October 6, 2003 List of Documents for FIFRA Scientific Advisory Panel Meeting on Regulatory Use of In Vitro Systems October 28 29, 2003 1. Interagency Coordinating Committee for Validation of Alternative Methods. 2003. ICCVAM Guidelines for the Nomination and Submission of New, Revised and Alternative Test Methods. NIH Publication 03 4508. September 2003.

2. Interagency Coordinating Committee for Validation of Alternative Methods. 2003. ICCVAM Minimum Performance Standards: In Vitro Membrane Barrier Test Systems for Skin Corrosion.

3. Interagency Coordinating Committee for Validation of Alternative Methods. 2003. ICCVAM Minimum Performance Standards: In Vitro Human Skin Model Systems for Skin Corrosion.

4. Interagency Coordinating Committee for Validation of Alternative Methods. 2003. ICCVAM Minimum Performance Standards: In Vitro Skin Transcutaneous Electrical Resistance ( TER) Tests for Skin Corrosion.

5. Interagency Coordinating Committee for Validation of Alternative Methods. 2003. Attachment to memorandum from ICCVAM to OECD dated February 19, 2003. Justification for Development of An OECD Guidance Document on the Application of Good Laboratory Practice ( GLP) Principles to In Vitro Testing.

6. Interagency Coordinating Committee for Validation of Alternative Methods. 1997. Validation and Regulatory Acceptance of Toxicological Methods of Test Methods. NIH Publication 97 3981. March 1997. See Chapter 2. Validation of Test Methods and Chapter 3. Regulatory Acceptance of Toxicological Test Methods.

7 Interagency Coordinating Committee for Validation of Alternative Methods. 1999. Corrositex

: An In Vitro Test Method for Assessing Dermal Corrosivity Potential of Chemicals. NIH Publication No. 99 4495. June 1999.

8. Interagency Coordinating Committee for Validation of Alternative Methods. 2002. ICCVAM Evaluation of EPISKIN TM, EpiDerm TM ( EPI 200), and the Rat Skin Transcutaneous Electrical Resistance ( TER) Assay: In Vitro Test Methods for Assessing Dermal Corrosivity Potential of Chemicals. NIH Publication No. 02 4502. June 2002. .

9. Hartung, T., Balls, M., Bardouille, C., Blanck, O., Coecke, S., Gstraunthaler, G., and Lewis, D. ( 2003). Good Cell Culture Practice: ECVAM Good Cell Culture Practice Task Force Report 1. ATLA 30: 407 414.

10. Cooper Hannan, R., Harbell, J. W., Coecke, S., Balls, M., Bowe, G., Cervinka, M., Clothier, R., Hermann, F., Klahn, L. K., de Lange, J., Lievsch, M and Vanparys, P. ( 1999). The principles of Good Laboratory Practice: Application to in vitro toxicology studies. The report and recommendations of ECVAM workshop 37. ATLA 27, 539 577.

11. OPPTS Harmonized Test Guideline 870.2600 Acute Dermal Irritation.

12. Environmental Protection Agency. 40 CFR 160 Good Laboratory Practice Standards ( Office of Pesticides) July 1, 2003.

13 Environmental Protection Agency. 40 CFR 792 Good Laboratory Practice Standards ( Office of Prevention and Toxic Substances). July 1, 2002.

14 Environmental Protection Agency. Documents for FIFRA Scientific Advisory Panel Meeting on Regulatory Use of In Vitro Systems,. October 28 29, 2003. ( This document is a list of documents which appeared on the disk submitted to OSCP on October 2, 2003.

15. Microarray Gene Expression Data Society. Minimum Information About a Microarray Experiment _ MIAME for Toxicogenomics ( MIAME/ TOX). Draft report February 12, 2003.


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 73 (Monday, April 19, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 20421-20426]
[FR Doc No: 2021-07960]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-91546; File No. SR-C2-2021-005)

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Cboe C2 Exchange, Inc.; Notice of
Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To Amend
Its Fees Schedule

