[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 172 (Thursday, September 5, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 54727-54729]
[FR Doc No: 2013-21553]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

[U.S. DOT Docket No. NHTSA-2013-0087]

Reports, Forms, and Record Keeping Requirements

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), DOT.

ACTION: Request for public comment on proposed collection of
information.

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

SUMMARY: Before a Federal agency can collect certain information from
the public, it must receive approval from the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB). Under procedures established by the Paperwork Reduction
Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), before seeking OMB approval,
Federal agencies must solicit public comment on proposed collections of
information, including extensions and reinstatements of previously
approved collections.
    This document describes an Information Collection Request (ICR) for
which NHTSA intends to seek OMB approval.

DATES: Comments must be submitted on or before November 4, 2013.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by DOT Docket ID Number
NHTSA-2013-0087 using any of the following methods:
    Electronic submissions: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow
the online instructions for submitting comments.
    Mail: Docket Management Facility, M-30, U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., West Building Ground Floor,
Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590.
    Hand Delivery: West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday
through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    Fax: 1-202-493-2251.
    Instructions: Each submission must include the Agency name and the
Docket number for this Notice. Note that all comments received will be
posted without change to http://www.regulations.gov including any
personal information provided.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kristie Johnson, Ph.D., Contracting
Officer's Technical Representative, Office of Behavioral Safety
Research (NTI-131), National Highway Traffic Safety Administration,
1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., W46-498, Washington, DC 20590. Dr.
Johnson's phone number is<PHONE_NUMBER> and her email address is
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995,
before an agency submits a proposed collection of information to OMB
for approval, it must publish a document in the Federal Register
providing a 60-day comment period and otherwise consult with members of
the public and affected agencies concerning each proposed collection of
information. The OMB has promulgated regulations describing what must
be included in such a document. Under OMB's regulations (at 5 CFR
1320.8(d)), an agency must ask for public comment on the following:
    (i) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for
the proper performance of the functions of the

agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
    (ii) The accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the
proposed collection of information, including the validity of the
methodology and assumptions used;
    (iii) How to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the
information to be collected; and
    (iv) How to minimize the burden of the collection of information on
those who are to respond, including the use of appropriate automated,
electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or
other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic
submission of responses.
    In compliance with these requirements, NHTSA asks public comment on
the following proposed collection of information:
    Title--Evaluation of a New Child Pedestrian Curriculum.
    Type of Request--New information collection requirement.
    OMB Clearance Number--None.
    Form Number--NHTSA Forms 1215, 1216, and 1217.
    Requested Expiration Date of Approval--3 years from date of
approval.
    Summary of the Collection of Information--Several elementary
schools who are adopting the Child Pedestrian Curriculum will be
recruited to help evaluate the curriculum. Assisting faculty and staff
and participating students' parents/caregivers will be surveyed
regarding the implementation of a new child pedestrian curriculum.
Participating students in grades K-5 will be surveyed regarding their
knowledge, behavior, and attitudes about the curriculum. Student
assessments are included as part of the curriculum for each of the
focused topic lessons and contain age appropriate question and response
formats (pictures, easy to read). (The curriculum is available at
www.nhtsa.gov/ChildPedestrianSafetyCurriculum.) The student assessments
will be administered by the curriculum instructor. Depending on the
school system, parental permission for the student to participate may
not be necessary because the curriculum is being implemented by the
school. If parental permission is required, appropriate informed
consent will be obtained. Contact with prospective adult respondents
will be conducted through flyers sent home in backpacks and the
internet. Faculty/staff and parents/caregivers will be given the choice
of completing the surveys online or via a paper version that can be
filled out and sent back to school with students. Students would be
surveyed at school before and after implementation of the curriculum to
assess knowledge, behavior, and attitude changes. NHTSA would seek
participation by up to four elementary schools. No personally
identifiable information will be collected; all results will be
reported in the aggregate.
    Description of the Need for the Information and Proposed Use of the
Information--The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA)
was established by the Highway Safety Act of 1970 (23 U.S.C. 101) to
carry out a Congressional mandate to reduce the mounting number of
deaths, injuries, and economic losses resulting from motor vehicle
crashes on the Nation's highways. As part of this statutory mandate,
NHTSA is authorized to conduct research as a foundation for the
development of motor vehicle standards and traffic safety programs.
    As part of its mission, NHTSA proposes to conduct an implementation
and impact evaluation of its new child pedestrian curriculum. In 2010,
nearly 20% of elementary school-aged children killed in motor vehicle
crashes were pedestrians. To help reduce the number of child
pedestrians killed or injured, NHTSA developed the new Child Pedestrian
Safety Curriculum to teach and encourage safe pedestrian behaviors for
students at the elementary school level (grades K-5). The overall goal
of the curriculum is to aid elementary age school children in
developing age appropriate traffic safety knowledge and practical
pedestrian safety skills. NHTSA wants to implement strong and pertinent
curricula. It is therefore particularly important for a child
pedestrian safety curriculum to be demonstrably successful in reducing
the likelihood of harm and/or injury for elementary-aged children.
    If approved, the proposed survey would assist NHTSA in evaluating
the implementation and impact of the child pedestrian curriculum. The
proposed implementation survey would determine the usability and
usefulness of the curriculum materials, determine the most appropriate
strategies to deliver the curriculum to produce an effect, ascertain
any obstacles to implementing the curriculum, and assess instructional
strategies and training. The results of the implementation survey would
be used to help refine how the curriculum is implemented. The proposed
impact survey would assess students' knowledge, self-reported
behaviors, and attitudes regarding pedestrian safety and the course
materials. The results of the impact evaluation would be used to assess
the degree to which the Child Pedestrian Safety Curriculum translates
to increasing pedestrian safety, and overall safe behaviors. Overall,
the findings would be used to refine the curriculum, to describe the
best practices for implementation, and to evaluate behavior changes.
    Description of the Likely Respondents (Including Estimated Number,
and Proposed Frequency of Response to the Collection of Information)--
This proposed effort would involve students completing paper version
surveys and faculty/staff and parents/caregivers completing surveys
online or via paper versions. Students would be surveyed at school
before and after implementation of the curriculum to assess knowledge,
behavior, and attitude changes. NHTSA would seek participation by up to
four elementary schools, one of which would function as a control
school. Approximately 180 students would be trained at each school
using the curriculum. In addition to the before and after surveys,
students would be assessed after each of the five lessons for a total
of 7 surveys--each lasting about 5 minutes. The adult surveys would be
conducted with either electronic or paper survey versions. Parents/
caregivers would be made aware of the surveys via flyers sent home with
their participating child. The parents/caregivers will be furnished
with both paper versions of the surveys and internet links to take the
surveys. If paper versions are used, they would be sent back to school
with the participating child. Parents/caregivers would be surveyed
before and after curriculum implementation with each survey lasting
about 10 minutes. For faculty/staff assisting with curriculum
implementation, the surveys would be distributed at school and the
participants would have the option of completing a paper or electronic
version of the survey. Faculty/staff would be surveyed before the
implementation, after each of the five lessons, and at the conclusion
of the effort--for a total of 7 surveys. Each survey would be
approximately 15 minutes long. Five faculty/staff members from each of
the three target schools would be surveyed. No personally identifiable
information would be collected; all results would be reported in the
aggregate.
    Estimate of the Total Annual Reporting and Record Keeping Burden
Resulting from the Collection of Information--NHTSA estimates that
students learning the curriculum would average 35 minutes completing
assessments, for a total of 315 hours for the surveys/assessments (180
students x

3 schools x 7 assessments x 5 minutes). The parent surveys, with an
average duration of 10 minutes, would produce a burden of 180 hours
(180 parents x 3 schools x 2 surveys x 10 minutes). The faculty/staff
surveys, with an average duration of 15 minutes, would produce a burden
of 26.25 hours (5 faculty/staff members x 3 schools x 7 surveys x 15
minutes). The maximum annual reporting burden for the child pedestrian
curriculum evaluation would be 315 hours for student assessments, 180
hours for parent surveys, and 26.25 hours for faculty/staff surveys for
a grand total of 521.25 hours.
    Information collection would occur during a single school year.
Therefore, the average annual burden would be the entire 521.25 hours.
The respondents would not incur any reporting cost from the information
collection. The respondents also would not incur any record keeping
burden or record keeping cost from the information collection.

    Authority: 44 U.S.C. Section 3506(c)(2)(A).

