[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 221 (Monday, November 17, 2014)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 68365-68366]
[FR Doc No: 2014-27175]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 117

[Docket No. USCG-2014-0977]

Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Snohomish River, Everett, WA

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of deviation from drawbridge regulation.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard has issued a temporary deviation from the
operating schedule that governs the Washington State Route 529 (SR 529)
twin bridge south bound across the Snohomish River, mile 3.6, at
Everett, WA. The deviation is necessary to facilitate adjustment of
newly installed bridge joints. This deviation allows the bridges to
remain in the closed position during adjustment and maintenance
activities.

DATES: This deviation is effective from 8 a.m. on January 10, 2015 to
11 p.m. on February 15, 2015.

ADDRESSES: The docket for this deviation, [USCG-2014-0977] is available
at http://www.regulations.gov. Type the docket number in the ``SEARCH''
box and click ``SEARCH.'' Click on Open Docket Folder on the line
associated with this deviation. You may also visit the Docket
Management Facility in Room W12-140 on the ground floor of the
Department of Transportation West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE.,
Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this
temporary deviation, call or email Steven M. Fischer, Bridge
Administrator, Thirteenth Coast Guard District; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>,
email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>If you have questions on viewing the
docket, call Cheryl Collins, Program Manager, Docket Operations,
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Washington State Department of
Transportation (WSDOT) has requested a temporary deviation from the
operating schedule for the SR 529 Twin Bridges south bound, mile 3.6,
crossing the Snohomish River at Everett, WA. The requested deviation is
to accommodate adjustments on bridge joints. To facilitate this bridge
work, the bridge will be maintained in the closed-to-navigation
position, and need not open for vessel traffic for two periods of up to
two weeks each. The closed-to-navigation period will begin at 8 a.m. on
January 10, 2015 until 11 p.m. on February 15, 2015. During the 5 week

period there will be one week when the bridge will be able to
accommodate mariner traffic; the exact dates are to be determined at a
later date and will be communicated to the marine community via the
local notice to mariners and through direct notification to known
waterway users via WDSOT. Vessels that require an opening during this
one week period, will need to schedule an opening twenty four hours in
advance by marine radio or telephone.
    The SR 529 Twin Bridges, mile 3.6, crossing the Snohomish River
provides 38 feet of vertical clearance above mean high water elevation
while in the closed position. The SR 529 Twin Bridges crossing the
Snohomish River normally operate in accordance with 33 CFR 117.1059(c)
which requires advance notification of one-hour when a bridge opening
is needed. Waterway usage on the Snohomish River ranges from commercial
tugs to small pleasure craft. Vessels able to pass through the bridge
in the closed positions may do so at anytime. The bridge will not be
able to open for emergencies and there is no immediate alternate route
for vessels to pass. The Coast Guard will also inform the users of the
waterways through our Local Broadcast Notice to Mariners of the change
in the operating schedule for the bridge so that vessels can arrange
their transits to minimize any impact caused by this temporary
deviation.
    In accordance with 33 CFR 117.35(e), the drawbridge must return to
its regular operating schedule immediately at the end of the designated
time period. This deviation from the operating regulations is
authorized under 33 CFR 117.35.

    Dated: October 31, 2014.
Steven M. Fischer,
Bridge Administrator, Thirteenth Coast Guard District.
[FR Doc. 2014-27175 Filed 11-14-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 211 (Monday, November 2, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 67457-67461]
[FR Doc No: 2015-27793]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-76273; File No. SR-CBOE-2015-089]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Chicago Board Options Exchange,
Incorporated; Notice of Filing of a Proposed Rule Change Relating to
Complex Orders, as Modified by Amendment No. 1

October 27, 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 October 13, 2015, Chicago Board Options Exchange, Incorporated
(the ``Exchange'' or ``CBOE'') filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission (the ``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described
in Items I, II, and III below, which Items have been prepared by the
Exchange. On October 26, 2015, the Exchange submitted Amendment No. 1
to the proposed rule change. The Commission is publishing this notice
to solicit comments on the proposed rule change from interested
persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange proposes to amend Rule 6.53C. The text of the proposed
rule change is available on the Exchange's Web site (http://www.cboe.com/AboutCBOE/CBOELegalRegulatoryHome.aspx), 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 6.53C regarding complex orders.
The proposed rule change (1) amends the rule provisions regarding the
initiation of a complex order auction (``COA''), (2) adds rule
provisions regarding the impact of certain incoming orders and changes
in the leg markets on an ongoing COA, and (3) updates the rule text
regarding who can submit complex orders. The proposed rule change also
makes technical and other nonsubstantive changes.
    First, the Exchange proposes to amend Rule 6.53C and Interpretation
and Policy .04 regarding the initiation of a COA. Currently, CBOE Rule
6.53C(d)(ii) provides that on receipt of (1) a COA-eligible order \3\
with two legs and request from the Trading Permit Holder representing
the order or the PAR operator handling the order, as applicable, that
it be COA'd or (2) a complex order with three or more legs that (a)
meets the class, marketability, size and complex order type parameters
included in the definition of a COA-eligible order or (B) is designated
as immediate-or-cancel and meets the class, marketability and size
parameters included in the definition of a COA-eligible order,\4\ in
both cases regardless of the order's routing parameters or handling
instructions (except for orders routed for manual handling), the
Exchange will send a request for response (``RFR'') message to all
Trading Permit Holders who have elected to receive RFR messages.\5\
Interpretation and Policy .04(a) states that, with respect to the
initiation of a COA, Trading Permit Holders routing complex orders
directly to the complex order book (``COB'') may request that the
complex orders be COA'd on a class-by-class basis, and Trading Permit
Holders with resting complex orders on PAR may request that complex
orders be COA'd on an order-by-order basis. Currently, all Trading
Permit Holders have requested that all of their COA-eligible orders
with two legs process through COA upon entry into the System.
Therefore, rather than have Trading Permit Holders and PAR operators
affirmatively request that their COA-eligible orders with two legs COA,
the Exchange proposes to amend Rule 6.53C(d)(ii) to provide that
incoming COA-eligible orders with two legs (including orders submitted
for electronic processing from PAR) will COA by default.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ A ``COA-eligible order'' means a complex order that, as
determined by the Exchange on class-by-class basis, is eligible for
a COA considering the order's marketability (defined as a number of
tickets away from the current market), size, complex order type and
complex order origin types. Currently, in all Hybrid classes, (a)
only complex orders with origin codes for public and professional
customers, (b) all complex order types except for immediate-or-
cancel (``IOC'') orders, and (c) marketable orders and ``tweener''
limit orders bettering the same side of the derived net market are
eligible for COA. In Hybrid 3.0 classes (i.e. SPX), (a) all complex
order types (including IOC orders) and (b) only customer orders are
eligible for COA. See Regulatory Circulars RG06-73, RG08-38 and
RG08-97.
    \4\ This description of the current rule includes changes to
Rule 6.53C proposed in SR-CBOE-2015-081, which CBOE filed for
immediate effectiveness on October 2, 2015.
    \5\ ``RFR'' stands for a ``request for responses'' that occurs
in the COA process. The RFR message will identify the component
series, the size and side of the market of the COA-eligible order
and any contingencies if applicable.
    \6\ The proposed rule change applies to all COA-eligible orders
with two legs, including eligible stock-option orders, in all Hybrid
and Hybrid 3.0 classes. The proposed rule change does not change the
allocation or priority provisions of complex orders, nor does it
impact leg order functionality described in Rule 6.53C(c)(iv), which
functionality the Exchange has the authority to implement (the
Exchange that leg order functionality is currently not available in
any classes). The proposed rule change also makes a nonsubstantive
change to move language regarding the System sending RFR messages to
the beginning of the provision.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes Trading Permit Holders should still maintain
flexibility to have these two-legged orders not COA. In order to
provide Trading Permit Holders with this flexibility, the proposed rule
change adds that, notwithstanding the foregoing, Trading Permit Holders
may request on an order-by-order basis that a COA-eligible order with
two legs not COA (referred to as a ``do-not-COA'' request). The
proposed rule change adds that if a two-legged order with a do-not-COA
requests rests on PAR, the PAR operator may not request that the order
COA (in other words, if the PAR operator submits that order for
electronic processing, the PAR operator cannot override the Trading
Permit Holder's do-not-COA order request, and the order will enter the
COB). Because of this proposed rule change, the Exchange deletes the
language in Interpretation and Policy .04(a) that indicates Trading
Permit Holders may request that complex orders be COA'd on a class-by-
class basis, as it is no longer necessary.\7\

