Interpretations and Policies .01, Cessation of Trading
Operations on NSX in order resume trading operations on the
Exchange, and make other amendments to the Exchange's rules in
connection with the proposed resumption of trading on NSX. See
Exchange Act Release No. 76390 (November 9, 2015), 80 FR 70261
(November 13, 2015) (SR-NSX-2015-05). On December 14, 2015, the
Commission issued an Order approving the proposed rule change. See
Exchange Act Release No. 76640 (December 14, 2015), 80 FR 79122
(December 18, 2015).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's
Web site at http://www.nsx.com, at the principal office of the
Exchange, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to implement a new Fee Schedule pursuant to
NSX Rule 16.1, with the goal of maximizing the effectiveness of its
business model and providing Equity Trading Permit (``ETP'') Holders
\4\ a cost-effective execution venue. Accordingly, as set forth in
greater detail below, the Exchange is proposing to adopt a fixed

fee schedule that provides for discrete pricing for shares executed in
securities priced at $1.00 and above, and those priced at less than
$1.00. Within these pricing structures, the fees will vary based on
whether an ETP Holder's order takes liquidity or adds liquidity or if
the order is routed. To determine an ETP Holder's monthly cost for
shares traded, the Exchange will make order matching computations on a
monthly basis for each ETP Holder. The Exchange will also assess
regulatory, connectivity, and market data fees. The Exchange proposes
to eliminate certain fees and rebates from its former Fee Schedule to
conform the schedule to the Exchange's current business model.\5\ The
Exchange's proposed Fee Schedule is described below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Exchange Rule 1.5 defines ``ETP'' as the Equity Trading
Permit issued by the Exchange for effecting approved securities
transactions on the Exchange's trading facilities.
    \5\ Pursuant to a rule filing with the Commission, the Exchange
ceased trading operations as of the close of business on May 30,
2014. See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 72107 (May 6, 2014),
79 FR 27017 (May 12, 2014) (SR-NSX-2014-14).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Securities Priced at $1.00 and Above (All Tapes) \6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ The term ``Tapes'' refers to the designation assigned in the
Consolidated Tape Association (``CTA'') Plan for reporting trades
with respect to securities in Networks A, B and C. Tape A securities
are those listed on the New York Stock Exchange, Inc.; Tape B
securities are listed on NYSE MKT, formerly NYSE Amex, and regional
exchanges. Tape C securities are those listed on the NASDAQ Stock
Market LLC.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For all securities priced $1.00 and above, the Exchange is
proposing competitively priced fees that apply to all ETP Holders
uniformly. For all orders that remove liquidity from the NSX Book \7\
(referred to as ``taker'' orders), the Exchange proposes to assess a
fee of $0.0003 per executed share. If the ETP Holder's order is routed
elsewhere, the Exchange will, instead, assess a fee of $0.0030 per
executed share. However, a liquidity removing order that is a directed
order will cost $0.0035 per executed share.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ The NSX Book is defined in Rule 1.5N.(1) as the Exchange's
electronic file of orders.
    \8\ The term ``directed order'' refers to an order entered by an
ETP Holder into the NSX trading system with instructions to route
the order to a specified away trading center. The Exchange proposes
to assess a higher fee for directed orders, because these orders
will be costlier to route and execute than other routed orders. NSX
uses third party broker-dealers to send the ETP Holder's directed
order to another trading center. The Exchange must pay this third
party broker on a per share executed basis, making the routing of
these directed orders costlier to execute.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange notes that the fee that the Exchange will charge for
taking liquidity from the Exchange in securities priced $1.00 or above,
while $0.0002 higher than the fee that the Exchange used prior to
ceasing trading operations of the close of business on May 30, 2014, is
the lowest standard liquidity removing fee of any stock exchange in the
National Market System that does not use the inverse pricing model. In
light of these minimal taker fees, the fee structure does not provide
for rebates to ETP Holders posting liquidity. While ETP Holders will
not receive rebates for posting liquidity, ETP Holders will,
nonetheless, not have to pay a fee for posting liquidity on the NSX
Book (referred to as ``maker'' orders) for all order types. This
pricing structure for securities priced $1.00 or more will make for a
cost-effective execution venue for ETP Holders and their customers.
Furthermore, the fees will not provide an advantage to any ETP Holder
or investor over another. Lastly, in order to further incentivize