April 13, 2021.
    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 April 1, 2021, Cboe C2 Exchange, Inc. (the ``Exchange'' or ``C2'')
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``SEC'' or
``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I, II,
and III below, which Items have been prepared by the Exchange. The
Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the
proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    Cboe C2 Exchange, Inc. (the ``Exchange'' or ``C2'') is filing with
the Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'') a proposed rule
change to amend the fees schedule. 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/options/regulation/rule_filings/ctwo/), 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 its fee schedule to (1) amend the
standard transaction fees and rebates for certain SPY, AAPL, QQQ, IWM
and SLV transactions, (2) adopt tiered pricing for SPY, AAPL, QQQ, IWM
and SLV Market-Maker transactions, (3) adopt a discount program for
Bulk BOE Logical Ports, (4) adopt a ``Definitions'' section in the fees
schedule, and (5) eliminate outdated language and obsolete facilities
fees, effective April 1, 2021.
    The Exchange first notes that it operates in a highly competitive
market in which market participants can readily direct order flow to
competing venues if they deem fee levels at a particular venue to be
excessive or incentives to be insufficient. More specifically, the
Exchange is only one of 16 options venues to which market participants
may direct their order flow. Based on publicly available information,
no single options exchange has more than approximately 17% of the
market share and currently the Exchange represents approximately 3% of
the market share.\3\ Thus, in such a low-concentrated and highly
competitive market, no single options exchange, including the Exchange,
possesses significant pricing power in the execution of option order
flow. The Exchange believes that the ever-shifting market share among
the exchanges from month to month demonstrates that market participants
can shift order flow or discontinue to reduce use of certain categories
of products, in response to fee changes. Accordingly, competitive
forces constrain the Exchange's transaction fees, and market
participants can readily trade on competing venues if they deem pricing
levels at those other venues to be more favorable.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See Cboe Global Markets U.S. Options Market Volume Summary
by Month (March 29, 2021), available at https://markets.cboe.com/us/options/market_statistics/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

SPY, AAPL, QQQ, IWM and SLV Pricing
    First, the Exchange proposes to amend the transaction fee for
Public Customer orders in SPY, AAPL, QQQ, IWM and SLV that remove
liquidity. Currently, Public Customer orders in SPY, AAPL, QQQ, IWM and
SL, that remove liquidity are assessed a standard transaction fee of
$0.39 per contract and yield fee code ``SC''. The Exchange proposes to
reduce the standard transaction fee to $0.37 per contract.

The Exchange also proposes to reduce the current standard rebate for C2
Market-Maker orders in SPY, AAPL, QQQ, IWM and SLV that add liquidity.
Currently, C2 Market-Maker orders in SPY, AAPL, QQQ, IWM and SLV that
add liquidity are provided a standard rebate of $0.26 per contract and
yield fee code ``SM''. The Exchange proposes to reduce the standard
rebate to $0.20 per contract. The Exchange notes that the proposed
changes are in line with the pricing for similar market participants in