While the proposed rule change will not permit Trading Permit Holders
to not COA orders on a class-by-class basis, the Exchange believes that
it will not burden Trading Permit Holders because they have not
requested this in the past. Additionally, allowing Trading Permit
Holders to make a do-not-COA request on an order-by-order basis will
better allow them to make decisions regarding the handling of their
orders based on market conditions at the time they submit their
orders.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ The proposed rule change deletes Interpretation and Policy
.04(a) in order to include all information regarding the initiation
of a COA in subparagraph (d)(ii) in the same place within the rule.
As a result, the proposed rule change deletes the lettering for
paragraph (b), which will be the only remaining provision in
Interpretation and Policy .04. The proposed rule change makes a
corresponding change in subparagraph (d)(ii) to delete a reference
to making a request pursuant to Interpretation and Policy .04.
    \8\ For organizational purposes, the proposed rule change
divides paragraph (d)(ii) into two subparagraphs (A) and (B), which
address the general rule regarding when complex orders will COA and
the treatment of complex orders with do-not-COA requests,
respectively, and makes corresponding changes to cross-references in
the rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    While the proposed rule change provides that Trading Permit Holders
may include a do-not-COA request on complex orders with two legs, the
proposed rule change indicates that an order with a do-not-COA request
may still COA after it has rested on the COB pursuant to Interpretation
and Policy .04.\9\ The Exchange believes that Trading Permit Holders
that include a do-not-COA request for an order upon entry into the
System do so to receive automatic execution with the leg market or the
COB, as applicable, without the delay of the COA.\10\ However, if that
does not occur and the order enters the COB to rest, the Exchange
believes it is appropriate to COA the order after resting on the COB
(if that functionality has been activated for the class) to try and
obtain an execution even though the Trading Permit Holder initially did
not want the order to COA, as the COA will not delay execution at that
point.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ Interpretation and Policy .04(b) (which the proposed rule
change amends to become Interpretation and Policy .04) provides that
the Exchange may determine on a class-by-class basis to
automatically COA nonmarketable orders resting at the top of the COB
if they are within a number of ticks away from the current derived
net market.
    \10\ The current COA response time interval is 100 milliseconds.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange notes that an order with a do-not-COA request will
still have execution opportunities. For example, such an order may
execute automatically upon entry into the System against the leg
markets or complex orders on the COB to the extent marketable (in
accordance with allocation rules set forth in Rule 6.53C).
Additionally, pursuant to Rule 6.53C(d)(viii)(1), such an order on the
opposite side of and marketable against a COA-eligible order may trade
against the COA-eligible order if the System receives the order while a
COA is ongoing. A do-not-COA request merely provides the order with the
opportunity to execute upon entry into the System rather than after
going through an auction; the order will be subject to the same
priority and allocation rules.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ A complex order that COAs upon entry into the System or
after resting in the COB will not miss any execution opportunities.
Pursuant to current Interpretation and Policy .04(b), an order that
COAs after resting on the COB will be nonmarketable and at the top
of the COB (and thus is the best-priced complex order at the time).
Rule 6.53C(d)(viii) (including as amended by this rule filing, as
further discussed below) describes how incoming complex orders
received during a COA impact the COA, including providing that the
COA'd order (which may be an order that COAs upon entry into the
System or after resting in the COB) will have time priority over the
incoming order, and ultimately provides that a COA'd order will not
lose execution opportunities to complex orders submitted during the
COA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Second, the proposed rule change adds subparagraphs Rule
6.53C(d)(viii)(4) and (5) to describe additional circumstances that
will cause a COA to end early.\12\ Proposed subparagraph (viii)(4)
describes how an incoming order with a do-not-COA request or that is
not COA-eligible may impact an ongoing COA. Rule 6.53C(d)(viii)
currently describes the handling of unrelated complex orders that are
received prior to the expiration of the COA Response Time Interval.\13\
The proposed rule change states that if an order with a do-not-COA
request or an order that is not COA-eligible is received prior to the
expiration of the Response Time Interval for the original COA and is on
the same side of the market and at a price better than or equal to the
starting price, then the original COA will end. Similar to the current
provisions regarding incoming unrelated COA-eligible orders on the same
side of the COA-eligible order (and at a price better than or equal to
the starting price), the processing of the original COA pursuant to
subparagraphs (d)(iv) through (d)(vi) remains the same \14\ with the
addition that the priority of the original COA-eligible order and the
order with the do-not-COA request or the order that is not COA-
eligible, as applicable, will be according to time priority. In other
words, the COA-eligible order would trade before the order with the do-
not-COA request or order that is not COA-eligible, regardless of the
price of each order.\15\ The purpose of this proposed provision (as it
is for the current provisions related to unrelated complex orders) is
to prevent the order with the do-not-COA request or the order that is
not COA-eligible,\16\ as applicable, from executing prior to the
original COA-eligible order, which, if it did not COA, may have
executed or entered the COB