    Issued on: August 30, 2013.
Jeff Michael,
Associate Administrator, Research and Program Development.
[FR Doc. 2013-21553 Filed 9-4-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 117 (Wednesday, June 17, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 36653-36657]
[FR Doc No: 2020-12987]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-89048; File No. SR-GEMX-2020-14]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Nasdaq GEMX, LLC; Notice of Filing
and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Amend GEMX's
Pricing Schedule at Options 7, Sections 3 and 4

June 11, 2020.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that
on June 1, 2020, Nasdaq GEMX, LLC (``GEMX'' or ``Exchange'') filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'') the proposed
rule change as described in Items I and II below, which Items have been
prepared by the Exchange. The Commission is publishing this notice to
solicit comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange proposes to amend GEMX's Pricing Schedule at Options
7, Section 3, ``Regular Order Fees and Rebates,'' and Options 7,
Section 4, ``Other Options Fees and Rebates,'' regarding the Market
Access and Routing Subsidy (``MARS'').
    The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's
website at http://nasdaqgemx.cchwallstreet.com/, at the principal
office of the Exchange, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    GEMX proposes to amend its Pricing Schedule at Options 7, Section
3, ``Regular Order Fees and Rebates,'' and Options 7, Section 4,
``Other Options Fees and Rebates,'' regarding the Market Access and
Routing Subsidy (``MARS''). Specifically, the Exchange proposes to: (1)
Amend the MARS Payment tiers within Options 7, Section 4B; and (2) pay
a rebate in connection with MARS within Options 7, Section 3. Each
change is described below in greater detail.
    By way of background, MARS pays a subsidy to GEMX Members that
provide certain order routing functionalities to other GEMX Members
and/or use such functionalities themselves. GEMX pays participating
GEMX Members to subsidize their costs of providing routing services to
route orders to GEMX. The Exchange believes that MARS will continue to
attract higher volumes of equity and ETF options volume to the Exchange
from non-GEMX market participants as well as GEMX Members.
MARS System Eligibility
    To qualify for MARS, a GEMX Member's order routing functionality is
required to meet certain criteria. Specifically the Member's routing
system (hereinafter ``System'') is required to: (1) Enable the
electronic routing of orders to all of the U.S. options exchanges,
including GEMX; (2) provide current consolidated market data from the
U.S. options exchanges; and (3) be capable of interfacing with GEMX's
API to access current GEMX match engine functionality. The Member's
System also needs to cause GEMX to be one of the top four default
destination exchanges for (a) individually executed marketable orders
if GEMX is at the national best bid or offer (``NBBO''), regardless of
size or time or (b) orders that establish a new NBBO on GEMX's Order
Book, but allow any user to manually override GEMX as the default
destination on an order-by-order basis. Any GEMX Member may apply for
MARS, provided the above-referenced requirements are met, including a
robust and reliable System.
MARS Eligible Contracts
    A MARS Payment is paid to GEMX Members that have System Eligibility
and have routed the requisite number of Eligible Contracts daily in a
month, which were executed on GEMX. For the purpose of qualifying for
the MARS Payment, Eligible Contracts include: Non-Nasdaq GEMX Market
Maker (FarMM); \3\ Firm Proprietary \4\/Broker-Dealer; \5\ and
Professional Customer \6\ orders that are executed. Eligible Contracts
do not include qualified contingent cross or ``QCC'' Orders \7\ or

Price Improvement Mechanism or ``PIM'' Orders.\8\ Options overlying NDX
are not considered Eligible Contracts.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ A ``Non-Nasdaq GEMX Market Maker'' is a market maker as
defined in Section 3(a)(38) of the Act, as amended, registered in
the same options class on another options exchange.
    \4\ A ``Firm Proprietary'' order is an order submitted by a
Member for its own proprietary account.
    \5\ A ``Broker-Dealer'' order is an order submitted by a Member
for a broker-dealer account that is not its own proprietary account.
    \6\ A ``Professional Customer'' is a person or entity that is
not a broker/dealer and is not a Priority Customer.
    \7\ A QCC Order is comprised of an originating order to buy or
sell at least 1000 contracts that is identified as being part of a
qualified contingent trade, as that term is defined in Supplementary
Material .01 of GEMX Options 3, Section 7, coupled with a contra-
side order or orders totaling an equal number of contracts. See
Options 3, Section 7(j).
    \8\ Price Improvement Mechanism (``PIM'') is the Exchange's
price improvement mechanism for crossing transactions. See Options
3, Section 13.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