similar products on other exchanges.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See, e.g., MIAX Pearl Fee Schedule, Section 1 Transaction
Rebates/Fees, which provides for a fee of $0.46 per contract for
priority customer SPY orders that remove liquidity, $0.50 per
contract for priority customer IWM and QQQ orders that remove
liquidity, and $0.50 per contract for priority customer orders in
Penny Classes other than SPY, QQQ and IWM orders that remove
liquidity. See also Nasdaq ISE Pricing Schedule, Section 3, Footnote
5, which provides for tiered rebates for Market-Maker SPY, QQQ, and
IWM orders that add liquidity between $0.00-$0.26 per contract.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

SPY, AAPL, QQQ, IWM and SLV Incentive Tiers
    The Exchange also proposes to adopt new incentive tiers for C2
Market-Maker orders in SPY, AAPL, QQQ, IWM and SLV that add liquidity
under a new section in the fees schedule titled ``Footnotes''. The
proposed tiered pricing would provide Trading Permit Holders (``TPHs'')
opportunities to qualify for higher rebates where certain volume
criteria and thresholds are met in such products. Tiered pricing
provides an incremental incentive for TPHs to strive for higher tier
levels, which provides increasingly higher benefits or discounts for
satisfying increasingly more stringent criteria. Particularly, the
Exchange proposes to adopt under Footnote 1, new Market-Maker Volume
Tiers, which would provide enhanced rebates for qualifying C2 Market-
Maker orders in SPY, AAPL, QQQ, IWM and SLV that add liquidity (i.e.,
orders yielding fee code SM) that meet certain liquidity thresholds.
First, proposed Tier 1 would provide an enhanced rebate of $0.26 per
contract where a TPH: (1) Has an ADAV \5\ in Market-Maker orders in
SPY, AAPL, QQQ, IWM and SLV (i.e., yielding fee codes SM or SL) \6\
equal to or greater than 50,000 contracts; or (2) has a Step-Up ADAV
\7\ in Market-Maker orders in SPY, AAPL, QQQ, IWM and SLV (i.e.,
yielding fee codes SM or SL) equal to or greater than 15,000 contracts
from March 2021. The Exchange also proposes to adopt Tier 2, which
would provide a higher rebate of $0.30 per contract where a TPH meets
the more stringent criteria of having an ADAV in Market-Maker orders in
SPY, AAPL, QQQ, IWM and SLV (i.e., yielding fee codes SM or SL) equal
to or greater than 130,000 contracts. The Exchange notes that other
exchanges offer tiered pricing incentives for similar orders.\8\ The
proposed enhanced rebates and corresponding criteria are designed to
encourage Market-Makers to increase or grow their order flow on the
Exchange in SPY, AAPL, QQQ, IWM and SLV, which facilitates tighter
spreads, signaling increased activity from other market participants,
and thus ultimately contributes to deeper and more liquid markets and
provides greater execution opportunities on the Exchange to the benefit
of all market participants.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ ``ADAV'' means average daily added volume calculated as the
number of contracts added, per day.
    \6\ Fee code SL is currently appended to C2 Market Maker orders
in SPY, AAPL, QQQ, IWM and SLV that add liquidity and are a National
Best Bid or Offer (``NBBO'') Joiner or NBBO Setter and offers a
rebate of $0.31 per contract for such orders.
    \7\ ``Step-Up ADAV'' means ADAV in the relevant baseline month
subtracted from current ADAV.
    \8\ See, e.g, Nasdaq ISE Pricing Schedule, Section 3, Footnote
5, which provides for tiered rebates for Market-Maker SPY, QQQ, and
IWM orders that add liquidity between $0.00-$0.26 per contract.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