posting and removing liquidity, the Exchange will no longer charge an
increased fee for either adding liquidity using a Zero Display Reserve
Order (i.e., a ``dark'' order) or removing liquidity by removing a Zero
Display Reserve Order from the NSX Book.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ By comparison, prior to ceasing trading operations, the
Exchange assessed a fee of $0.0001 per executed share for posting
liquidity in securities priced at $1.00 and above, with the
exception of posting liquidity using a Zero Display Reserve Order,
for which the Exchange assessed a fee of $0.0002 per execute share.
ETP Holders removing liquidity in securities priced at $1.00 and
above were assessed a fee of $0.0001 and, for removing any Zero
Display Reserve Order, a fee of $0.0002.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Securities Priced Under $1.00 (All Tapes)
    For executions in all securities priced under $1.00, the Exchange
is proposing to implement a Fee Schedule that is nearly identical to
the maker-taker model that the Exchange used prior to the cessation of
the Exchange's trading operations. For orders that remove liquidity or
are routed, the Exchange proposes to assess a fee of 0.30% of the
executed trade value.\10\ For directed orders, the Exchange proposes to
assess a higher fee of 0.35% of the executed trade value for reasons
described above.\11\ ETP Holders that add liquidity will receive a
rebate of 0.25% of the trade value or 25% of the quote spread,\12\
whichever is smaller. The proposed fee and rebate structure will not
favor any investor or ETP holder over another as all ETP holders are
subject to the same fee and rebate program. The Exchange believes that
the proposed fee and rebate structure will provide for a fair and
competitive execution venue in securities priced below $1.00.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ ``Trade value'' means a dollar amount equal to the price
per share multiplied by the number of shares executed.
    \11\ See fn. 8, supra.
    \12\ ``Quote spread'' means a dollar amount equal to the number
of shares executed multiplied by the difference at the time of
execution between (x) the price per share of the national best bid,
and (y) the price per share of the national best offer, in each case
as such quotes are disseminated pursuant to an effective National
Market System plan and as the terms ``national best bid'' and
``national best offer'' are defined in Rule 600 of Regulation NMS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Regulatory, Market Data, and Connectivity Fees
    The Exchange also proposes to assess ETP Holders with regulatory,
market data, and connectivity fees. The Exchange proposes to assess a
regulatory fee of $500 per calendar month for each ETP Holder. This
amount is the same amount that the Exchange charged prior to ceasing
trading operations. The regulatory fee is designed to assure that ETP
Holders share in the cost of adequately funding the regulatory function
for the NSX marketplace.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ The $500 per month regulatory fee was first adopted by the
Exchange in 2011. See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 64208
(April 6, 2011), 76 FR 20412 (April 12, 2011) (SR-NSX-2011-02).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange will offer its proprietary market data to ETP Holders
and other authorized recipients through the NSX Depth of Book Feed \14\
at a price of $500 per calendar month, $100 more per month than the
Exchange charged ETP Holders and other authorized recipients prior to
the time that the Exchange ceased its trading operations.\15\
Additionally, ETP Holders will be assessed the same connectivity or
logical port fee of $100 per session per calendar month as ETP Holders
were assessed prior to the time that the Exchange ceased its trading
operations in May 2014.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ The NSX Depth of Book Feed is the Exchange's proprietary
market data feed. It is available on a uniform basis to all ETP
Holders authorized to receive the feed, as well as to any other
authorized recipients.
    \15\ The Exchange proposes to remove from the Depth of Book Feed
Section of the Fee Schedule prior text regarding application for and
approval of the Depth of Book Feed service. The Exchange believes
this text to be extraneous, in light of the purpose of and content
of the Fee Schedule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Other Fee Adjustments
    To provide a more accessible and competitive marketplace, the
Exchange is proposing to remove several fees that the Exchange assessed
prior to ceasing its trading operations. The proposed Fee Schedule does
not provide for the one-time onboarding fee of $5,000 that the Exchange
previously assessed applicant ETP Holders applying to become order
delivery users. Prior to December 14, 2015, the Exchange offered order
delivery as a mode of order interaction with the Exchange's trading
system, as provided in Rule 11.13(b) and Interpretations and Policies
.01 thereunder. The Exchange has amended

