[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 113 (Tuesday, June 12, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 35108-35110]
[FR Doc No: 2012-14239]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Railroad Administration

[FRA Emergency Order No. 27, Notice No. 1]

Gulf, Colorado & San Saba Railway; Emergency Order To Prevent
Operation of Trains Over the Highway-Rail Grade Crossing at U.S.
Highway 87 (DOT Crossing No. 024816B, Milepost 66.65) in Brady, TX

    The Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) of the United States
Department of Transportation (DOT) has determined that public safety
compels issuance of this Emergency Order requiring the Gulf, Colorado &
San Saba Railway (GCSR) of Brady, Texas, to discontinue operation of
any train or rail vehicle under any circumstances over the highway-rail
grade crossing at U.S. Highway 87 (DOT Crossing No. 024816B, milepost
66.65) on the GCSR rail line until GCSR implements and complies with
procedures for safe operation over the crossing as approved by FRA, or
restores the proper functioning of the grade crossing warning system at
U.S. Highway 87 and brings the grade crossing warning system into full
compliance with FRA regulations, as determined by FRA.

Authority

    Authority to enforce Federal railroad safety laws has been
delegated by the Secretary of Transportation to the Federal Railroad
Administrator. 49 CFR 1.49. Railroads are subject to FRA's safety
jurisdiction under the Federal railroad safety laws, 49 U.S.C. 20102,
20103. FRA is authorized to issue emergency orders where an unsafe
condition or practice ``causes an emergency situation involving a
hazard of death or personal injury.'' 49 U.S.C. 20104. These orders may
impose such ``restrictions and prohibitions * * * that may be necessary
to abate the situation.'' Ibid.

Background

    GCSR is subject to the jurisdiction of FRA. The railroad operates
on 67.5 miles of main line track between Lometa, Texas, and Brady,
Texas. In addition to its main line track, GCSR operates on the Sand
House Spur in Brady, which is approximately two miles in length. The
American Railroads Corporation, headquartered in Barrington, Illinois,
owns and operates GCSR. The railroad solely transports freight, and its
primary commodities include sand and agricultural products. GCSR has
designated all track over which it operates as excepted track. See 49
CFR 213.4. By regulation and posted notice, train speeds are restricted
to 10 m.p.h. This includes the trackage over the highway-rail grade
crossing at U.S. Highway 87. However, even trains traveling through a
grade crossing at slow speeds are not able to stop suddenly to avoid
vehicles in the crossing. FRA has promulgated regulations to protect
and adequately warn highway users attempting to cross a grade crossing
about a train's approach to, or occupancy of, the crossing so that a
potentially deadly accident can be prevented. See 49 CFR part 234.
    U.S. Highway 87 is a busy four-lane highway in Brady, which GCSR
has acknowledged in a June 4, 2012, letter to FRA's Regional
Administrator for Region 5. The posted highway speed limit is 55 m.p.h.
As of 2010, the annual average daily traffic was approximately 4,200
vehicles. Moreover, the Texas Department of Transportation (TXDOT)
estimates that approximately 16 school buses currently traverse the
crossing daily, Monday through Friday. The track adjacent to U.S.
Highway 87 is routinely used to service a nearby industry. During an
inspection in April 2012, FRA inspectors found freight cars ``spotted''
on the industry track immediately on both sides of the crossing that
either did not have handbrakes applied or had insufficient handbrakes
applied to prevent them from rolling free.
    The active warning system for the highway-rail grade crossing at
U.S. Highway 87 consists of mast-mounted flashing lights and audible
warning bells. According to the information available to FRA, the
active warning system at U.S. Highway 87 has been without power and
out-of-service since at least April 1, 2010. In GCSR's June 4th letter,
the railroad contends that the crossing has been out-of-service since
the railroad was purchased by the current owners, and that the line was
rarely used. Only in the last 24 months, according to GCSR, has
business