BOE Bulk Logical Ports Discount
    By way of background, the Exchange currently offers BOE Bulk
Logical Ports (``BOE Bulk Ports''), which provide users with the
ability to submit single and bulk order messages to enter, modify, or
cancel orders designated as Post Only Orders with a Time-in-Force of
Day or GTD with an expiration time on that trading day. BOE Bulk Ports
are assessed $1,500 per port, per month for the first 5 BOE Bulk Ports
and thereafter assessed $2,500 per port, per month for each additional
BOE Bulk Port. Each Bulk BOE Port also incurs the logical port fee
indicated in the table above when used to enter up to 30,000,000 orders
per trading day per logical port as measured on average in a single
month. Each incremental usage of up to 30,000,000 orders per day per
BOE Bulk Port will incur an additional logical port fee of $2,500 per
month (``incremental usage fees'').
    The Exchange now proposes to adopt a discount program for BOE Bulk
Ports which provides an opportunity for Market-Makers to obtain credits
on their monthly BOE Bulk Port fees (excluding incremental usage
fees).\9\ More specifically, the Exchange proposes to provide that
Market-Makers would receive a discount of 30% on monthly Bulk BOE Port
fees (excluding incremental usage fees) where a Market-Maker has (1) a
Step-Up ADAV equal to or greater than 0.025% of average OCV \10\ from
February 2021 and (2) a ``Make Rate'' equal to or greater than 85%. The
``Make Rate'' shall be derived from a Market-Maker's volume the
previous month in all symbols using the following formula: (i) The
Market-Maker's total simple add volume divided by (ii) the Market-
Maker's total simple volume.\11\ Trades on the open and complex orders
will be excluded from the Make Rate calculation. The Exchange will
aggregate the trading activity of separate Market-Maker firms for
purposes of the discount tier and make rate calculation if there is at
least 75% common ownership between the firms as reflected on each
firm's Form BD, Schedule A. The proposed BOE Bulk Port discount is
designed to attract liquidity from traditional Market-Makers and
encourage Market-Makers to grow their volume. Specifically, the
Exchange believes the proposal mitigates costs incurred by traditional
Market-Makers that focus on adding liquidity to the Exchange (as
opposed to those that provide and take, or just take). The Exchange
notes that its affiliate, Cboe Exchange, Inc. (``Cboe Options'')
similarly provides discounts on BOE Bulk Port fees based on a Market-
Maker's Make Rate the previous month.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ While BOE Bulk Ports are available to all market
participants, they are used primarily by Market Makers or firms that
conduct similar business activity.
    \10\ ``OCV'' (or ``OCC Customer Volume'' means, the total equity
and ETF options volume that clears in the Customer range at the
Options Clearing Corporation (``OCC'') for the month for which the
fees apply, excluding volume on any day that the Exchange
experiences an Exchange System Disruption and on any day with a
scheduled early market close.
    \11\ For example, a TPH's total simple add volume in March 2021
is 2,600,000 contracts and its total simple volume is 3,000,000
contracts, resulting in a Make Rate of 86.6%. As such, the TPH would
receive a 30% credit on its monthly Bulk Port fees for the month of
April 2021.
    \12\ See Cboe Options Fees Schedule, Market-Maker Access Credit.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Definitions
    The Exchange next proposes to adopt a new ``Definitions'' section
of its fees schedule. As described above, the Exchange intends to adopt
new tiered pricing for certain products and a new discount program for
BOE Bulk Ports which will provide TPHs opportunities to qualify for
higher rebates or a discount, respectively, where certain volume
criteria and thresholds are met. The volume thresholds refer to certain
terms that are not currently defined in the Exchange's fees schedule
(i.e., ``ADAV'', ``Step-Up ADAV'', and ``OCV''). The Exchange believes
clearly defining those terms in the fees schedule would reduce
potential