its rules and no longer offers order delivery as a mode of interaction
and therefore the $5,000 onboarding fee is no longer applicable.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ See fn. 3, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange is also proposing to remove language regarding the
assessing of ``Pass Through Fees.'' These fees, which are incurred from
the ETP Holder's use of directed orders, will be factored into the cost
of sending a directed order, as described above. Also, as described
above, the Exchange will no longer assess a greater fee for adding
liquidity using a Zero Display Reserve Order or removing a Zero Display
Reserve Order from the NSX Book. The Exchange also proposes to remove
from the Fee Schedule reference to fees assessed for using a ``Double
Play Order,'' because the Exchange no longer offers the Double Play
Order functionality.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ See fn. 3, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Pursuant to Exchange Rule 16.1(c), the Exchange will ``provide ETP
Holders with notice of all relevant dues, fees, assessments and charges
of the Exchange'' through the issuance of an Information Circular and
will post the Fee Schedule and the instant rule filing on the
Exchange's Web site, www.nsx.com.
 2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with the provisions of Section 6(b) of the Act,\18\ in general and, in
particular, Section 6(b)(4) of the Act,\19\ which requires that the
rules of a national securities exchange provide for the equitable
allocation of reasonable dues, fees, and other charges among its
members and issuers and other persons using its facilities. The
proposed rule change is also consistent with Section 6(b)(5) of the
Act,\20\ which requires, among other things, that the rules of a
national securities exchange not permit unfair discrimination between
customers, issuers, brokers, or dealers, and be designed to promote
just and equitable principles of trade, to remove impediments to and
perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market
system.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \19\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).
    \20\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange submits that the proposed Fee Schedule equitably
allocates fees and that the fees contained therein are reasonable, as
required by Section 6(b)(4) of the Act. The Exchange is proposing to
adopt a model whereby an ETP Holder adding liquidity to the Exchange in
securities priced at $1.00 or greater will pay no fee, and ETP Holders
removing liquidity from the Exchange in securities priced at $1.00 or
greater will pay a fee of $0.0003 on a per share executed basis, which
is lower than the standard liquidity removing fee of any other stock
exchange in the National Market System that does not utilize an inverse
pricing structure. The Exchange's fees for routed orders are also
reasonable as they are comparable to fees charged by other exchanges
for routed orders.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ For example, EDGX Exchange, Inc. (``EDGX'') charges a
standard rate of $0.0029 per share executed for routing and removing
liquidity in securities priced at or above $1.00, as compared to the
Exchange's proposed fee of $0.0030 per executed share. For routed
orders in securities below $1.00, EDGX charges a standard rate of
0.30% of the dollar value of the trade, as compared to the Exchange
charging 0.30% of the dollar value of the trade. For directed
orders, EDGX charges $0.0032 per executed share, as compared to the
Exchange charging $0.0035 per executed share.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Further, for securities priced below $1.00, the Exchange is
proposing to maintain a maker-taker fee structure, as it did as of May
30, 2014, with the exception of charging a higher fee for directed
orders that is based on the higher cost associated with routing such
orders.
    In addition to being reasonable, all of the proposed execution fees
are equitably allocated in that they will apply uniformly to all ETP
Holders accessing the System. Each ETP Holder will have the ability to
determine the extent to which the Exchange's proposed structure will
provide it with an economic incentive to use the System, and model its
business accordingly. Thus, the Fee Schedule provides for a low-cost,
simple, and streamlined approach which will benefit both ETP Holders
and the Exchange in determining revenues and expenses, as well as
maximizing the Exchange's competitive position.
    The Exchange also submits that its proposed regulatory, market
data, and connectivity fees are consistent with Section 6(b)(4) of the
Act. The fees are competitively and reasonably priced \22\ and are
equitably allocated in that the regulatory, market data, and
connectivity fees are applied uniformly to ETP Holders, with the
connectivity fee assessed on a usage basis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ For these fees, the Exchange is charging prices less than
or equal to those prices that several of the Exchange's competitors
charge their members. For example, EDGX charges $500 per port per
month fee and a $500 per month depth of book fee. Further, the
Chicago Stock Exchange charges $600 per month for its ``SRO fee,''
which is comparable to the Exchange's regulatory fee.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange further submits that the proposed execution fees
satisfy the requirements of Section 6(b)(5) of the Act in that they do
not permit unfair discrimination between customers, issuers, brokers,
or dealers, and are designed to promote just and equitable principles
of trade, to remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free
and open market and a national market system. Under the proposed
changes to the Fee Schedule, all ETP Holders executing orders on the
Exchange will be subject to one fee and/or rebate structure, and such
changes are thereby designed to meet the requirements of the Section
6(b)(5) that the rules of the Exchange not permit unfair discrimination
among ETP Holders and their customers. The Exchange submits that the
proposal will promote just and equitable principles of trade by
providing a streamlined Fee Schedule that will reduce the
administrative burdens and expenses incurred by ETP Holders in
determining the revenues and costs associated with its activity on the
Exchange. Moreover, the Exchange believes that offering low execution
fees will incentivize market participants to post and to access the
liquidity on the NSX Book, which would inure to the benefit of all
market participants seeking greater and better execution opportunities.
In this regard, the proposed Fee Schedule will promote just and
equitable principles of trade and operate to remove impediments to and
perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market
system under Section 6(b)(5).
    The Exchange's market data, regulatory, and connectivity fees are
also consistent with Section 6(b)(5) of the Act. These fees will be
uniformly applied to all ETP Holders, with the sole variable being the
connectivity fee that is derived from the number of connections that
the ETP Holder maintains with NSX (i.e., the greater the number of
connections, the higher the monthly fee). For these reasons, the
proposed fees do not permit unfair discrimination among ETP Holders, as
the fees are uniformly applied to each ETP Holder. Further, assessing
these fees will operate to remove impediments to and perfect the
mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system,
because the Fees allow the Exchange to provide the requisite services
to function competitively within the National Market System, and also
ensure that the Exchange can maintain a consistent source of funding to
support its regulatory compliance obligations.
    Further, eliminating the Exchange's former fee for adding liquidity
by using a Zero Display Reserve Order or removing liquidity provided by
a Zero Display Reserve Order from the NSX