MARS Payment
    GEMX Members that have System Eligibility and have executed the
requisite number of Eligible Contracts in a month would be paid the
following per contract rebates:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                           Average daily
                  Tiers                       volume       MARS payment
                                             (``ADV'')
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1.......................................          10,000           $0.07
2.......................................          15,000            0.10
3.......................................          20,000            0.13
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The specified MARS Payment is paid on all executed Eligible
Contracts that add liquidity, which are routed to GEMX through a
participating GEMX Member's System and meet the requisite Eligible
Contracts ADV. No payment will be made with respect to orders that are
routed to GEMX, but not executed. Also, a GEMX Member will not be
entitled to receive any other revenue for the use of its System
specifically with respect to orders routed to GEMX.
Proposal--MARS Payment
    The Exchange proposes to amend the MARS Payment tiers to increase
each of the 3 tiers by $0.01. Therefore, Tier 1, which requires an
average daily value (``ADV'') of 10,000 contracts and currently pays a
rebate of $0.07 per contract, would be amended to pay $0.08 per
contract. Tier 2, which requires an ADV of 15,000 contracts and
currently pays a rebate of $0.10 per contract, would be amended to pay
$0.11 per contract. Tier 3, which requires an ADV of 20,000 contracts
and currently pays a rebate of $0.13 per contract, would be amended to
pay $0.14 contract. The Exchange believes that paying a higher rebate
will attract even higher volumes of equity and ETF options volume to
the Exchange from non-GEMX market participants as well as GEMX Members.
The Exchange would continue to pay the MARS Payment on all executed
Eligible Contracts that add liquidity, which are routed to GEMX through
a participating GEMX Member's System and meet the requisite Eligible
Contracts ADV. The Exchange would continue to make no payment with
respect to orders that are routed to GEMX, but not executed.
Proposal--Rebate
    The Exchange proposes to pay an additional $0.05 per contract
rebate, in addition to the Tier 1 Maker Rebate in Options 7, Section 3
for Penny Symbols and SPY, for Non-Nasdaq GEMX Market Maker (FarMM),
Firm Proprietary/Broker-Dealer and Professional Customer orders that
qualify as MARS Eligible Contracts,\9\ pursuant to Options 7, Section
4B, and were routed through a qualifying GEMX Member's routing
system.\10\ Today, the Exchange pays a Tier 1 Maker Rebate of $0.20 per
contract for Market Maker, Non-Nasdaq GEMX Market Maker (FarMM), Firm
Proprietary/Broker-Dealer and Professional Customer orders. Priority
Customers are paid a $0.25 per contract Tier 1 Maker Rebate. The
proposed rebate would be in addition to the Tier 1 Maker Rebate for
Non-Nasdaq GEMX Market Maker (FarMM), Firm Proprietary/Broker-Dealer
and Professional Customer orders. The additional rebate would not apply
to Market Maker and Priority Customer orders.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ As noted herein, Eligible Contracts do not include QCC
Orders or PIM Orders. Options overlying NDX are not considered
Eligible Contracts. See Options 7, Section 4B.
    \10\ As noted herein, to qualify for MARS, a GEMX Member's
System would be required to: (1) Enable the electronic routing of
orders to all of the U.S. options exchanges, including GEMX; (2)
provide current consolidated market data from the U.S. options
exchanges; and (3) be capable of interfacing with GEMX's API to
access current GEMX match engine functionality. Further, the
Member's System would also need to cause GEMX to be the one of the
top four default destination exchanges for (a) individually executed
marketable orders if GEMX is at the national best bid or offer
(``NBBO''), regardless of size or time or (b) orders that establish
a new NBBO on GEMX's Order Book, but allow any user to manually
override GEMX as a default destination on an order-by-order basis.
See Options 7, Section 4B.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With this rebate, the Exchange proposes to incentivize Members to
send order flow to GEMX Members that qualify for MARS and, in turn,
attract higher volumes of equity and ETF options volume to the
Exchange. This additional $0.05 per contract rebate, in addition to the
Tier 1 Maker Rebates, will benefit all market participants who will
have an opportunity to interact with this order flow.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section
6(b) of the Act,\11\ in general, and furthers the objectives of
Sections 6(b)(4) and 6(b)(5) of the Act,\12\ in particular, in that it
provides for the equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees and
other charges among members and issuers and other persons using any
facility, and is not designed to permit unfair discrimination between
customers, issuers, brokers, or dealers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \12\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4) and (5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission and the courts have repeatedly expressed their
preference for competition over regulatory intervention in determining
prices, products, and services in the securities markets. In Regulation
NMS, while adopting a series of steps to improve the current market
model, 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.'' \13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ Securities Exchange Act Release No. 51808 (June 9, 2005),
70 FR 37496, 37499 (June 29, 2005) (``Regulation NMS Adopting
Release'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Likewise, in NetCoalition v. Securities and Exchange Commission
\14\ (``NetCoalition'') the D.C. Circuit upheld the Commission's use of
a market-based approach in evaluating the fairness of market data fees
against a challenge claiming that Congress mandated a cost-based
approach.\15\ As the court emphasized, the Commission ``intended in
Regulation NMS that `market forces, rather than regulatory
requirements' play a role in determining the market data . . . to be
made available to investors and at what cost.'' \16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ NetCoalition v. SEC, 615 F.3d 525 (D.C. Cir. 2010).
    \15\ See NetCoalition, at 534-535.
    \16\ Id. at 537.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Further, ``[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'. . . .'' \17\ Although the court and
the SEC were discussing the cash equities markets, the Exchange
believes that these views apply with equal force to the options
markets.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ Id. at 539 (quoting Securities Exchange Act Release No.
59039 (December 2, 2008), 73 FR 74770, 74782-83 (December 9, 2008)
(SR-NYSEArca-2006-21)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Proposal--MARS Payment
    The Exchange's proposal to increase the MARS Payments, which are
currently paid based on certain average daily volumes for Eligible
Contracts which add liquidity, is reasonable because the Exchange
believes that the