expanded requiring the regular use of the U.S. Highway 87 grade
crossing.
    Federal grade crossing signal system safety regulations require
that ``[w]hen any essential component of a highway-rail grade crossing
warning system fails to perform its intended function, the cause shall
be determined and the faulty component adjusted, repaired, or replaced
without undue delay.'' 49 CFR 234.207(a). Further, the railroad must
take appropriate action, such as stopping and flagging the crossing,
until the repair of an essential component has been made. 49 CFR
234.207(b).
    FRA and TXDOT safety inspectors have taken exception several times
to the condition of the active warning system at the U.S. Highway 87
grade crossing. However, GCSR has repeatedly failed to institute
necessary repairs to restore the proper functioning of the active
warning system. On July 6, 2011, a TXDOT inspector cited GCSR for its
failure to repair the warning system without undue delay. On January
25, 2012, FRA and TXDOT conducted a re-inspection and again cited GCSR
for its failure to repair the warning system without undue delay. At
this time, GCSR representatives were provided a detailed explanation of
the requirements of the Federal regulations. Yet, follow-up inspections
by FRA on March 20 and April 17, 2012, revealed that nothing had been
done to bring the active warning system back into proper functioning.
    On May 21, 2012, FRA sent a letter to GCSR notifying the railroad
of the need to restore the active warning devices at the U.S. Highway
87 highway-rail grade crossing as well as those at a separate crossing
(FM 3533) to proper functioning within 10 days of the date of the
letter. FRA clearly stated that failure to act within the time
prescribed would result in the issuance of an emergency order ceasing
operations over the identified crossings because of the serious safety
concerns about the condition of the crossing warning systems. GCSR
failed to respond within the time prescribed, but did respond by letter
dated June 4, 2012. GCSR noted that the crossing at FM 3533 had been
repaired prior to the receipt of FRA's May 21st letter, but the
railroad recognized that it had failed to restore the active warning
system to its proper functioning at the U.S. Highway 87 highway-rail
grade crossing. GCSR contended that it has not restored the warning
system to proper functioning at U.S. Highway 87 because it has been
waiting for TXDOT to approve a crossing upgrade. The railroad also
stated that it has used safe flagging procedures with crews on the
ground facing traffic in both directions. Although GCSR states that it
has stop and flag procedures in place, TXDOT has received multiple
reports concerning GCSR trains passing through the crossing at U.S.
Highway 87 without flagmen present. While FRA understands the desire to
upgrade the crossing, this circumstance cannot prevent GCSR from taking
the necessary steps to protect its employees and the general public
from the serious hazards created by the out-of-service active warning
systems at the U.S. Highway 87 grade crossing. As of June 5, 2012, FRA
confirmed that still nothing has been done to bring the active warning
system back into proper functioning.

Finding and Order

    The results of inspections performed by FRA and TXDOT inspectors of
the active warning devices installed at the U.S. Highway 87 grade
crossing at milepost 66.65 on GCSR line have led FRA to conclude that
continued use of this highway-rail grade crossing by the railroad poses
an imminent and unacceptable threat to public safety. Furthermore, a
past pattern of failure by GCSR to comply with Federal grade crossing
signal system safety regulations persuades FRA that reliance upon the
cooperation of GCSR to provide alternate protection for highway users
until completion of an anticipated upgrade to the active warning
devices at the U.S. Highway 87 grade crossing is inadequate to protect
public safety. I, therefore, find that the unsafe conditions discussed
above create an emergency situation involving a hazard of death or
injury to persons. Accordingly, pursuant to the authority of 49 U.S.C.
20104, delegated to me by the Secretary of Transportation (49 CFR
1.49), it is ordered that Gulf, Colorado & San Saba Railway shall
discontinue, and shall not permit under any circumstances, the
operation of trains over the U.S. Highway 87 grade crossing (DOT
Crossing No. 024816B) at milepost 66.65 while this Emergency Order
remains in effect. I direct that a copy of this order be posted in a
public location at the railroad's office and a copy of the order be
provided to each employee of the railroad.