Book and incorporating pass-through fees into the cost of executing a
directed order is consistent with Section 6(b)(5) of the Act. The
elimination of these fees will be uniformly applied to current and
prospective ETP Holders. Thus, the proposed reduction or removal of the
fees do not permit unfair discrimination among ETP Holders.
Additionally, reducing or removing the fees will serve to decrease cost
and increase liquidity, further removing impediments to and perfecting
the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system.

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 Exchange Act. The proposed rule
change seeks to adopt a Fee Schedule that will apply uniformly to all
ETP Holders accessing the Exchange. The Exchange further submits that
its proposed execution, regulatory, market data, and connectivity fees
have been reasonably calibrated such that they should impose no burden
on competition. Moreover, the proposed fees and rebates will enhance
rather than burden competition by operating to increase liquidity and
improve execution quality on the Exchange through reasonable and
equitably allocated economic incentives.

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

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

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

    The proposed rule change has taken effect upon filing pursuant to
Section 19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act \23\ and subparagraph (f)(2) of Rule
19b-4.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii).
    \24\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-NSX-2015-07 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NSX-2015-07. 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 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-NSX-2015-07 and should be
submitted on or before January 19, 2016.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Brent J. Fields,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2015-32650 Filed 12-28-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 248 (Wednesday, December 28, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 79922-79924]
[FR Doc No: 2022-28195]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-96557; File No. SR-ICC-2022-013]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; ICE Clear Credit LLC; Order
Approving Proposed Rule Change Relating to the ICC Collateral Risk
Management Framework, ICC Treasury Operations Policies and Procedures,
and ICC Liquidity Risk Management Framework

December 21, 2022.