(because it would have entered the COB first, it potentially would have
priority over the incoming order to the extent the algorithm applicable
to the class considered time as a factor for allocation).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ The proposed rule change makes corresponding changes to the
heading and introductory paragraph of subparagraph (d)(viii).
    \13\ Rule 6.53C(d)(viii) states that incoming complex orders
that are received prior to the expiration of the response time
interval for a COA-eligible order (the ``original COA'') will impact
the original COA as follows: (a) Incoming complex orders that are
received prior to the expiration of the response time interval for
the original COA that are on the opposite side of the market and are
marketable against the starting price of the original COA-eligible
order will cause the original COA to end. The processing of the
original COA pursuant to subparagraphs (d)(iv) through (d)(vi)
remains the same. (The ``starting price'' means the better of the
original COA-eligible order's limit price or the best price, on a
net debit or credit basis, that existed in the EBook or COB at the
beginning of the response time interval.) (b) Incoming COA-eligible
orders that are received prior to the expiration of the response
time interval for the original COA that are on the same side of the
market, at the same price or worse than the original COA-eligible
order and better than or equal to the starting price will join the
original COA. The processing of the original COA pursuant to
subparagraphs (d)(iv) through (d)(vi) remains the same with the
addition that the priority of the original COA-eligible order and
incoming COA-eligible order(s) will be according to time priority.
(c) Incoming COA-eligible orders that are received prior to the
expiration of the response time interval for the original COA that
are on the same side of the market and at a better price than the
original COA-eligible order will join the original COA, cause the
original COA to end, and a new COA to begin for any remaining
balance on the incoming COA-eligible order. The processing of the
original COA pursuant to subparagraphs (d)(iv) through (d)(vi)
remains the same with the addition that the priority of the original
COA-eligible order and incoming COA-eligible order will be according
to time priority.
    \14\ Rule 6.53C(d)(iv) through (d)(vi) provides that at the
expiration of the response time interval, the COA-eligible order
will trade with orders and quotes in the following order: (a)
Individual orders and quotes residing in the book (with allocation
consistent with the ultimate matching algorithm (``UMA'') described
in Rule 6.45A or 6.45B, as applicable), (b) public customer complex
orders resting in the COB before, or that are received during, the
response time interval and public customer RFR responses (with
allocation according to time priority), (c) nonpublic customer
orders resting in the COB before the response time interval (with
allocation consistent with UMA described in Rule 6.45A or 6.45B, as
applicable), and (d) nonpublic customer orders resting in the COB
that are received during the response time interval and nonpublic
customer responses (with allocation consistent with the ultimate
matching algorithm described in Rule 6.45A or 6.45B, as applicable,
capped at the response size). If a COA-eligible order cannot be
filled in whole or in a permissible ratio, the order (or any
remaining balance) will route to the COB or back to PAR, as
applicable. Thus, the unrelated order with a do-not-COA request or
the order that is not COA-eligible will have execution opportunities
against the leg markets, complex orders in the COB and COA
responses, with priority after the original COA-eligible order.
    \15\ This time priority is the same provided to COA-eligible
orders over incoming orders in subparagraphs (d)(viii)(2) and (3).
    \16\ Current paragraph (d)(viii) currently addresses the impact
of incoming COA-eligible orders on the same side of the original
COA-eligible order. The proposed rule change adds detail regarding
the impact of orders that are not COA-eligible and orders with a do-
not-COA request. The Exchange believes this provides a more complete
description in its rules regarding the impact of unrelated complex
orders received during a COA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For example, assume that a COA-eligible order to buy with a net
limit price of $1.20 is received when the book or COB price (and thus
the starting price) is a net price bid of $1.10. The System will
initiate a COA at a net price of $1.10. An incoming order with a do-
not-COA request to buy at a net price of $1.10 or higher causes the
original COA to end. To the extent possible, the original COA-eligible
order will be filled first, and then the order with the do-not-COA
request will be filled (subject to the COA allocation provisions
describe above).\17\ Any remaining balance on the original COA-eligible
order or the incoming order with the do-not-COA request will route to
COB or back to PAR. The Exchange believes this result to be
appropriate, even if the incoming order with the do-not-COA request had
a higher buy price than the COA-eligible order (e.g. $1.21), because if
the COA-eligible order had not initiated a COA and was marketable at
the time it was entered (for example, if the offer in the book was
$1.15), it could have executed against the book before the order was
entered. Providing the COA-eligible order with time priority is
intended to ensure it does not miss an execution opportunity it would
have otherwise received if it had not initiated a COA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Proposed subparagraph (viii)(5) provides that if the leg markets
were not marketable against a COA-eligible order when the order entered
the System (and thus prior to the initiation of a COA) but became
marketable with the COA-eligible order prior to the expiration of the
Response Time Interval, it will cause the COA to end.\18\ The
processing of the original COA pursuant to subparagraphs (d)(iv)
through (d)(vi) remains the same.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ This is similar to the result described in subparagraph
(viii)(1), which provides that an incoming complex order on the
opposite side of the market as and marketable against the COA-
eligible order will cause the COA to end.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For example, assume that the derived net leg market is $1.00 to
$1.05. A COA-eligible order to buy at a net price of $1.02 is entered
and initiates a COA. During the COA (prior to the end of the Response
Time Interval), the derived net leg market offer changes to $1.01.
Because this is marketable against the COA-eligible order, this change
in the derived net leg markets will cause the COA to end. Assuming the
derived net leg market offer price of $1.01 is the best net price at
the end of the COA,\19\ the COA-eligible order will execute against the
leg markets at that net price, and any remainder will then trade
against complex orders in the COB and auction responses. If a complex
order to buy was resting on the COB (for example, at a net price of
$1.01) at the initiation of the COA (for example, a do-not-COA order or
an order that is not COA-eligible),\20\ that order and the COA-eligible
order would be allocated against the leg markets in the same manner as
any other two complex orders pursuant to Rule 6.53C(c)(ii) regarding
COB executions, which is by price and then pursuant to the rules of
trading priority otherwise applicable to incoming orders in the
individual component legs. The COA-eligible order would always have
priority over the resting order, as it would always have a higher (if a
buy order) or lower (if a sell order) net price than the resting order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ The leg market offer would be the best price at the end of
the COA if no auction response, order resting in the COB, or order
that entered the System during the COA had a better price.
    \20\ As previously indicated, only orders that are marketable or
that improve the price on the same side of the market initiate a
COA. See supra note 1. Thus, for there to be a situation where a
complex order was already resting on the COB at the initiation of a
COA, the order resting on the COB would be at a worse price than the
COA-eligible order that initiated the COA. If there is a complex
order resting on the COB when that is on the same side and at the
same or better price than an incoming complex order, then the
incoming order will not COA and will also enter on the COB.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the example above, if a complex order to buy at a net price of
$1.01 was resting in the COB at the time the COA-eligible order to buy
at a net price of $1.02 entered the System and initiated the COA, and
the same change in the derived net leg markets occurs, assuming the
derived net leg market offer price of $1.01 is the best net price at
the end of the COA, the COA-eligible order will trade against the
derived net leg offer at $1.01 first, because it was entered at (and
thus willing to pay) a better net price than the resting complex order
(to the extent there was insufficient size in the leg markets to fill
the COA-eligible order, the remainder would then execute against
complex orders in the COB and auction responses). If there is
sufficient size left in the leg markets to trade against the resting
complex order, then the resting order will also trade (in full or in a
permissible ratio).
    Third, the proposed rule change amends Rule 6.53C(c)(ii)(3) and
Interpretation and Policy .06(c) to provide that all Trading Permit
Holders and PAR Officials may submit orders or quotes to trade against
orders in the COB. Currently, the rule provides that market
participants \21\ may submit these orders or quotes. While the rules
allow the Exchange to determine which order origin types (i.e., public
customer, Market-Makers, broker-dealers) are eligible for entry into
the COB,\22\ orders of the eligible origin types submitted by any
Trading Permit Holders (as applicable) or PAR Officials may enter the
COB.\23\ The proposed rule change updates the rule text to match
current System functionality.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ Rules 6.45A and 6.45B define market participants as Market-
Makers, Designated Primary Market-Makers with an appointment in the
subject class, and floor brokers and PAR Officials representing
orders in the trading crowd. Trading Permit Holders and PAR
Officials as a group is larger than market participants as a group,
as the term market participants does not include other types of
Trading Permit Holders (such as electronic proprietary traders or
brokers submitting electronic orders on behalf of customers from off
of the trading floor).
    \22\ See Rule 6.53C(c)(ii).
    \23\ The Exchange notes that only Market-Makers may submit
quotes. See Rule 8.7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, the proposed rule change makes technical and other
nonsubstantive changes. Currently, Interpretation and Policy .09
provides that the Exchange may determine on a class-by-class basis
which electronic matching algorithm from Rule 6.45A or 6.45B, as
applicable, will apply to COB executions in lieu of the algorithm
specified in Rule 6.53C(c)(ii)(2) and (3). The proposed rule change
moves that language from Interpretation and Policy .09 to both of those
paragraphs.\24\ The Exchange believes it is simpler and more convenient
to have the information regarding how COB executions may allocate in
one place within the rules. The proposed rule change also amends
subparagraph (c)(ii)(3) to provide that, like subparagraph (c)(ii)(2),
the allocation of complex orders submitted to trade against orders or
quotes in the COB that trade against those orders or quotes (which is
the trade activity to which that paragraph applies) will default to the
rules of trading priority otherwise applicable to incoming electronic
orders in the individual leg components. Interpretation and Policy .09
currently provides the Exchange with the authority to set this as the
allocation method for subparagraph (c)(ii)(3). The proposed change
merely indicates that, like the allocation of COB to COB trades as set
forth in subparagraph (c)(ii)(2), the allocation method will be the
same as the legs unless the Exchange provides otherwise.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ The proposed rule change also makes a corresponding change
to Interpretation and Policy .06(c), which relates to executions of
stock-options orders (types of complex orders) in the COB.

