[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 21 (Wednesday, February 1, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Pages 6793-6795]
[FR Doc No: 2023-01999]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-96753; File No. SR-NYSE-2023-07]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; New York Stock Exchange LLC;
Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To
Amend NYSE Rule 4120

January 26, 2023.
    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 January 24, 2023, New York Stock Exchange LLC (``NYSE'' or the
``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the
``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I and II
below, which Items have been prepared by the self-regulatory
organization. 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 NYSE Rule 4120 (Regulatory
Notification and Business Curtailment) to correct a cross-reference in

subsections (a)(1)(C) and (c)(1)(C). The proposed rule change is
available on the Exchange's website at www.nyse.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 self-regulatory organization
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 those statements may be examined at
the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared
summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most
significant parts of such statements.

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to amend NYSE Rule 4120 to correct a cross-
reference in subsections (a)(1)(C) and (c)(1)(C).
    NYSE Rules 4120(a)(1)(C) and 4120(c)(1)(C) require member
organizations to notify the Exchange if its net capital falls below the
level specified in Securities Exchange Act (``SEA'') Rule 17a-11(c)(2).
The correct cross reference in both rules should be to SEA Rule 17a-
11(b)(2). A recent amendment to SEA Rule 17a-11 resulted in a numbering
change, and so what was previously SEA Rule 17a-11(c)(2) is now SEA
17a-11(b)(2).\3\ The Exchange accordingly proposes to correct the
cross-reference in NYSE Rules 4120(a)(1)(C) and 4120(c)(1)(C) by
replacing SEA Rule 17a-11(c)(2) with SEA Rule 17a-11(b)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 87005, 84 FR 68550
(December 16, 2019) (Recordkeeping and Reporting Requirements for
Security-Based Swap Dealers, Major Security-Based Swap Participants,
and Broker-Dealers).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with Section 6(b)(5) of the Exchange Act,\4\ in that it is 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 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange believes that the proposed change to NYSE Rules
4120(a)(1)(C) and 4120(c)(1)(C) to correct a cross-reference to a
previously renumbered subsection would remove impediments to and
perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market
system because the proposed change is designed to update an external
rule reference. The Exchange believes that member organizations would
benefit from the increased clarity, thereby reducing potential
confusion and ensuring that persons subject to the Exchange's
jurisdiction, regulators, and the investing public can more easily
navigate and understand the Exchange's rules. The Exchange further
believes that the proposed amendment would not be inconsistent with the
public interest and the protection of investors because investors will
not be harmed and in fact would benefit from increased clarity, thereby
reducing potential confusion.

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

    In accordance with Section 6(b)(8) of the Act,\5\ the Exchange
believes that the proposed rule change would not impose any burden on
competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the
purposes of the Act. The proposed rule change is not intended to
address competitive issues but is rather concerned with making a
correction to Exchange rules. Since the proposal does not substantively
modify system functionality or processes on the Exchange, the proposed
changes will not impose any burden on competition.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(8).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the
proposed rule change.

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

    The Exchange has filed the proposed rule change pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act \6\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder.\7\
Because the proposed rule change does not: (i) significantly affect the
protection of investors or the public interest; (ii) impose any
significant burden on competition; and (iii) become operative prior to
30 days from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as
the Commission may designate, if consistent with the protection of
investors and the public interest, the proposed rule change has become
effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \8\ and Rule 19b-
4(f)(6)(iii) thereunder.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(iii).
    \7\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \9\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). In addition, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)
requires a self-regulatory organization to give the Commission
written notice of its intent to file the proposed rule change, along
with a brief description and text of the proposed rule change, at
least five business days prior to the date of filing of the proposed
rule change, or such shorter time as designated by the Commission.
The Exchange has satisfied this requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A proposed rule change filed under Rule 19b-4(f)(6) \10\ normally
does not become operative prior to 30 days after the date of the
filing. However, pursuant to Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii),\11\ the Commission
may designate a shorter time if such action is consistent with the
protection of investors and the public interest. The Exchange has asked
the Commission to waive the 30-day operative delay so that the proposal
may become operative immediately upon filing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
    \11\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission believes that waiver of the operative delay is
consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest
because it will allow the Exchange to correct promptly its rule
numbering in order to alleviate potential investor or market
participant confusion and add clarity to its rules. Accordingly, the
Commission hereby waives the 30-day operative delay and designates the
proposal operative upon filing.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ For purposes only of accelerating the operative date of
this proposal, the Commission has considered the proposed rule's
impact on efficiency, competition, and capital formation. 15 U.S.C.
78c(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of such proposed rule
change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule
change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or
appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or
otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission
takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings under
Section 19(b)(2)(B) \13\ of the Act to determine whether the proposed
rule change should be approved or disapproved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2)(B).