Relief

    The GCSR may obtain full relief from this Emergency Order by taking
the following actions:
    (1) Restore to their proper function the active warning devices
currently installed, or complete installation of upgraded active
warning devices, at the U.S. Highway 87 grade crossing at milepost
66.65 to ensure proper functioning of such devices as they are relied
upon by highway users.
    (2) Submit written certification to FRA's Regional Administrator
for Region 5 that all necessary repairs and inspections of the active
warning devices at the U.S. Highway 87 grade crossing have been
performed and that all required tests are up-to-date.
    (3) Obtain approval from the Federal Railroad Administrator that
all of the requirements of this Emergency Order have been met and
properly performed. To obtain relief, GCSR should inform the Federal
Railroad Administrator in writing, with a copy to FRA's Regional
Administrator for Region 5, that it believes all of the requirements of
this Emergency Order have been met. FRA will conduct inspections of the
active warning devices at the U.S. Highway 87 grade crossing and will
inform GCSR in writing whether this Emergency Order will be lifted. If
FRA does not lift the order, the written response will specifically
describe what additional measures need to be taken to meet all of the
requirements of this Emergency Order.

Partial Relief

    In order for FRA to consider granting partial relief from this
Emergency Order, the GCSR must submit a written plan for approval to
FRA's Regional Administrator for Region 5 to provide alternate
protection for highway users at the U.S. Highway 87 grade crossing.
GCSR shall not resume any rail operations over U.S. Highway 87 until
obtaining approval of its written plan to provide temporary alternate
protection to highway users of the U.S. Highway 87 grade crossing by
the Regional Administrator for FRA's Region 5. Any partial relief
provided will, however, remain subject to GCSR compliance with its
approved written plan to provide alternate protection to highway users
of the U.S. Highway 87 grade crossing. Failure to comply with any
approved plan will result in the partial relief being revoked.

Penalties

    Any violation of this order or the terms of any approved written
plan pursuant to this order to provide alternate protection to highway
users of the U.S. Highway 87 grade crossing shall subject the person
committing the violation to a civil penalty of up to $100,000 before
June 25, 2012, and $105,000 on or after June 25, 2012. 49 U.S.C. 21301.
Any individual who willfully violates a prohibition stated in this
order is subject to civil penalties under 49 U.S.C. 21301. In addition,
such an individual whose violation of

this order demonstrates the individual's unfitness for safety-sensitive
service may be removed from safety-sensitive service on the railroad
under 49 U.S.C. 20111. If appropriate, FRA may pursue criminal
penalties under 49 U.S.C. 522(a) and 49 U.S.C. 21311(a), as well as 18
U.S.C. 1001, for the knowing and willful falsification of a report
required by this order. FRA may, through the Attorney General, also
seek injunctive relief to enforce this order. 49 U.S.C. 20112.

Effective Date and Notice to Affected Persons

    This Emergency Order shall take effect at 12:01 a.m. C.S.T. on June
7, 2012, and apply to all operations of trains or vehicles on or after
that time. Notice of this Emergency Order will be provided by
publishing it in the Federal Register. Copies of this Emergency Order
will be sent by mail or email prior to publication to the Gulf,
Colorado & San Saba Railway and the American Railroads Corporation.

Review

    Opportunity for formal review of this Emergency Order will be
provided in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 20104(b) and section 554 of title
5 of the United States Code. Administrative procedures governing such
review are found at 49 CFR part 211. See 49 CFR 211.47, 211.71, 211.73,
211.75, and 211.77.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on June 6, 2012.
Joseph C. Szabo,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2012-14239 Filed 6-7-12; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 4910-06-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 197 (Thursday, October 13, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 62123-62125]
[FR Doc No: 2022-22177]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-95994; File No. SR-CboeBZX-2022-049]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Cboe BZX Exchange, Inc.; Notice of
Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To Amend
Rule 21.17 Concerning Drill-Through Protection and Fat Finger Check

October 6, 2022.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that
on October 4, 2022, Cboe BZX Exchange, Inc. (``Exchange'' or ``BZX'')
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'') the
proposed rule change as described in Items I, II, and III below, which
Items have been prepared by the Exchange. The Commission is publishing
this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change from
interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    Cboe BZX Exchange, Inc. (the ``Exchange'' or ``BZX Options'')
proposes to amend Rule 21.17. The text of the proposed rule change is
provided in Exhibit 5.
    The text of the proposed rule change is also available on the
Exchange's website (http://markets.cboe.com/us/equities/regulation/rule_filings/bzx/), at the Exchange's Office of the Secretary, and at
the Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

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

forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of
such statements.