I. Introduction

    On October 24, 2022, ICE Clear Credit LLC (``ICC'') filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission''), pursuant to
Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the
``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ a proposed rule change to
formalize the Collateral Risk Management Framework (``CRMF'') and to
amend both its Treasury Operations Policies and Procedures (``Treasury
Policy'') and its Liquidity Risk Management Framework (``LRMF''). The
proposed rule change was published for comment in the Federal Register
on November 10, 2022.\3\ The Commission did not receive comments
regarding the proposed rule change. For the reasons discussed below,
the Commission is approving the proposed rule change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ Self-Regulatory Organizations; ICE Clear Credit LLC; Notice
of Filing of Proposed Rule Change Relating to the ICC Collateral
Risk Management Framework, ICC Treasury Options Policies and
Procedures, and the ICC Liquidity Risk Management Framework;
Exchange Act Release No. 96237 (Nov. 4, 2022); 87 FR 67982 (Nov. 10,
2022) (File No. SR-ICC-2022-013) (``Notice'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Description of the Proposed Rule Change

Background

    ICC's Clearing Participants provide collateral to ICC to satisfy
their margin and Guaranty Fund requirements. To manage the risk
associated with fluctuations in the value of this collateral, ICC
applies haircuts to the collateral that it accepts. These haircuts
reduce the value of the collateral for ICC's risk management purposes.
Overall, the haircuts are designed to account for potential decline in
asset liquidation value during stressed market conditions. The CRMF
would describe, in a quantitative manner, how ICC derives the
collateral haircuts.
    The overall purpose of the proposed rule change is to move the
CRMF, the substance of which is currently found in Appendix 6 to
Treasury Policy, into a separate, standalone document. Making the CRMF
a separate, standalone document would allow ICC to treat the CRMF as a
separate risk management model, subject to review and validation like
ICC's other risk management models.
    To accomplish this objective, the proposed rule change would: (i)
delete Appendix 6 to the Treasury Policy; (ii) move the substance of
the information found in Appendix 6 to a standalone document entitled
the CRMF; and (iii) update references in the Treasury Policy and LRMF
to refer to the CRMF, rather than Appendix 6 to the Treasury Policy.
The changes are discussed for each of the Treasury Policy, CRMF, and
LRMF as follows.

Treasury Policy

    As discussed above, Appendix 6 to the Treasury Policy currently has
information that the proposed rule change would move into the CRMF.
Thus the proposed rule change would first delete Appendix 6 from the
Treasury Policy and would move this information to the CRMF (as
discussed below).

CRMF

    The CRMF would describe, in a quantitative manner, how ICC derives
collateral haircuts, which ICC uses to manage the risk of fluctuations
in the prices of collateral posted by Clearing Participants. As
discussed above, the CRMF would include the substance of