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

    In addition, the proposed rule change amends Rule 6.53C(c)(ii)(3)
to provide that order and quote types (not just quote types) not
eligible to rest or trade against the COB will be automatically
cancelled. The first several sentences in that subparagraph reference
orders and quotes eligible to rest on the COB. The Exchange intended
for both non-eligible orders and quotes to be cancelled; this proposed
change merely makes the language in this paragraph consistent
throughout. Additional nonsubstantive changes to Rule 6.53C are
discussed above.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with
the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to the
Exchange and, in particular, the requirements of Section 6(b) of the
Act.\25\ Specifically, the Exchange believes the proposed rule change
is consistent with the Section 6(b)(5) \26\ 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) \27\ requirement that the rules of
an exchange not be designed to permit unfair discrimination between
customers, issuers, brokers, or dealers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \26\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
    \27\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In particular, the proposed rule change removes impediments to a
free and open market and protects investors by providing Trading Permit
Holders with more flexibility regarding when complex orders will not
COA. The proposed rule change removes the affirmative obligation
currently imposed on Trading Permit Holders to request that their COA-
eligible orders with two legs COA on a class-by-class basis, as Trading
Permit Holders currently request that all of their COA-eligible orders
COA upon entry into the System. Therefore, the proposed rule change to
have COA as the default setting for COA-eligible orders will have no
impact on COA-eligible orders submitted to the Exchange. The proposed
rule change will allow Trading Permit Holders to evaluate then-current
market conditions and determine if they do not want to COA orders with
two legs based on those conditions and instead want those orders to
route to the COB for potential immediate execution. These orders with
do-not COA requests will continue to have execution opportunities and
be subject to the same priority and allocation rules. In addition, the
proposed rule change promotes just and equitable principles of trade
and promotes competition because another options exchange has a
substantially similar rule, as further described below, which similarly
allows members to designate that orders not initiate a complex order
auction on that exchange.\28\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ See NASDAQ OMX PHLX LLC (``PHLX'') Rule 1080, Commentary
.07(a)(viii) and (e) (describing the complex order live auction
(``COLA'') process and ``do not auction'' orders).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The current rules describe how COA-eligible orders received while a
COA is ongoing would impact the COA. The proposed rule change also adds
detail regarding how incoming orders with do-not-COA requests or that
are not COA-eligible, as well as how changes in the leg markets, may
impact ongoing COAs, which protects investors by enhancing the
description in CBOE Rules of current COA functionality and
circumstances that may cause a COA to end early. Because the proposed
rule change adds a provision regarding no-COA orders to the CBOE Rules,
the Exchange believes it is appropriate to add the provision regarding
how no-COA orders would impact a COA to the CBOE Rules as well to
ensure investors understand how these orders may impact a COA. The
Exchange believes the proposed rule change promotes just and equitable
principles of trade because, if these orders cause a COA to end, any
executions that occur following the COA occur in accordance with
allocation principles in place, subject to an exception that the
original COA-eligible order receive time priority. This exception
prevents an order that was entered after the initiation of a COA from
trading ahead of an order with the same price that may have executed or
entered the COB if it did not COA. Similarly, the Exchange believe it
is fair for a COA-eligible order that was entered at a better price
than an order that was resting in the COB prior to initiation of the
COA to execute against leg markets that become marketable against the
COA-eligible order and resting order during the COA, because the
Trading Permit Holder who entered the COA-eligible order was willing to
pay a better price than that of the resting order. Incoming orders that
do not COA and leg market changes impact a COA in a substantially
similar manner as incoming COA-eligible orders; the proposed rule
change just applies to different order types not covered by the current
Rules. This proposed change does not substantively change the COA or
allocation process.
    The proposed rule change to update the term market participants to
Trading Permit Holders and PAR Officials and to reorganize certain
provisions eliminates potential confusion regarding the processing of
complex orders. This additional information further perfects the
mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system and
protects investors. Additionally, updating the term market participants
to Trading Permit Holders and PAR Officials further benefits investors
because it more accurately describes who may enter complex orders into
the System. The Exchange notes that the Trading Permit Holders and PAR
Officials includes all participants included in the current market
participant definition (as well as additional participants).