MARS program will continue to attract liquidity to GEMX in the form of
order flow, which will be beneficial for all GEMX Members, in that it
would generate greater price discovery, increased transparency, and an
increased opportunity to trade on the Exchange. The increased MARS
Payments should enhance the competitiveness of the Exchange. Further,
as is the case today, the proposed tier structure would continue to
allow GEMX Members to price their services at a level that will enable
them to attract order flow from market participants who would otherwise
utilize an existing front-end order entry mechanism instead of
incurring the cost in time and money to develop their own internal
systems to be able to deliver orders directly to the Exchange's System.
The Exchange continues to seek to reward market participants that bring
a greater amount of order flow to the Exchange by paying higher rebates
\18\ based on the average daily volume that qualified as Eligible
Contracts. The Exchange believes that the tiers are reasonable because
the Exchange is incentivizing GEMX Members to transact a greater amount
of qualifying volume to earn the rebate. The additional order flow will
benefit all market participants.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ Currently, the Exchange pays a $0.07 per contract rebate to
qualifying GEMX Members who transact 10,000 ADV; a rebate of $0.10
per contract to qualifying GEMX Members who transact 15,000 ADV and
a $0.13 per contact rebate to qualifying GEMX Members who transact
20,000 ADV. The qualifying ADV is not being amended with this
proposal. This proposal would increase each of the 3 rebate tiers by
$0.01 per contract.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange's proposal to increase the MARS Payments, which are
currently paid based on certain average daily volumes for Eligible
Contracts which add liquidity, is equitable and not unfairly
discriminatory because the Exchange will uniformly pay all qualifying
GEMX Members, that offer market access and connectivity to the Exchange
and/or utilize such functionality themselves, the proposed rebates
specified in the proposed MARS Payment tiers, provided the GEMX Member
has executed the requisite number of Eligible Contracts. Moreover, the
Exchange believes that the proposed MARS Payments offered by the
Exchange are equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because any
qualifying GEMX Member that offers market access and connectivity to
the Exchange and/or utilizes such functionality themselves may earn the
MARS Payments for all Eligible Contracts.
Proposal--Rebate
    The Exchange's proposal to pay an additional $0.05 per contract
rebate, in addition to the Tier 1 Maker Rebates in Options 7, Section 3
for Penny Symbols and SPY,\19\ for Non-Nasdaq GEMX Market Maker
(FARMM), Firm Proprietary/Broker-Dealer and Professional Customer
orders that qualify as MARS Eligible Contracts,\20\ pursuant to Options
7, Section 4B, and were routed through a qualifying GEMX Member's
System \21\ is reasonable. The Exchange believes that its proposal will
incentivize Members to send order flow to GEMX Members that qualify for
MARS and, in turn, attract higher volumes of equity and ETF options
volume to the Exchange. The rebate will benefit all market participants
who will have an opportunity to interact with this order flow.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ Today, the Exchange pays a Tier 1 Maker Rebate of $0.20 per
contract for Market Makers, Non-Nasdaq GEMX Market Maker (FarMM),
Firm Proprietary/Broker-Dealer and Professional Customer orders.
Priority Customers are paid a $0.25 per contract Tier 1 Maker
Rebate.
    \20\ As noted herein, Eligible Contracts do not include QCC
Orders or PIM Orders. Options overlying NDX are not considered
Eligible Contracts. See Options 7, Section 4B.
    \21\ As noted herein, to qualify for MARS, a GEMX Member's