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

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to [email protected]. Please include
File Number SR-NYSE-2023-07 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-NYSE-2023-07. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's internet 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-NYSE-2023-07 and should be submitted on
or before February 22, 2023.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12), (59).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sherry R. Haywood,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2023-01999 Filed 1-31-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: October 1, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 189)]
[Notices]
[Page 50856-50858]
[DOCID:fr01oc09-129]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-60722; File No. SR-FINRA-2009-063]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Financial Industry Regulatory
Authority, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of
Proposed Rule Change To Extend to November 30, 2010, the Implementation
of FINRA Rule 4240 (Margin Requirements for Credit Default Swaps)

September 25, 2009.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Exchange Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby
given that on September 21, 2009, Financial Industry Regulatory
Authority, Inc. (``FINRA'') filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission (``SEC'' or ``Commission'') the proposed rule change as
described in Items I and II below, which Items have been prepared by
FINRA. FINRA has designated the proposed rule change as constituting a
``non-controversial'' rule change under paragraph (f)(6) of Rule 19b-4
under the Act,\3\ which renders the proposal effective upon receipt of
this filing by the Commission. 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.
    \3\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    FINRA is proposing to extend to November 30, 2010, the
implementation of FINRA Rule 4240 (Margin Requirements for Credit
Default Swaps) on an interim pilot program basis, and to make minor
technical changes. FINRA Rule 4240, as approved by the SEC on May 22,
2009, will expire on September 25, 2009. The rule implements an interim
pilot program with respect to margin requirements for transactions in
credit default swaps executed by a member (regardless of the type of
account in which the transaction is booked), including those in which
the offsetting matching hedging transactions are effected by the member
in credit default swap contracts that are cleared through the central
counterparty clearing services of the Chicago Mercantile Exchange.
    The text of the proposed rule change is available on FINRA's Web
site at http://www.finra.org, at the principal office of FINRA 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, FINRA 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. FINRA 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
    On May 22, 2009, the Commission approved FINRA Rule 4240,\4\ which
implements an interim pilot program (the ``Interim Pilot Program'')
with respect to margin requirements for transactions in credit default
swaps (``CDS'') executed by a member (regardless of the type of account
in which the transaction is booked), including those in which the
offsetting matching hedging transactions are effected by the member in
credit default swap contracts that are cleared through the central
counterparty clearing services of the Chicago Mercantile Exchange
(``CME''). As originally approved by the Commission, the rule will
expire on September 25, 2009.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 59955 (May 22,
2009), 74 FR 25586 (May 28, 2009) (Notice of Approval of Proposed
Rule Change; File No. SR-FINRA-2009-012) (``Approval Order'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As explained in the Approval Order, FINRA Rule 4240 is intended to
be coterminous with certain Commission actions intended to address
concerns arising from systemic risk posed by CDS, including, among
others, risks to the financial system arising from the lack of a
central clearing counterparty to clear and settle CDS.\5\ Recently, the
Commission has determined to extend the period for which certain of
these actions are in effect.\6\ FINRA believes it is appropriate to
extend the implementation of the Interim Pilot Program accordingly, to
November 30, 2010. In addition, FINRA is proposing a minor technical
correction to FINRA Rule 4240.01(a).\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See 74 FR 25588 through 25589. In early 2009 the Commission
enacted interim final temporary rules (the ``interim final temporary
rules'') providing enumerated exemptions under the Federal
securities laws for certain CDS to facilitate the operation of one
or more central clearing counterparties in such CDS. See Securities
Act Release No. 8999 (January 14, 2009), 74 FR 3967 (January 22,
2009) (Temporary Exemptions for Eligible Credit Default Swaps to
Facilitate Operation of Central Counterparties to Clear and Settle
Credit Default Swaps). See also Securities Exchange Act Release No.
59578 (March 13, 2009), 74 FR 11781 (March 19, 2009) (Order Granting
Temporary Exemptions in Connection with Request of Chicago
Mercantile Exchange Inc. and Citadel Investment Group, LLC Related
to Central Clearing of Credit Default Swaps); Securities Exchange
Act Release No. 59165 (December 24, 2008), 74 FR 133 (January 2,
2009) (Order Granting Temporary Exemptions for Broker-Dealers and
Exchanges Effecting Transactions in Credit Default Swaps).
    \6\ See Securities Act Release No. 9063 (September 14, 2009)
(Extension of Temporary Exemptions for Eligible Credit Default
Swaps).
    \7\ See Exhibit 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FINRA has filed the proposed rule change for immediate
effectiveness and has requested that the SEC waive the requirement that
the proposed rule change not become operative for 30 days after the
date of the filing, such that FINRA can implement the proposed rule
change immediately. The proposed rule change will expire on November
30, 2010.
2. Statutory Basis
    FINRA believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the
provisions of Section 15A(b)(6) of the Act,\8\ which requires, among
other things, that FINRA rules must be designed to prevent fraudulent
and manipulative acts and practices, to promote just and equitable
principles of trade, and, in general, to protect investors and the
public interest. FINRA believes that the proposed rule change will
further the purposes of the Act because, consistent with the goals set
forth by the Commission when it adopted the interim final temporary
rules with respect to the operation of central counterparties to clear
and settle CDS, the margin requirements set forth by the proposed rule
change will help to stabilize the financial markets.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78o-3(b)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    FINRA does not believe that the proposed rule change will result in
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 Commission, in approving the Interim Pilot Program on an
accelerated basis, solicited comment on the original proposed rule
change that established the program.\9\ That comment period ended on
June 18, 2009. The Commission received one comment.\10\ The commenter
raised concerns regarding Federal agency action with respect to
regulation of CDS. FINRA declines to respond to those comments as
beyond the scope of the proposed rule change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See Approval Order, supra note 4.
    \10\ Letter from Gary De Waal, Senior Managing Director and
Group General Counsel, Newedge USA, LLC, to Elizabeth M. Murphy,
Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, dated June 18, 2009,
available at: http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro/finra.shtml.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, FINRA received one letter in response to the
Regulatory Notice \11\ announcing the Commission's approval of the
original rule change establishing the Interim Pilot Program.\12\ SIFMA
suggested that, while the adoption of a margin rule for CDS addresses
an important regulatory issue, there are certain other obstacles to
broker-dealers engaging in transactions in CDS, among other derivative
instruments. While FINRA views this comment as generally beyond the
scope of the proposed rule change, FINRA welcomes further substantive
dialogue on this issue. SIFMA also sought clarification as to