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

    CBOE 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 proposed rule change,
including the ability to designate orders to not COA, is available to
all Trading Permit Holders. The Exchange believes the proposed rule
change provides Trading Permit Holders with more flexibility with
respect to the submission of their complex orders. The proposed rule
change also eliminates the affirmative obligation imposed on Trading
Permit Holders to request that COA-eligible orders COA, which they all
do for all classes. While Trading Permit Holders may need to undertake
system work to allow them to include a do-not-COA request on orders,
use of this designation is voluntary. CBOE believes this flexibility
may promote competition by encouraging submission of complex orders to
the Exchange. To the extent that proposed rule change makes CBOE a more
attractive marketplace to market participants on other exchanges, such
market participants may elect to send orders to CBOE to take advantage
of the additional functionality. Additionally, other exchanges may
determine to provide similar functionality and further enhance
competition. The Exchange also notes that other options exchanges have
substantially similar

provisions as the proposed rule change, as described above.
    The proposed rule change to add detail to the rules regarding the
impact of changes in the leg markets on a COA describes current
functionality and is merely intended to enhance the description of this
functionality in the Rules, and thus has no impact on competition. The
nonsubstantive and technical changes have no impact on competition.

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

    Within 45 days of the date of publication of this notice in the
Federal Register or within such longer period up to 90 days (i) as the
Commission may designate if it finds such longer period to be
appropriate and publishes its reasons for so finding or (ii) as to
which the Exchange consents, the Commission will:
    A. By order approve or disapprove such proposed rule change, or
    B. institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule
change should be disapproved.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-CBOE-2015-089 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-CBOE-2015-089. 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-CBOE-2015-089 and should be
submitted on or before November 23, 2015.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\29\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Robert W. Errett,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2015-27793 Filed 10-30-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


PAPERWORK REDUCTION ACT SUBMISSION Please read the instructions before completing this form. For additional forms or assistance in completing this form, contact your agency's Paperwork Clearance Officer. Send two copies of this form, the collection instrument to be reviewed, the Supporting Statement and any additional documentation to: Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, Docket Library, Room 10102, 725 17th Street NW Washington, DC 20503.

1. Agency/ Subagency originating request EPA\ Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response\ Office of Underground Storage Tanks 2. OMB control number b. G None a 2 0 5 0  0 0 6 8 3. Type of information collection ( check one) a. G New collection b. G Revision of a currently approved collection c. X Extension of a currently approved collection d. G Reinstatement, without change, of a previously approved collection for which approval has expired e. G Reinstatement, with change, of a previously approved collection for which approval has expired f. G Existing collection in use without an OMB control number 4. Type of review requested ( check one) a. X Regular b. G Emergency  Approval requested by: / / c. G Delegated 5. Small entities Will this information collection have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities? X Yes G No For b f, note item A2 of Supporting Statement Instructions 6. Requested expiration date a. X Three years from approval date b. G Other Specify: / /___

7. Title: Underground Storage Tanks: Technical and Financial Requirements, and State Program Approval Procedures ( Renewal)

8. Agency form number( s) ( If applicable): ICR #: 1360.07, EPA Form # 7530 1 9. Keywords: Underground Storage Tanks 10. Abstract Subtitle I of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act ( RCRA), as amended, requires that the EPA develop standards for USTs as may be necessary to protect human health and the environment and procedures for approving state programs. EPA promulgated technical and financial requirements for owners and operators of USTs at 40 CFR part 280 and state program approval procedures at 40 CFR part 281. This ICR is comprehensive presentation of all information collection requirements contained at 40 CFR parts 280 and 281. In developing this ICR, EPA has revised its respondent universe and burden estimates based on updated data from the Office of Underground Storage Tanks, and State and industry sources. The burden estimates have been greatly affected by the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 ( PRA) which emphasized the need to separate the listing of ( 1) capital and ( 2) operational and maintenance costs. EPA estimates that around 95% of the overall burden reflected in this ICR can be attributed to changes in definition in the PRA. Furthermore, these estimates were affected by shifting the services provided by outside contractors (" purchased services") from the labor category to the O& M category; this accounting change reduced the " hours" burden and increased the " financial" burden. It should be noted that most of these costs were included in the Regulatory Impact Analyses for these requirements but had not been explicitly acounted for in previous ICRs.

11. Affected public ( Mark primary with " P" and all others that apply with " X") a. Individuals or households d. Farms b. P Business or other for profit e. X Federal Government c. X Not for profit institutions f. X State, Local or Tribal Government 12. Obligation to respond ( Mark primary with " P" and all others that apply with " X") a. G Voluntary b. G Required to obtain or retain benefits c. P Mandatory 13. Annual reporting and recordkeeping hour burden a. Number of respondents 254,705 b. Total annual responses 500,000 1. Percentage of these responses collected electronically 0 % c. Total hours requested 6,132,237 d. Current OMB inventory 6,025,543 e. Difference 106,694 f. Explanation of difference 1. Program Change 2. Adjustment 106,694 14. Annual reporting and recordkeeping cost burden ( in thousands of dollars)

a. Total annualized capital/ startup costs 80,251 b. Total annual costs ( O& M) 263,256 c. Total annualized cost requested 343,507 d. Current OMB inventory 363 e. Difference 343,144 f. Explanation of difference 1. Program change 2. Adjustment 343,144 15. Purpose of information collection ( Mark Primary With " P" and all others that apply with " X") a. __ Application for benefits e. X Program planning or management b_ X Program evaluation f. __ Research c. X General purpose statistics g. P Regulatory or compliance d. __ Audit 16. Frequency of recordkeeping or reporting ( check all that apply) a. X Recordkeeping b. Q Third party disclosure c. X Reporting 1. Q On occasion 2. Q Weekly 3. Q Monthly 4. Q Quarterly 5. Q Semi annually 6. Q Annually 7. Q Biannually 8. X Other ( describe) Varies 17. Statistical methods Does this information collection employ statistical methods?