confusion, increase transparency, and benefit market participants.
Accordingly, the Exchange proposes to adopt the following definitions.
     ``ADAV'' means average daily added volume calculated as
the number of contracts added, per day.
    [cir] ADAV is calculated on a monthly basis, excluding contracts
added or removed on any day that the Exchange's system experiences a
disruption that lasts for more than 60 minutes during regular trading
hours (``Exchange System Disruption'') and on any day with a scheduled
early market close.
    [cir] Routed contracts are not included in ADAV calculation.
    [cir] With prior notice to the Exchange, a TPH may aggregate ADAV
or ADV with other TPHs that control, are controlled by, or are under
common control with such TPH.
     ``Step-Up ADAV'' means ADAV in the relevant baseline month
subtracted from current ADAV.
     ``OCC Customer Volume'' or ``OCV'' means the total equity
and ETF options volume that clears in the Customer range at the Options
Clearing Corporation (``OCC'') for the month for which the fees apply,
excluding volume on any day that the Exchange experiences an Exchange
System Disruption and on any day with a scheduled early market close.
    The Exchange notes the proposed definitions are substantively
similar to the definitions contained in one of the Exchange's affiliate
fees schedules.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ See Cboe EDGX Exchange, Inc. Fees Schedule, Definitions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Eliminate Outdated Language and Obsolete Facilities Fees
    The Exchange next proposes to eliminate obsolete language under the
Physical and Logical Connectivity Fees sections that reference legacy
physical and logical ports that were decommissioned in 2018.
Particularly, under the Physical Connectivity Fees section, the
Exchange proposes to eliminate the following language ``[t]hrough June
30, 2018, C2 market participants can elect to connect to C2's trading
system via either a 1 Gigabit Ethernet or a 10 Gigabit Ethernet Network
Access Port. No fees will be assessed for the legacy Network Access
Ports'', as such language is no longer relevant. The Exchange also
proposes to make clear that TPHs and non-TPHs only connect to C2's
trading system via Physical Ports (instead of ``may also'' connect,
which was relevant only when TPHs had the option of alternatively
connecting via legacy Network Access Ports). Under the Logical
Connectivity Fees section, the Exchange proposes to eliminate the
following language ``Port fees for BOE, FIX, BOE Bulk and Drop ports
will be assessed the full month rates for May for ports available for
use on the new trading platform beginning May 14, 2018'', along with
another reference to May 15, 2018, as such language is also outdated
and no longer relevant or necessary to maintain.
    Lastly, the Exchange proposes to eliminate the ``Facilities Fees''
section, which includes fees for the PULSe Workstation and related
footnotes. Particularly, on January 4, 2021, the Exchange
decommissioned the PULSe Workstation. Accordingly, the related PULSe
Workstation fees are no longer applicable nor necessary to maintain in
the fees schedule. The Exchange therefore proposes to eliminate the
language to avoid potential confusion and eliminate unnecessary
language
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with the objectives of Section 6 of the Act,\14\ in general, and
furthers the objectives of Section 6(b)(4),\15\ in particular, as it is
designed to provide for the equitable allocation of reasonable dues,
fees and other charges among its Members and issuers and other persons
using its facilities. The Exchange also believes that the proposed rule
change is consistent with the objectives of Section 6(b)(5) \16\
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, and, particularly, is not
designed to permit unfair discrimination between customers, issuers,
brokers, or dealers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ 15 U.S.C. 78f.
    \15\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).
    \16\ 15 U.S.C. 78f.(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As described above, the Exchange operates in a highly competitive
market in which market participants can readily direct order flow to
competing venues if they deem fee levels at a particular venue to be
excessive or incentives to be insufficient. In particular, the proposed
changes to Exchange execution fees and rebates for certain orders in
SPY, AAPL, QQQ, IWM and SLV are intended to attract order flow to the
Exchange by continuing to offer competitive pricing. More specifically,
the Exchange believes it is reasonable to reduce the current fee for
Public Customers that remove liquidity in SPY, AAPL, QQQ, IWM and SLV,
as such market participants will be paying lower fees for such
transactions and thus may be encouraged to increase retail SPY, AAPL,
QQQ, IWM and SLV order flow to the Exchange. Furthermore, the Exchange
believes its proposed change is reasonable as it is competitive and in
line with pricing for many of the same products at other exchanges.\17\
The Exchange believes the proposed change is equitable and not unfairly
discriminatory as it will apply to all Public Customers equally. The
Exchange also believes that it is equitable and not unfairly
discriminatory to assess a lower fee for Public Customer orders in SPY,
AAPL, QQQ, IWM and SLV as compared to other market participants because
customer order flow enhances liquidity on the Exchange for the benefit
of all market participants. Specifically, customer liquidity benefits
all market participants by providing more trading opportunities, which
attracts Market Makers. An increase in the activity of these market
participants in turn facilitates tighter spreads, which may cause an
additional corresponding increase in order flow from other market
participants. Moreover, the options industry has a long history of
providing preferential pricing to customers, and the Exchange's current
Fee Schedule currently does so in many places, as do the fees
structures of multiple other exchanges.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ See, e.g., MIAX Pearl Fee Schedule, Section 1 Transaction
Rebates/Fees, which provides for a fee of $0.46 per contract for
priority customer SPY orders that remove liquidity, $0.50 per
contract for priority customer IWM and QQQ orders that remove
liquidity, and $0.50 per contract for priority customer orders in
Penny Classes other than SPY, QQQ and IWM orders that remove
liquidity.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes it is reasonable to reduce the current rebate
for Market-Makers that add liquidity in SPY, AAPL, QQQ, IWM and SLV, as
such market participants will still be receive a rebate for such orders
(albeit at a lower amount). Additionally, the Exchange believes its
proposed change is reasonable as it is competitive and in line with
pricing for many of the same products at other exchanges.\18\ The
Exchange also notes that is providing opportunities for Market-Makers
to receive higher rebates for these same transactions via the proposed
Market-