the information that is currently found in Appendix 6 of the Treasury
Policy.\4\ The proposed rule change would move this information into
Sections I and III of the CRMF, with minor updates to reflect the re-
formatting of the CRMF as a standalone document.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See Notice, 87 FR 67982 at 67983 (detailing where components
of Appendix 6 to the Treasury Policy would be relocated to within
the CRMP).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition to this information from Appendix 6 of the Treasury
Policy, the CRMF would include other information related to collateral
risk management that is not currently found in Appendix 6. For example,
Section IV would contain examples of how ICC would apply the
methodology set out in the CRMF to arrive at haircuts for various types
of collateral. Section V would present a list of referenced
publications, which is also information not currently found in Appendix
6.
    Because the CRMF would contain additional information that is not
currently found in Appendix 6, and because the Commission is approving
the CRMF as a separate document for the first time, the CRMF is
described in its entirety as follows.
    The CRMF is divided into six sections. Section I describes in
general how ICC computes collateral haircuts. To compute collateral
haircuts, ICC estimates both the 5-day 99% expected shortfall and the
2-day 99.9% Value-at-Risk, using the same time series. Of the two, ICC
chooses the more conservative risk measure to establish the haircut
factors that capture potential collateral value losses.
    Section I further contains three subsections. Subsections I.a and
I.b describe in more detail how ICC derives haircuts for collateral
that is denominated in foreign currencies and for collateral that is
sovereign debt. Subsection I.a describes a two-stage approach to
account for the risk associated with fluctuations of collateral asset
prices denominated in foreign currencies and the corresponding time
series is used for collateral denominated in foreign currencies.\5\
Subsection I.b describes how the fluctuations of the time to maturity
yield rates are considered and how its corresponding time series are
used for sovereign debt collateral. Subsection I.c describes how ICC
arrives at a final haircut value, a process which includes rounding up
to ensure stability and conservative bias.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Section II details one of the main components ICC's collateral risk
model: the distribution that describes the realizations of the risk
factor that in turn determines the price of a particular item of
collateral.\6\ For example, as is described in the CRMF, for FX
markets, the actual FX rate is the determining risk factor, whereas for
government bonds the determining risk factor is the implied yield.
Section II in turn has five subsections that further describe the model
framework and this distribution.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See Notice, 87 FR 67982 at 67983.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Subsection II.a details certain distribution assumptions
appropriate for foreign exchange (``FX'') and fixed income (``FI'')
assets on which the haircut methodology is based. Subsection II.b
describes how parameter estimates are obtained and used to compute
multi-day risk measures. Subsection II.c details how the variability of
a risk factor is described for risk management purposes and presents
the selected measure of variability for all considered time series.
Subsection II.d portrays multi-period forecasting, which includes the
analysis that is performed to extend one-day forecasts to multi-period
forecasts. Subsection II.e details the methods to obtain risk measures
that are used for haircut purposes.
    Section III describes governance procedures relevant to the CRMF as
well as a summary of the associated governance process. Upon the daily
executions of collateral haircut factors, the Risk Department reviews
the results, which are updated no less than monthly and the ICC Chief
Risk Officer (``CRO'') has the discretion to update the haircut factors
more often. The Risk Department would also conduct back-testing, at
least quarterly, to review the statistical performance of the
collateral haircut model. If the back-testing results show exceedances
beyond the more conservative risk measure, then ICC's CRO and Risk
Oversight Officer will determine whether to trigger subsequent remedial
steps and consultations.
    Section IV provides examples of the application of the methodology
to FX and FI instruments. Overall these examples demonstrate the
viability of the provide examples of the modeling approaches to various
assets. Each of the examples documents a three-stage approach to
estimate risk measures and corresponding haircut factors.
    The final two sections, Section V and Section VI, provide
referential background related to the document itself. Section V has a
list of references and Section VI adds a revision history.

LRMF

    The LRMF changes would be the most minor of the changes of the
three policies subject to this rule change. More specifically, instead
of referencing the Treasury Policy Appendix 6, the amended LRMF would
reference the CRMF.

III. Discussion and Commission Findings

    Section 19(b)(2)(C) of the Act directs the Commission to approve a
proposed rule change of a self-regulatory organization if it finds that
such proposed rule change is consistent with the requirements of the
Act and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to such
organization.\7\ For the reasons discussed below, the Commission finds
that the proposed rule change is consistent with Section 17A(b)(3)(F)
of the Act \8\ and Rules 17Ad-22(e)(2)(i), 17Ad-22(e)(2)(v), and 17Ad-
22(e)(5) thereunder.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2)(C).
    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1(b)(3)(F).
    \9\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(e)(2)(i), (e)(2)(v), and (e)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