Q Yes X No 18. Agency contact ( person who can best answer questions regarding the content of this submission) Name: Elizabeth Ketchum Phone: 703 603 7144 OMB 83 I 10/ 95 19. Certification for Paperwork Reduction Act Submissions On behalf of this Federal agency, 1 certify that the collection of information encompassed by this request complies with' 5 CFR 1320.9.

NOTE: The text of 5 CFR 1320.9, and the related provisions of 5 CFR 1320.8( b)( 3), appear at the end of the instructions. The certification is to be made with reference to those regulatory provisions as set forth in the instructions.

The following is a summary of the topics, regarding the proposed collection of information, that the certification covers:

( a) It is necessary for the proper performance of agency functions;

( b) It avoids unnecessary duplication;

( c) It reduces burden on small entities;

( d) It uses plain, coherent, and unambiguous terminology that is understandable to respondents;

( e) Its implementation will be consistent and compatible with current reporting and recordkeeping practices;

( f) It indicates the retention periods for recordkeeping requirements;

( g) It informs respondents of the information called for under 5 CFR 1320.8( b)( 3): ( I) Why the information is being collected' ( ii) Use of information; ( iii) Burden estimate; ( iv) Nature of response ( voluntary, required for a benefit, or mandatory); ( v) Nature and extent of confidentiality; and ( vi) Need to display currently valid OMB control number;

( h) It was developed by an office that has planned and allocated resources for the efficient and effective management and use of the information to be collected ( see note in Item 19 of the instructions);

( I) It uses effective and efficient statistical survey methodology; and ( j) It makes appropriate use of information technology.

If you are unable to certify compliance with any of these provisions, identify the item below and explain the reason in Item 18 of the Supporting Statement.

Signature of Program Official Cliff Rothenstein, Director, Office of Underground Storage Tanks Date Signature of Senior Official or designee Oscar Morales, Director Collection Strategies Division Office of Environmental Information Date OMB 83 I 10/ 95


[Federal Register: September 16, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 178)]
[Notices]
[Page 47642-47643]
[DOCID:fr16se09-111]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Issuance of Final Report of the 2008 Amateur-Built Aircraft
Aviation Rulemaking Committee.

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration, DOT.
SUMMARY: This notice announces the issuance of the final report of the
2008 Amateur-Built Aircraft Aviation Rulemaking Committee (2008 ARC).
The report provides the 2008 ARC's recommendations regarding the
disposition of (1) public comments received on the proposed changes to
Order 8130.2F and AC 20-27G; (2) the definition of ``fabrication'' as
it differs from ``assembly'' within the scope of Title 14, Code of
Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 21, Certification Procedures for
Products and Parts, Sec.  21.191(g), Operating amateur-built aircraft;
and (3) a process to minimize the impact of the proposed policy on
amateur-built kits evaluated by the FAA before February 15, 2008.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Frank P. Paskiewicz, Manager,
Production and Airworthiness Division, Aircraft Certification Service,
AIR-200, Federal Aviation Administration, 950 L'Enfant Plaza, SW., 5th
Floor, Suite 500, Washington, DC 20024; telephone number: (202) 385-
6346. A copy of the final report may be obtained by accessing the FAA's
Web site at http://www.faa.gov/aircraft/gen_av/ultralights/amateur_
built/media/ARC_FINAL_2008_report.pdf.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    On February 14, 2008, the 2006 Amateur-Built Aircraft Aviation
Rulemaking Committee (ARC) published its Final Report. This report
found that FAA directives setting policy for amateur-built aircraft
``do not adequately address the issue of commercial assistance,''
determined that the ``aircraft kit evaluation process is not
standardized,'' and cited the need for additional training for
inspectors to ``fully understand the FAA's expectations when
determining an aircraft's eligibility for an amateur-built
certificate.'' Based on the ARC's report, the FAA published a notice in
the Federal Register on February 15, 2008,\1\ temporarily suspending
amateur-built aircraft kit evaluations. The FAA decided that its
directives governing the amateur-built aircraft sector required review
and revision.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Notice of Temporary Suspension of Amateur-Built Aircraft Kit
Evaluations Previously Conducted by the Federal Aviation
Administration, Aircraft Certification Service (73 FR 8926, February
15, 2008).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Subsequently, the FAA published a notice in the Federal Register on
July 15, 2008, announcing proposed changes to, and seeking public
comments on (1) FAA Order 8130.2F, Airworthiness Certification of
Aircraft and Related Products, Chapter 4, Special Airworthiness
Certification, Section 9, Experimental Amateur-Built Airworthiness
Certifications; and (2) AC 20-27G, Certification and Operation of
Amateur-Built Aircraft.\2\ The original comment period opened on July
15, 2008, and closed on August 15, 2008.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Notification of Policy Revisions, and Requests for Comments
on the Percentage of Fabrication and Assembly that Must Be Completed
by an Amateur Builder to Obtain an Experimental Airworthiness
Certificate for an Amateur-Built Aircraft (73 FR 40652, July 15,
2008).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Upon request, the FAA extended the comment period to September 30,
2008,\3\ and then reopened the comment period from October 31, 2008,
through December 15, 2008.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See Notification of Policy Revisions, and Requests for
Comments on the Percentage of Fabrication and Assembly That Must Be
Completed by an Amateur Builder to Obtain an Experimental
Airworthiness Certificate for an Amateur-Built Aircraft; Extension
of Comment Period (73 FR 43278, July 24, 2008).
    \4\ The FAA reopened the comment period because the proposed
Order 8130.2F and AC 20-27G had been inadvertently removed from the
FAA Web site during the comment period. (See 73 FR 65007, October
31, 2008.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On November 4, 2008, the Amateur-Built ARC was rechartered with
Order 1110.143A, Amateur-Built Aircraft Aviation Rulemaking Committee
to advise the FAA on issues concerning disposition of the public
comments, the enhanced definition of the term ``fabrication'' and
grandfathering of FAA-listed amateur-built aircraft kits.
    The 2008 ARC met in Washington, DC on January 27 through 29, 2009,
to consider the items listed above; the ARC also--
     Reevaluated the 20/20/11 requirement; \5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ 20/20/11 was an FAA proposal requiring an amateur builder to
fabricate a minimum 20 percent of an aircraft and assemble a minimum
of 20 percent of the aircraft.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Evaluated an updated FAA Form 8000-38, Fabrication/
Assembly Operation Checklist;
     Discussed the creation of a National Kit Evaluation Team,
consisting of FAA

Aviation Safety Inspectors, to establish a standardized aircraft kit
evaluation process; and
     Discussed the conversion of type-certificated aircraft
into amateur-built aircraft.
    The FAA will take the 2008 ARC's recommendations into consideration
in the formulation of the final revisions to FAA Order 8130.2F, and AC
20-27G.