System would be required to: (1) Enable the electronic routing of
orders to all of the U.S. options exchanges, including GEMX; (2)
provide current consolidated market data from the U.S. options
exchanges; and (3) be capable of interfacing with GEMX's API to
access current GEMX match engine functionality. Further, the
Member's System would also need to cause GEMX to be the one of the
top four default destination exchanges for (a) individually executed
marketable orders if GEMX is at the national best bid or offer
(``NBBO''), regardless of size or time or (b) orders that establish
a new NBBO on GEMX's Order Book, but allow any user to manually
override GEMX as a default destination on an order-by-order basis.
See Options 7, Section 4B.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange's proposal to pay an additional $0.05 per contract
rebate, in addition to the Tier 1 Maker Rebate in Options 7, Section 3
for Penny Symbols and SPY, for Non-Nasdaq GEMX Market Maker (FarMM),
Firm Proprietary/Broker-Dealer and Professional Customer orders that
qualify as MARS Eligible Contracts, pursuant to Options 7, Section 4B,
and were routed through a qualifying GEMX Member's routing system is
equitable and not unfairly discriminatory. While MARS is only being
offered to qualifying GEMX Members for Non-Nasdaq GEMX Market Maker
(FarMM), Firm Proprietary/Broker-Dealer and Professional Customer
equity option orders, and would not pay an additional rebate for
Priority Customer or Market Maker \22\ orders, the Exchange believes
this is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory for the reasons
below. With respect to Priority Customer orders, the Exchange notes
that, today, Priority Customer Orders may earn the highest Maker
Rebates available on GEMX.\23\ The Exchange believes that the
availability of these aforementioned rebates for Priority Customer
Orders does not warrant the Exchange paying an additional rebate on
Priority Customer orders for MARS. With respect to Market Maker orders,
today the Exchange offers certain Maker Rebates on Market Maker
orders.\24\ The Exchange believes that these rebates provide ample
incentive for attracting Market Maker orders to the Exchange and that
no further subsidy is warranted at this time.\25\ To offer the proposed
subsidy on Priority Customer or Market Maker orders would require
funding from some other source, such as raising fees for other
participants. As a result, the Exchange believes it is appropriate to
only count Non-Nasdaq GEMX Market Maker (FarMM), Firm Proprietary/
Broker-Dealer and Professional Customer orders toward the Eligible
Contracts, which unlike Priority Customer and Market Maker orders, are
not eligible for Maker Rebates today beyond $0.20 per contract on GEMX.
The Exchange notes that it is commonplace within the options industry
for exchanges to charge different rates and/or offer different rebates
depending upon the capacity in which a participant is trading. For
these reasons, the Exchange believes that the proposal to only count
certain order flow as Eligible Contracts is equitable and not unfairly
discriminatory for the reasons mentioned herein.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ The term ``Market Makers'' refers to ``Competitive Market
Makers'' and ``Primary Market Makers'' collectively. See Options 1,
Section 1(a)(21).
    \23\ See Options 7, Section 3.
    \24\ Id.
    \25\ Market Maker and Priority Customer orders are eligible for
higher Maker Rebates based on achieving certain volume requirements
specified in the Table 1 Qualifying Tier Thresholds. See Options 7,
Section 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
Intermarket Competition
    The proposal does not impose an undue burden on intermarket
competition. The Exchange believes its proposal remains competitive
with other options markets and will offer market participants with
another choice of where to transact options. The