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to amend Rule 21.17. Specifically, the
Exchange proposes to amend its drill-through protection mechanism and
limit order fat finger check.
    The Exchange proposes to amend Rule 21.17(d) to update the drill-
through protection mechanism to provide orders with additional
execution opportunities. Pursuant to the current drill-through
protection, if a buy (sell) order enters the Book at the conclusion of
the opening auction process or would execute or post to the Book at the
time of order entry, the System executes the order up to a buffer
amount (the Exchange determines the buffer amount on a class and
premium basis) above (below) the offer (bid) limit of the opening
collar \3\ or the national best bid (``NBO'') (national best offer
(``NBB'')) that existed at the time of order entry, respectively (the
``drill-through price'').\4\ The System enters an order (or unexecuted
portion) not executed pursuant to the provision in the immediately
preceding sentence in the Book with a displayed equal to the drill-
through price.\5\ The order (or unexecuted portion) rests in the Book
at the drill-through price \6\ until the earlier to occur of its full
execution and the end of the duration of a number of consecutive time
periods (the Exchange determines on a class-by-class basis the number
of periods, which may not exceed five, and the length of the time
period in milliseconds, which may not exceed three seconds).\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See Rule 21.7(a) for the definition of Opening Collars.
    \4\ See Rule 21.17(d)(1).
    \5\ See Rule 21.17(d)(2).
    \6\ The proposed rule change adds ``at the drill-through price''
in the first sentence of subparagraph (d)(2)(A), which is a
nonsubstantive change, as it reflects current functionality and is
stated in the introductory paragraph to Rule 21.17(d)(2). The
proposed rule change merely includes this detail in the next portion
of the rule for additional clarity.
    \7\ See Rule 21.17(d)(2)(A).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed rule change amends Rule 21.17(d)(2)(A) to eliminate
the concept that there will be a maximum number of time periods and
proposes that the order (or unexecuted portion) will rest in the Book
at the drill-through price for the duration of consecutive time
periods.\8\ The proposed rule change makes conforming changes to
subparagraph (ii) by deleting references to ``the final period'' and
subparagraph (iv) by deleting the reference to ``any remaining time
period(s),'' as there will no longer be an Exchange-determined limited
number of time periods. Currently, as set forth in current subparagraph
(i), the drill-through mechanism will continue until the earlier to
occur of the order's full execution and the end of the duration of the
Exchange-determined number of time periods. The Exchange proposes to
amend subparagraph (iv) to describe when the drill-through process will
conclude. Specifically, proposed Rule 21.17(d)(2)(D) provides that the
order continues through the process described in subparagraph (ii) (as
proposed to be amended) until the earliest of the following to occur:
(a) the order fully executes; (b) the User cancels the order; and (c)
the order's limit price equals or is less than (if a buy order) or
greater than (if a sell order) the drill-through price at any time
during application of the drill-through mechanism, in which case the
order rests in the Book at its limit price, subject to a User's
instructions. In other words, the order will continue through
consecutive time periods until it fully executes (unless it is
cancelled by the User or reaches its limit price prior to full
execution), compared to today when the order will continue through
consecutive time periods until it fully executes or reaches the
Exchange-determined final time period, at which time the order would be
cancelled (unless it reaches its limit price prior to full execution).
The Exchange believes eliminating the limit on the number of time
periods may increase execution opportunities for limit orders, which
will still continue to be bound by their limit prices and protected by
the limit order fat finger check.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ The Exchange will continue to determine on a class-by-class
basis the length of the time periods in milliseconds, which may
continue to not exceed three seconds.
    \9\ If a limit price is ``too far away'' from the market, the
order will continue to be subject to the limit order fat finger
protection set forth in Rule 21.17(b) and thus will still be subject
to protection against a potentially erroneous execution due to an
order pricing error upon submission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, the Exchange proposes to amend Rule 21.17(b) to add
Limit-on-Close orders \10\ to the list of orders to which the limit
order fat finger check does not apply. Pursuant to the limit order fat
finger check, if a User submits a buy (sell) limit order to the System
with a price that is more than a buffer amount above (below) the NBO
(NBB), the System cancels or rejects the order.\11\ Currently, the
simple limit order fat finger check does not apply to bulk messages or
Stop-Limit Orders.\12\ The Exchange proposes to also not apply the
limit order fat finger check to Limit-on-Close orders. The limit order
fat finger check applies to orders upon entry to the System. However,
the limit price of a Limit-on-Close order is intended to relate to the
price at the market close, and thus may intentionally be further away
from the NBBO at the time the order is entered. This may cause the
order to be inadvertently rejected pursuant to this check. The Exchange
believes it is not appropriate for this limit order to be subject to
the fat finger check, as the check may inadvertently cause rejections
for orders with limit prices that are intentionally ``far away'' from
the market at the time of order entry.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ A ``Limit-on-Close'' or ``LOC'' order is, for an order so
designated, a limit order that may not execute on the Exchange until
three minutes prior to market close. At that time, the System enters
LOC orders into the Book in time sequence (based on the times at
which the System initially received them), where they may be
processed in accordance with Rule 21.8. The System cancels an LOC
order (or unexecuted portion) that does not execute by the market
close. Users may not designate bulk messages as LOC. See Rule
21.1(f)(7) (definition of ``Limit-on-Close'' and ``LOC'' order).
    \11\ Rule 21.17(a).
    \12\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the ``Act'') and the rules and
regulations thereunder applicable to the Exchange and, in particular,
the requirements of Section 6(b) of the Act.\13\ Specifically, the
Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with the
Section 6(b)(5) \14\ requirements that the rules of an exchange be
designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to
promote just and equitable principles of trade, to foster cooperation
and coordination with persons engaged in regulating, clearing,
settling, processing information with respect to, and facilitating
transactions in securities, to remove impediments to and perfect the
mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system, and,
in general, to protect investors and the public interest. Additionally,
the Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with the
Section 6(b)(5) \15\ requirement that the rules of an exchange not be
designed to permit unfair discrimination between customers, issuers,
brokers, or dealers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    In particular, the Exchange believes the proposed rule change to
eliminate