Maker Volume tiers. The Exchange believes the proposed change is
equitable and not unfairly discriminatory as it will apply to all
Market-Makers equally.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ See, e.g., Nasdaq ISE Pricing Schedule, Section 3, Footnote
5, which provides for tiered rebates for Market-Maker SPY, QQQ, and
IWM orders that add liquidity between $0.00-$0.26 per contract.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes adopting Market-Maker Volume Tiers for C2
Market-Maker orders in SPY, AAPL, QQQ, IWM and SLV that add liquidity
because they provide additional opportunities for TPHs to receive
enhanced rebates on qualifying orders in a manner that incentivizes
increased Market-Maker order flow in certain multiply-listed options on
the Exchange. The Exchange notes that volume-based incentives and
discounts have been widely adopted by exchanges \19\ and are
reasonable, equitable and non-discriminatory because they are open to
all TPHs on an equal basis and provide additional benefits or discounts
that are reasonably related to (i) the value to an exchange's market
quality and (ii) associated higher levels of market activity, such as
higher levels of liquidity provision and/or growth patterns.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ See, e.g., Nasdaq ISE Pricing Schedule, Section 3, Footnote
5, which provides for tiered rebates for Market-Maker SPY, QQQ, and
IWM orders that add liquidity between $0.00-$0.26 per contract.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes the proposed Market-Maker Penny Volume Tiers
are reasonable means to encourage Market-Makers to increase their order
flow to specific multiply-listed options on the Exchange (i.e., SPY,
AAPL, QQQ, IWM and SLV). The Exchange notes that increased Market-Maker
activity, particularly, facilitates tighter spreads and an increase in
overall liquidity provider activity, both of which signal additional
corresponding increase in order flow from other market participants,
contributing towards a robust, well-balanced market ecosystem,
particularly in multiply-listed options on the Exchange. The Exchange
also believes that proposed enhanced rebates offered under proposed
Tiers 1 and 2 are reasonably based on the difficulty of satisfying the
proposed tiers' criteria and ensures the proposed rebate and thresholds
appropriately reflect the incremental difficulty in achieving the
Market-Maker Volume Tier. The Exchange believes that the proposed
enhanced rebates are also in line with the enhanced rebates currently
offered by another exchange for similar products.\20\ The Exchange also
believes it is reasonable, equitable and not unfairly discriminatory to
adopt pricing specific to certain orders in SPY, AAPL, QQQ, IWM and SLV
as the Exchange already offers product-specific pricing for these
orders and, and as noted above, other exchanges similarly provide for
product-specific tiered pricing.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ See, e.g., Nasdaq ISE Pricing Schedule, Section 3, Footnote
5, which provides for tiered rebates for Market-Maker SPY, QQQ, and
IWM orders that add liquidity between $0.00-$0.26 per contract.
    \21\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that the proposed Market-Maker Volume Tiers
represent an equitable allocation of fees and is not unfairly
discriminatory because it applies uniformly to all Market-Makers, in
that all Market Makers have the opportunity to compete for and achieve
the proposed tiers. The enhanced rebates will apply automatically and
uniformly to all Market-Makers that achieve the proposed corresponding
criteria. While the Exchange has no way of knowing whether this
proposed rule change would definitively result in any particular
Market-Maker qualifying for the proposed tiers, the Exchange believes
that approximately four Market-Makers will reasonably be able to
compete for and achieve the proposed criteria in proposed Tier 1 and at
least one Market-Maker will be able to achieve proposed Tier 2. The
Exchange notes, however, that the proposed tiers are open to any
Market-Maker that satisfies the tiers' criteria.
    The Exchange lastly notes that it does not believe the proposed
tiers will adversely impact any TPH's pricing. Rather, should a TPH not
meet the proposed criteria, the TPH will merely not receive the
enhanced rebates corresponding to Tier 1 or Tier 2, and will instead
receive the standard rebate.
    The Exchange believes the proposal to adopt credits for BOE Bulk
Ports is reasonable, equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because
it provides an opportunity for TPHs to pay lower fees for logical
connectivity. The Exchange notes that the proposed discount is in line
with the discount offered to Market-Makers on its affiliate exchange,
Cboe Options.\22\ Although only Market-Makers may receive the proposed
BOE Bulk Port credits, Market-Makers are valuable market participants
that provide liquidity in the marketplace and incur costs that other
market participants do not incur. For example, Market-Makers have a
number of obligations, including quoting obligations and fees
associated with appointments that other market participants do not
have. The Exchange also believes that the proposal provides an
incentive for TPHs to provide more liquidity to the Exchange. Greater
liquidity benefits all market participants by providing more trading
opportunities and tighter spreads. The Exchange believes it's also
reasonable, equitable and not unfairly discriminatory to provide
credits to those Market-Makers that primarily provide and post
liquidity to the Exchange, as the Exchange wants to continue to
encourage Market-Makers with significant Make Rates to continue to
participate on the Exchange and add liquidity. Moreover, the Exchange
notes that Market-Makers with a high Make Rate percentage generally
require higher amounts of capacity than other Market-Makers.
Particularly, Market-Makers with high Make Rates are generally
streaming significantly more quotes than those with lower Make Rates.
As such, Market-Makers with high Make Rates may incur more costs than
other Market-Makers as they may need to purchase multiple BOE Bulk
Ports in order to accommodate their capacity needs. The Exchange
believes the proposed credits for BOE Bulk Ports encourages Market-
Makers to continue to provide liquidity for the Exchange,
notwithstanding the costs incurred by purchasing multiple ports.
Particularly, the proposal is intended to mitigate the costs incurred
by traditional Market-Makers that focus on adding liquidity to the
Exchange (as opposed to those that provide and take, or just take).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ See Cboe Options Fees Schedule, Market-Maker Access Credit.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes the value of the proposed discount is also
commensurate with the difficulty to achieve the required thresholds.
While the Exchange has no way of predicting with certainty how many and
which TPHs will satisfy the proposed criteria to receive the discount,
the Exchange anticipates at least two TPHs to satisfy the criteria and
receive the discount. The Exchange does not believe the proposed
discount will adversely impact any TPH's pricing. Rather, should a TPH
not meet the proposed criteria, the TPH will merely not receive the
proposed discount.
    Lastly, the Exchange believes adopting a definitions section and
eliminating outdated language and obsolete fees maintains transparency
and clarity in the fees schedule and reduces potential confusion,
thereby removing impediments to and perfecting the mechanism of a free
and open market and a national market system, and, in general,
protecting investors and the public interest.