A. Consistency With Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act

    Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act requires, among other things, that
the rules of ICC be designed to promote the prompt and accurate
clearance and settlement of securities transactions.\10\ Based on its
review of the record, and for the reasons discussed below, the
Commission believes the proposed rule change is consistent with the
promotion of the prompt and accurate clearance and settlement of
securities transactions at ICC because it would promote transparency
and effective operation of the collateral assets risk management model.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1(b)(3)(F).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission believes that unifying information on ICC's
collateral assets risk management methodology in one document with more
detail will improve transparency while promoting effective operation of
the model. The CRMF would include information from Appendix 6 of the
Treasury Policy but also would expand on it. Duplicative information
would be removed from the Treasury Policy and references in the
Treasury Policy and the LRMF would be updated to the CRMF as needed.
Additional information would be provided regarding the collateral
assets risk management model and methodology that would facilitate
replication and validation by third parties. Additional information
would be included on relevant parameters, computations, equations,
definitions, and figures to describe relevant processes, which the
Commission believes would help ensure responsible parties effectively
complete their

assigned duties. The Commission believes that the proposed
clarifications to ICC's rules would improve transparency and
readability by avoiding unnecessary repetition and duplication in the
Treasury Policy, which could help avoid confusion and potential future
inconsistencies between policies. The Commission therefore believes
that, by unifying and expanding the detail in the CRMF for the
collateral assets risk management methodology in the CRMF, the proposed
rule change would promote the prompt and accurate clearance and
settlement of securities transactions, consistent with Section
17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1(b)(3)(F).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Consistency With Rule 17Ad-22(e)(2)(i) and (v)

    Rules 17Ad-22(e)(2)(i) and (v) \12\ require ICC to establish,
implement, maintain, and enforce written policies and procedures
reasonably designed to provide for governance arrangements that are
clear and transparent and specify clear and direct lines of
responsibility. As discussed above, the proposed changes strengthen the
governance procedures related to ICC's collateral assets risk
management approach by memorializing associated governance processes
and procedures in the CRMF. The CRMF details governance procedures
associated with haircut factor updates, implementation, and review,
including the responsible ICC personnel, department, group, or
committee. The Commission therefore believes the proposed rule change
should help ensure that ICC maintains policies and procedures that are
reasonably designed to provide for clear and transparent governance
arrangements and specify clear and direct lines of responsibility,
consistent with Rule 17Ad-22(e)(2)(i) and (v).\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(e)(2)(i) and (v).
    \13\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. Consistency With Rule 17Ad-22(e)(5)

    Rule 17Ad-22(e)(5) \14\ requires ICC to establish, implement,
maintain, and enforce written policies and procedures reasonably
designed to limit the assets it accepts as collateral to those with low
credit, liquidity, and market risks, and set and enforce appropriately
conservative haircuts and concentration limits if the covered clearing
agency requires collateral to manage its or its participants' credit
exposure; and require a review of the sufficiency of its collateral
haircuts and concentration limits to be performed not less than
annually. ICC's proposed changes would not change which assets it
accepts as collateral. In addition to ICC's existing collateral
requirements, the CRMF would provide a framework for setting and
enforcing collateral haircuts. The Commission believes the additional
procedures defined in Section III of the CRMF would help ensure that
ICC establishes, reviews, and updates haircuts within defined
intervals, and more frequently if deemed necessary. As described above,
collateral haircut factor estimations are executed daily, and the ICC
Risk Department reviews the results and determines at least monthly
whether it will made any updates to collateral haircuts. Haircut
factors can be updated more frequently at the discretion of the CRO or
designee. The Commission therefore finds the proposed rule change is
consistent with Rule 17Ad-22(e)(5).\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(e)(5).
    \15\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Conclusion

    On the basis of the foregoing, the Commission finds that the
proposed rule change is consistent with the requirements of the Act,
and in particular, with the requirements of Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the
Act \16\ and Rules 17Ad-22(e)(2)(i) and (v) and 17Ad-22(e)(5)
thereunder.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1(b)(3)(F).
    \17\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(e)(2)(i), (e)(2)(v), and (e)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    It is therefore ordered pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act
\18\ that the proposed rule change (SR-ICC-2022-013), be, and hereby
is, approved.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).
    \19\ In approving the proposed rule change, the Commission
considered the proposal's impact on efficiency, competition, and
capital formation. 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).
    \20\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\20\
Sherry R. Haywood,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2022-28195 Filed 12-27-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P