the maximum number of time periods for which an order will rest in the
Book during application of the drill-through protection mechanism will
remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open
market and a national market system, and, in general, protect
investors, because it will provide orders with additional execution
opportunities. These orders may continue to be available on the Book
for execution, at a wider range of prices, as opposed to today when
such orders are cancelled after a specified number of time periods
(depending on the User's instructions and if the order does not reach
its limit price prior to the end of those time periods). The Exchange
believes these additional execution opportunities will benefit
investors that submit such orders and believes such orders will
continue to receive protection against potentially erroneous
executions, as the limit order fat finger check will continue to apply
to them.
    Finally, the Exchange believes excluding Limit-on-Close orders from
the limit order fat finger check will remove impediments to and perfect
the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system,
and, in general, protect investors, because it may reduce inadvertent
rejections of Limit-on-Close orders, which may be purposely priced
further away from the NBBO at the time of entry, as their limit prices
are intended to relate to price at the market close. Therefore, this
proposed rule change may increase execution opportunities for Users
that submit Limit-on-Close orders.

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. The Exchange does not
believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on
intramarket competition that is not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act, because the amended drill-
through protection mechanism and limit order fat finger check will
continue to apply in the same manner to orders of all Users and may
lead to increased execution opportunities. The Exchange does not
believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on
intermarket competition that is not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of purposes of the Act, because the proposed rule change
relates solely to Exchange risk controls and how the Exchange handles
orders subject to those risk controls.

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

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

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

    Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not:
    A. significantly affect the protection of investors or the public
interest;
    B. impose any significant burden on competition; and
    C. become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was
filed, or such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has
become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \16\ and
Rule 19b-4(f)(6) \17\ thereunder. At any time within 60 days of the
filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may
temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission
that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest,
for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the
purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the
Commission will institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed
rule change should be approved or disapproved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \17\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 protected]. Please include
File Number SR-CboeBZX-2022-049 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-CboeBZX-2022-049. This
file number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's internet website (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml).
Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written
statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with
the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed
rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those
that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions
of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for website viewing and printing in
the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC
20549 on official business days between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and
3:00 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available for inspection
and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All comments
received will be posted without change. Persons submitting comments are
cautioned that we do not redact or edit personal identifying
information from comment submissions. You should submit only
information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions
should refer to File Number SR-CboeBZX-2022-049 and should be submitted
on or before November 3, 2022.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\18\
J. Lynn Taylor,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2022-22177 Filed 10-12-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P