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 intramarket or intermarket competition that is not

necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
Rather, as discussed above, the Exchange believes that the proposed
change would encourage the submission of additional to a public
exchange, including in certain products (i.e., SPY, AAPL, QQQ, IWM and
SLV) thereby promoting market depth, price discovery and transparency
and enhancing order execution opportunities for all TPHs. As a result,
the Exchange believes that the proposed change furthers the
Commission's goal in adopting Regulation NMS of fostering competition
among orders, which promotes ``more efficient pricing of individual
stocks for all types of orders, large and small.''
    The Exchange believes the proposed rule change does not impose any
burden on intramarket competition that is not necessary or appropriate
in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. Particularly, the proposed
change applies to all similarly situated Trading Permit Holders
equally. Additionally, the proposed change is designed to attract
additional SPY, AAPL, QQQ, IWM and SLV Public Customer orders that
remove liquidity and SPY, AAPL, QQQ, IWM and SLV Market Maker orders
that add liquidity to the Exchange. The Exchange believes that the new
C2 Market Maker tiered pricing for orders in SPY, AAPL, QQQ, IWM and
SLV would incentivize entry on the Exchange of such orders, benefitting
both TPHs and public investors and, as a result, provide for deeper
levels of liquidity, increasing trading opportunities for other market
participants, thus signaling further trading activity, ultimately
incentivizing more overall order flow and improving price transparency
on the Exchange. Similarly, although the proposed discount for BOE Bulk
Port fees only applies to Market-Makers, Market-Makers are valuable
market participants that provide liquidity in the marketplace and incur
costs that other market participants do not incur. For example, Market-
Makers have a number of obligations, including quoting obligations and
fees associated with appointments that other market participants do not
have.
    Next, the Exchange believes the proposed rule change does not
impose any burden on intermarket competition that is not necessary or
appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. As previously
discussed, the Exchange operates in a highly competitive market.
Members have numerous alternative venues that they may participate on
and director their order flow, including 15 other options exchanges and
off-exchange venues. Additionally, the Exchange represents a small
percentage of the overall market. Based on publicly available
information, no single options exchange has more than 17% of the market
share. Therefore, no exchange possesses significant pricing power in
the execution of option order flow. Indeed, participants can readily
choose to send their orders to other exchange and off-exchange venues
if they deem fee levels at those other venues to be more favorable.
Moreover, the Commission has repeatedly expressed its preference for
competition over regulatory intervention in determining prices,
products, and services in the securities markets. Specifically, in
Regulation NMS, the Commission highlighted the importance of market
forces in determining prices and SRO revenues and, also, recognized
that current regulation of the market system ``has been remarkably
successful in promoting market competition in its broader forms that
are most important to investors and listed companies.'' The fact that
this market is competitive has also long been recognized by the courts.
In NetCoalition v. Securities and Exchange Commission, the D.C. Circuit
stated as follows: ``[n]o one disputes that competition for order flow
is `fierce.' . . . As the SEC explained, `[i]n the U.S. national market
system, buyers and sellers of securities, and the broker-dealers that
act as their order-routing agents, have a wide range of choices of
where to route orders for execution'; [and] `no exchange can afford to
take its market share percentages for granted' because `no exchange
possesses a monopoly, regulatory or otherwise, in the execution of
order flow from broker dealers' . . . .''. Accordingly, the Exchange
does not believe its proposed fee change imposes any burden on
competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the
purposes of the Act.

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

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

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

    The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \23\ and paragraph (f) of Rule 19b-4 \24\
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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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-C2-2021-005 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-C2-2021-005. 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 offices 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-C2-2021-005, and should be
submitted on or before May 10, 2021.

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

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

J. Matthew DeLesDernier,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2021-07960 Filed 4-16-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


                    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

            DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

                    OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY

                             WASHINGTON, DC

Issued by the Department of Transportation on April 20, 2004

NOTICE OF ACTION TAKEN -- DOCKETS OST-2004-17480 & 2003-16071

________________________________________________________________________
_____________

This serves as notice to the public of the action described below, taken
by the Department official indicated (no additional confirming order
will be issued in this matter).

Joint Application of   Delta Air Lines, Inc. and Air Jamaica Limited
filed  4/2/04   for:

XX  Exemption for two years for Air Jamaica Limited from 49 U.S.C. 41301
to provide the following service (2004-17480):

Scheduled foreign air transportation of persons, property, and mail
between St. Lucia and Atlanta, Georgia.  Air Jamaica will operate this
service pursuant to a code-share arrangement with Delta Air Lines
whereby Air Jamaica will place its code on Delta’s nonstop St.
Lucia-Atlanta flights.

XX  Notice of Additional Codesharing (2003-16071)

Applicant rep : Robert E. Cohn  (Delta)<PHONE_NUMBER> DOT Analyst:
Sylvia Moore<PHONE_NUMBER>

           George U. Carneal<PHONE_NUMBER>

D I S P O S I T I O N

XX  Granted exemption request in part (see below)

XX   Balance Dismissed (i.e., for longer-term exemption authority)

The exemption authority granted to Air Jamaica was effective when taken:
 April 20, 2004, through

April 20, 2005

Basis for Approval:  The exemption authority granted is consistent with
the overall state of aviation relations between the United States and
Jamaica and between the United States and St. Lucia.  In addition, in a
letter dated March 30, 2004, Prime Minister Kenny D. Anthony expressed
the Government of St. Lucia’s strong support for the new nonstop St.
Lucia-Atlanta code-share service that Air Jamaica and Delta have
proposed and requested that the Government of the United States grant
the application.

Action taken by:   Paul L. Gretch, Director

		    Office of International Aviation

Except to the extent exempted or waived, this authority is subject to
the terms, conditions, and limitations indicated:	XX  Air Jamaica’s
foreign air carrier permit (Order 89-3-74)

		XX  Foreign air carrier standard exemption conditions (attached)

2

Remarks:  We note that Air Jamaica sought authority for a two-year
period.  However, as is our usual practice in conferring exemption
authority in the circumstances presented, we are limiting the term of
authority to one year.  Air Jamaica may, of course, seek renewal of this
authority.