Exchange notes that it operates in a highly competitive market in which
market participants can readily favor competing venues if they deem fee
levels at a particular venue to be excessive, or rebate opportunities
available at other venues to be more favorable. In such an environment,
the Exchange must continually adjust its fees to remain competitive
with other exchanges that have been exempted from compliance with the
statutory standards applicable to exchanges. Because competitors are
free to modify their own fees in response, and because market
participants may readily adjust their order routing practices, the
Exchange believes that the degree to which fee changes in this market
may impose any burden on competition is extremely limited.
Intramarket Competition
    The proposed amendments do not impose an undue burden on
intramarket competition.
Proposal--MARS Payment
    The Exchange's proposal to increase the MARS Payments, which are
currently paid based on certain average daily volumes for Eligible
Contracts which add liquidity, does not impose an undue burden on
competition because the Exchange will uniformly pay all qualifying GEMX
Members, that offer market access and connectivity to the Exchange and/
or utilize such functionality themselves, the proposed rebates
specified in the proposed MARS Payment tiers, provided the GEMX Member
has executed the requisite number of Eligible Contracts. Moreover, the
Exchange believes that the proposed MARS Payments offered by the
Exchange do not impose an undue burden on competition because any
qualifying GEMX Member that offers market access and connectivity to
the Exchange and/or utilizes such functionality themselves may earn the
MARS Payments for all Eligible Contracts.
Proposal--Rebate
    The Exchange's proposal to pay an additional $0.05 per contract
rebate, in addition to the Tier 1 Maker Rebate in Options 7, Section 3
for Penny Symbols and SPY,\26\ for Non-Nasdaq GEMX Market Maker
(FarMM), Firm Proprietary/Broker-Dealer and Professional Customer
orders that qualify as MARS Eligible Contracts, pursuant to Options 7,
Section 4B, and were routed through a qualifying GEMX Member's routing
system, does not impose an undue burden on competition. While MARS is
only being offered to qualifying GEMX Members for Non-Nasdaq GEMX
Market Maker (FarMM), Firm Proprietary/Broker-Dealer and Professional
Customer equity option orders, and would not pay an additional rebate
for Priority Customer or Market Maker orders, the Exchange believes
this does not impose an undue burden on competition. With respect to
Priority Customer orders, the Exchange notes that, today, Priority
Customer orders may earn the highest Maker Rebates available on
GEMX.\27\ The Exchange believes that the availability of these rebates
for Priority Customer orders does not warrant paying an additional
subsidy on Priority Customer orders for MARS. With respect to Market
Maker orders, today the Exchange offers certain Maker Rebates on Market
Maker orders.\28\ To offer the proposed subsidy on Priority Customer or
Market Maker orders would require funding from some other source, such
as raising fees for other participants. As a result, the Exchange
believes it is appropriate to only count Non-Nasdaq GEMX Market Maker
(FarMM), Firm Proprietary/Broker-Dealer and Professional Customer
orders toward the Eligible Contracts, which unlike Priority Customer
and Market Maker orders, are not eligible for Maker Rebates today
beyond $0.20 per contract on GEMX. The Exchange notes that it is
commonplace within the options industry for exchanges to charge
different rates and/or offer different rebates depending upon the
capacity in which a participant is trading. For these reasons, the
Exchange believes that the proposal to only count certain order flow as
Eligible Contracts does not impose an undue burden on competition.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ Today, the Exchange pays a Tier 1 Maker Rebate of $0.20 per
contract for Market Makers, Non-Nasdaq GEMX Market Maker (FarMM),
Firm Proprietary/Broker-Dealer and Professional Customer orders.
Priority Customers are paid a $0.25 per contract Tier 1 Maker
Rebate.
    \27\ See Options 7, Section 3.
    \28\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    No written comments were either solicited or received.

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)(ii) of the Act,\29\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(2) \30\ 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: (i) Necessary or
appropriate in the public interest; (ii) for the protection of
investors; or (iii) otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the
Act. If the Commission takes such action, the Commission shall
institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule should be
approved or disapproved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii).
    \30\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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-GEMX-2020-14 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-GEMX-2020-14. 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-GEMX-2020-14 and should be submitted on
or before July 8, 2020.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\31\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \31\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

J. Matthew DeLesDernier,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2020-12987 Filed 6-16-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P