    Dated: September 11, 2009.
Frank P. Paskiewicz,
Manager, Production and Airworthiness Division.
[FR Doc. E9-22339 Filed 9-15-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 236 (Monday, December 13, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 70882-70885]
[FR Doc No: 2021-26860]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-93731; File No. SR-NASDAQ-2021-066]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; The Nasdaq Stock Market LLC; Order
Instituting Proceedings To Determine Whether To Approve or Disapprove a
Proposed Rule Change, as Modified by Amendment No. 1, To List and Trade
Shares of the Valkyrie XBTO Bitcoin Futures Fund Under Nasdaq Rule
5711(g)

December 7, 2021.
    On August 23, 2021, The Nasdaq Stock Market LLC (``Nasdaq'' or
``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission''), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ a
proposed rule change to list and trade shares (``Shares'') of the
Valkyrie XBTO Bitcoin Futures Fund (``Trust'') under Nasdaq Rule
5711(g). On August 25, 2021, Nasdaq filed Amendment No. 1 to the
proposed rule change. The proposed rule change, as modified by
Amendment No. 1, was published for comment in the Federal Register on
September 9, 2021.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 92865 (Sept. 2,
2021), 86 FR 50570 (Sept. 9, 2021) (``Notice'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On September 29, 2021, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act,\4\
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 to disapprove the proposed rule
change.\5\ The Commission has received no comments on the proposed rule
change. This order institutes proceedings under Section 19(b)(2)(B) of
the Act \6\ to determine whether to approve or disapprove the proposed
rule change, as modified by Amendment No. 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).
    \5\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 93172, 86 FR 55071
(Oct. 5, 2021). The Commission designated December 8, 2021, as the
date by which it should approve, disapprove, or institute
proceedings to determine whether to disapprove the proposed rule
change.
    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2)(B).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

I. Summary of the Proposal

    As described in more detail in the Notice,\7\ the Exchange proposes
to list and trade the Shares of the Trust under Nasdaq Rule 5711(g),
which governs the listing and trading of Commodity Futures Trust Shares
on the Exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See Notice, supra note 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The investment objective of the Trust is for the Shares to reflect
the performance of bitcoin as represented by the CME CF Bitcoin
Reference Rate (``CME CF BRR''), less the Trust's liabilities and
expenses.\8\ The CME CF BRR aggregates the trade flow of major bitcoin
spot platforms during a specific calculation window into a one-a-day
reference rate of the U.S. dollar price of bitcoin.\9\ The Trust
pursues its investment objective primarily by investing in bitcoin
futures (``Bitcoin Futures'') that are cash-settled and traded on
commodity exchanges registered with the Commodity Futures Trading
Commission (``CFTC'').\10\ At

expiration, the cash settlement amount for the Bitcoin Futures held by
the Trust will be determined by comparing the price at which the Trust
purchased the futures contract on the relevant futures exchange with
the reference rate specified by that exchange on the expiration
date.\11\ The Trust does not invest in bitcoin or other digital assets
directly. In addition to the Trust's investments in Bitcoin Futures,
the Trust expects to have significant holdings of cash and high-
quality, short-term debt instruments that have terms-to-maturity of
less than 397 days, such as U.S. government securities and repurchase
agreements (``Money Market Instruments'').\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See id. at 50574. Valkyrie Funds LLC (``Sponsor'') serves as
the Trust's sponsor and commodity pool operator; Vident Investment
Advisory, LLC (``Sub-Advisor'') serves as the Trust's sub-advisor
and commodity trading advisor; and XBTO Trading, LLC is the research
provider for the Sponsor and the Sub-Advisor. Delaware Trust Company
serves as the trustee for the Trust. The Sponsor is currently
considering third-party service providers for the roles of
administrator, transfer agent, custodian, and marketing agent. See
id. at 50571.
    \9\ See id. at 50573 n.8. According to the Exchange, calculation
rules are geared toward maximum transparency and real-time
replicability in underlying spot markets, including Bitstamp,
Coinbase, Gemini, itBit, and Kraken. See id.
    \10\ See id. at 50574. The Exchange also represents that it will
pursue its investment objective solely by holding Bitcoin Futures
that are cash-settled and traded on the Chicago Mercantile Exchange,
Inc. (``CME''). See id. at 50571.
    \11\ For example, the CME has specified that the reference rate
for its Bitcoin Futures will be a volume-weighted composite of
Bitcoin prices on multiple bitcoin platforms. See id. at 50574.
    \12\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The net asset value (``NAV'') of the Trust will be determined in
accordance with Generally Accepted Accounting Principles as the total
value of bitcoin held by the Trust, plus any cash or other assets, less
any liabilities including accrued but unpaid expenses. The NAV per
Share will be determined by dividing the NAV of the Trust by the number
of Shares outstanding. The NAV of the Trust is typically determined as
of 4:00 p.m. E.T., on each day the Shares trade on the Exchange
(``Business Day''). The Trust's daily activities are generally not
reflected in the NAV determined for the Business Day on which the
transactions are effected (the trade date), but rather on the following
Business Day. Bitcoin Futures traded on a U.S. exchange are generally
valued using the last traded price before the NAV calculation time on
the date with respect to which the NAV is being determined. Money
Market Instruments will generally be valued at their market price using
market quotations or information provided by a pricing service.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ See id. at 50574-75.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On each Business Day, before commencement of trading in Shares
during regular trading hours, the Trust will disclose on its website
the portfolio that will form the basis for the Trust's calculation of
NAV at the end of the Business Day.\14\ The Trust's website will
provide an intra-day indicative value (``IIV'') per Share updated every
15 seconds, as calculated by the Exchange or a third-party financial
data provider during the Exchange's Regular Market Session (9:30 a.m.
to 4:00 p.m. E.T.). The IIV will be calculated by using the prior day's
closing NAV per Share as a base and updating that value during the
Exchange's Regular Market Session to reflect changes in the value of
the Trust's NAV during the trading day.\15\ Intraday price information
for Bitcoin Futures is available directly from the applicable listing
venue and through subscription services, such as Bloomberg and Thomson
Reuters, which can be accessed by authorized participants (as defined
herein) and other investors. Intraday price quotations on Money Market
Instruments of the type held by the Trust are available from major
broker-dealer firms and from third-parties, and pricing information
related to Money Market Instruments will also be available through
issuer websites and publicly available quotation services such as
Bloomberg, Markit, and Thomson Reuters.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ See id. at 50582.
    \15\ See id. at 50580.
    \16\ See id. at 50583.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Trust would issue and redeem Shares on a continuous basis at
NAV per Share in large, specified blocks of Shares (``Creation Units'')
in transactions with broker-dealers and large institutional investors
that have entered into participation agreements (``Authorized
Participants''). The Exchange currently anticipates that a Creation
Unit will consist of 50,000 Shares, although this number may change
from time to time. In addition, the Exchange currently expects that the
Trust's Creation Units will generally be issued and redeemed for
cash.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ See id. at 50579-80. Upon the request of an Authorized
Participant made at the time of a redemption order, the Sponsor at
its sole discretion may determine, in addition to delivering
redemption proceeds, to transfer futures contracts to the Authorized
Participant pursuant to an exchange of a futures contract for
related position or to a block trade sale of futures contracts to
the Authorized Participant. See id. at 50580.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Proceedings To Determine Whether To Approve or Disapprove SR-
NASDAQ-2021-066 and Grounds for Disapproval Under Consideration