________________________________________________________________________
__________

Under authority assigned by the Department in its regulations, 14 CFR
Part 385, we found that (1) the applicants were qualified to perform the
proposed operations; (2) our action was consistent with Department
policy; (3) grant of the authority was consistent with the public
interest; and (4) grant of the authority would not constitute a major
regulatory action under the Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975.
To the extent not granted, we denied all requests in the referenced
Docket.  We may amend, modify, or revoke the authority granted in this
Notice at any time without hearing at our discretion.

Persons entitled to petition the Department for review of the action set
forth in this Notice under the Department’s regulations, 14 CFR §
385.30, may file their petitions within seven (7) days after the date of
issuance of this Notice.  This action was effective when taken, and the
filing of a petition for review will not alter such effectiveness.

An electronic version of this order is available on the World Wide Web
at

  HYPERLINK "http://dms.dot.gov//reports/reports_ aviation.asp"
http://dms.dot.gov//reports/reports_ aviation.asp

Foreign Carrier Conditions

In the conduct of the operations authorized, the foreign carrier
applicant(s) shall:

(1)  Not conduct any operations unless it holds a currently effective
authorization from its homeland for such operations, and it has filed a
copy of such authorization with the Department;

(2)  Comply with all applicable requirements of the Federal Aviation
Administration, including, but not limited to, 14 CFR Parts 129, 91, and
36, and with all applicable U.S. Government requirements concerning
security.  To assure compliance with all applicable U.S. Government
requirements concerning security, the holder shall, before commencing
any new service (including charter flights) from a foreign airport that
would be the holder’s last point of departure for the United States,
contact its Principal Security Inspector (PSI) to advise the PSI of its
plans and to find out whether the Transportation Security Administration
has determined that security is adequate to allow such airport(s) to be
served;

(3)  Comply with the requirements for minimum insurance coverage
contained in 14 CFR Part 205, and, prior to the commencement of any
operations under this authority, file evidence of such coverage, in the
form of a completed OST Form 6411, with the Federal Aviation
Administration’s Program Management Branch (AFS-260), Flight Standards
Service (any changes to, or termination of, insurance also shall be
filed with that office);

(4)  Not operate aircraft under this authority unless it complies with
operational safety requirements at least equivalent to Annex 6 of the
Chicago Convention;

(5)  Conform to the airworthiness and airman competency requirements of
its Government for international air services;

(6)  Except as specifically exempted or otherwise provided for in a
Department Order, comply with the requirements of 14 CFR Part 203,
concerning waiver of Warsaw Convention liability limits and defenses;

(7)  Agree that operations under this authority constitute a waiver of
sovereign immunity, for the purposes of 28 U.S.C. 1605(a), but only with
respect to those actions or proceedings instituted against it in any
court or other tribunal in the United States that are: (a)  based on its
operations in international air transportation that, according to the
contract of carriage, include a point in the United States as a point of
origin, point of destination, or agreed stopping place, or for which the
contract of carriage was purchased in the United States; or (b)  based
on a claim under any international agreement or treaty cognizable in any
court or other tribunal of the United States.  In this condition, the
term "international air transportation" means "international
transportation" as defined by the Warsaw Convention, except that all
States shall be considered to be High Contracting Parties for the
purpose of this definition;

(8)  Except as specifically authorized by the Department, originate or
terminate all flights to/from the United States in its homeland;

(9)  Comply with the requirements of 14 CFR Part 217, concerning the
reporting of scheduled, nonscheduled, and charter data;

(10) If charter operations are authorized, except as otherwise provided
in the applicable aviation agreement, comply with the Department's rules
governing charters (including 14 CFR Parts 212 and 380); and

(11) Comply with such other reasonable terms, conditions, and
limitations required by the public interest as may be prescribed by the
Department, with all applicable orders or regulations of other U.S.
agencies and courts, and with all applicable laws of the United States.

This authority shall not be effective during any period when the holder
is not in compliance with the conditions imposed above.  Moreover, this
authority cannot be sold or otherwise transferred without explicit
Department approval under Title 49 of the U.S. Code.

08/2003

 Delta and Air Jamaica included in their application a 30-day notice
under their existing code-share arrangement in Docket OST 2003-16071, to
add additional code-share points.  We are addressing this part of the
application separately.


"Johansson, Robert"<EMAIL_ADDRESS> 10/09/2007 05:29 PM

To

<EMAIL_ADDRESS> cc

Ron Evans/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, David Misenheimer/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA

Subject

FW: FW: RIA NAAQS Workshop

Hi Gokes,

Please contact Ron Evans or David Misenheimer for information on the

workshop.

They would be glad to have more folks attend.

Cheers,

Rob

-----Original Message-----

From<EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS> Sent: Thursday, October 04, 2007 9:25 AM

To: Johansson, Robert

Cc<EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS> <EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS> Subject: Re: FW: RIA NAAQS Workshop