    The Commission is instituting proceedings pursuant to Section
19(b)(2)(B) of the Act \18\ to determine whether the proposed rule
change should be approved or disapproved. Institution of proceedings is
appropriate at this time in view of the legal and policy issues raised
by the proposed rule change, as discussed below. Institution of
proceedings does not indicate that the Commission has reached any
conclusions with respect to any of the issues involved. Rather, as
described below, the Commission seeks and encourages interested persons
to provide comments on the proposed rule change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2)(B).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(2)(B) of the Act,\19\ 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 Section 6(b)(5)
of the Act, which requires, among other things, that the rules of a
national securities exchange be ``designed to prevent fraudulent and
manipulative acts and practices'' and ``to protect investors and the
public interest.'' \20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Commission asks that commenters address the sufficiency of the
Exchange's statements in support of the proposal, which are set forth
in the Notice,\21\ 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 questions and asks commenters to submit
data where appropriate to support their views:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ See Notice, supra note 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    1. What are commenters' views on whether the proposed Trust and
Shares would be susceptible to manipulation? What are commenters' views
generally on whether the Exchange's proposal is designed to prevent
fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices?
    2. The Exchange asserts that ``bitcoin and its surrounding
ecosystem have evolved sufficiently to support the approval of a
Bitcoin Futures ETF because the concerns the Commission has identified
previously have been addressed.'' \22\ The Exchange also asserts that
``the Bitcoin Futures market has sufficiently developed since the prior
disapproval orders such that the market for Bitcoin Futures now
resembles the market for other commodities at the time the related
commodity futures-based ETP was approved for listing.'' \23\ What are
commenters' views regarding such assertions? Are the developments that
the Exchange identifies sufficient to support a determination that the
proposal to list and trade the Shares is designed to protect investors
and the public interest and is consistent with the other applicable
requirements of Section 6(b)(5) of the Act?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ See id. at 50571.
    \23\ See id. at 50575.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    3. According to the Exchange, ``[n]early every measurable metric
related to CME Bitcoin Futures has trended consistently up since launch

and/or accelerated upward in the past year.'' \24\ The Exchange asserts
that ``both the bitcoin and bitcoin futures markets have developed to
the point that the CME Bitcoin Futures market is a `regulated market of
significant size.' '' \25\ Based on data provided and the academic
research cited by the Exchange, do commenters agree that the CME
Bitcoin Futures market now represents a regulated market of significant
size? \26\ What are commenters' views on whether there is a reasonable
likelihood that a person attempting to manipulate the Shares would also
have to trade on the CME to manipulate the Shares?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ See id. at 50573.
    \25\ See id. at 50571.
    \26\ See id. at 50576-78.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    4. The Exchange states it believes that ``trading in the Shares
would not be the predominant force on prices in the Bitcoin Futures
market'' because of the significant volume in the Bitcoin Futures
market, the size of bitcoin's market cap, and the significant liquidity
available in the spot market.\27\ What are commenters' views on the
Exchange's assertion and the data provided by the Exchange to support
such assertion?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ See id. at 50578.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    5. The Exchange asserts that the CME CF BRR is not readily
susceptible to manipulation due to the design of its methodology, which
the Exchange believes adequately protects the Trust from potential
price manipulation.\28\ What are commenters' views on these assertions?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ See id. at 50578-79.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    6. The Exchange asserts the CME's compliance with the CFTC's Core
Principles for Designated Contract Markets as set forth in the
Commodity Exchange Act means that the Trust's core asset (i.e., CME
Bitcoin Futures) is ``a well-regulated instrument that is not readily
susceptible to manipulation.'' \29\ The Exchange further asserts that
CME Bitcoin Futures are not readily subject to manipulation or
distortion because they are cash-settled and subject to real-time trade
monitoring and comprehensive and accurate trade reconstruction.\30\
What are commenters' views regarding the Exchange's assertions? Are the
Exchange's assertions sufficient to support the determination that the
proposal to list and trade the Shares is designed to prevent fraudulent
and manipulative acts and practices and is consistent with the other
applicable requirements of Section 6(b)(5) of the Act?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ See id. at 50579.
    \30\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    7. What are commenters' views of the claim that the similarities of
the operational characteristics and regulatory requirements applicable
to bitcoin futures-based exchange-traded funds (``ETFs'') that both
register the sale of their shares under the Securities Act of 1933
(``1933 Act'') and are regulated under the Investment Company Act of
1940 (``1940 Act'') and bitcoin futures-based exchange-traded products
(``ETPs'') that register the sale of their shares under the 1933 Act
but are not regulated under the 1940 Act are such that these types of
products should not be treated differently by the Commission? \31\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \31\ The Commission previously made a similar request for
comment in connection with statements made by a sponsor of a
proposed bitcoin futures-based ETP similar to the Trust. See
Securities Exchange Act Release No. 93534 (Nov. 8, 2021), 86 FR
63082, 63084 (Nov. 15, 2021) (SR-NYSEArca-2021-53) (Order
Instituting Proceedings to Determine Whether to Approve or
Disapprove a Proposed Rule Change To List and Trade Shares of the
Teucrium Bitcoin Futures Fund Under NYSE Arca Rule 8.200-E,
Commentary .02) (Trust Issued Receipts) (citing to Letter from W.
Thomas Conner, Vedder Price, on behalf of the sponsor, dated
September 1, 2021, available at https://www.sec.gov/comments/sr-nysearca-2021-53/srnysearca202153-9197848-249688.pdf.)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. 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 Section 6(b)(5) or any other provision of the Act, and
the rules and regulations thereunder. 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.\32\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \32\ Section 19(b)(2) of the 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 January 3, 2022. Any person who wishes to file a
rebuttal to any other person's submission must file that rebuttal by
January 18, 2022.
    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-NASDAQ-2021-066 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-NASDAQ-2021-066. 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-NASDAQ-2021-066 and should be submitted
by January 3, 2022. Rebuttal comments should be submitted by January
18, 2022.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\33\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \33\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(57).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

J. Matthew DeLesDernier,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2021-26860 Filed 12-10-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P