why FINRA Rule 4240 addresses in particular CDS transactions that are
cleared using the central counterparty clearing facilities of the CME.
In response, FINRA notes that, as explained in the Approval Order, the
CME requested that FINRA adopt customer margin rules for CDS and
suggested a specific customer margin methodology that could be
employed.\13\ FINRA performed an analysis of the margin methodology
suggested by CME, as well as the alternative methodology set forth in
Rule 4240(c)(2), prior to proposing Rule 4240. The Approval Order
further noted that FINRA will consider proposals it receives from CDS
central clearing counterparties in addition to the CME to amend the
customer margin rules for CDS and, if appropriate, will propose changes
to such rules.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See Regulatory Notice 09-30 (June 2009) (Credit Default
Swaps).
    \12\ Letter from Daniel McIsaac, Chair, Capital Steering
Committee, Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association, to
Marcia E. Asquith, Office of the Corporate Secretary, FINRA, dated
August 3, 2009 (``SIFMA''), available at: http://www.sifma.org/
comments/index.aspx.
    \13\ See 74 FR 25589.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    SIFMA suggested certain changes to the margin requirements set
forth in FINRA Rule 4240. FINRA believes these suggestions are
premature and that additional time is needed to make a meaningful
determination about whether Rule 4240 should be made permanent and
whether certain provisions should be modified and, if so, to what
extent. Consequently, at this time, FINRA is only seeking to extend the
Interim Pilot Program and make minor technical changes. Lastly, SIFMA
requested clarification as to certain net capital requirements and
implementation issues, as well as documentation issues discussed in
Regulatory Notice 09-30. FINRA notes that it will provide further
guidance working with the SEC regarding implementation of Rule 4240, as
appropriate.

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

    Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not: (i)
Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public
interest; (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii)
become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or
such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become
effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \14\ and Rule 19b-
(f)(6) thereunder.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \15\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). In addition, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii)
requires a self-regulatory organization to give the Commission
written notice of its intent to file the proposed rule change at
least five business days prior to the date of filing of the proposed
rule change, or such shorter time as designated by the Commission.
FINRA has satisfied this requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Normally, a proposed rule change filed under 19b-4(f)(6) may not
become operative prior to 30 days after the date of filing. However,
Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii) permits the Commission to designate a shorter
time if such action is consistent with the protection of investors and
the public interest. FINRA requested that the Commission waive the 30-
day operative delay, so that the proposed rule change may become
operative upon filing. The Commission believes that the earlier
operative date is consistent with the protection of investors and the
public interest because the proposed rule change permits the Exchange
to implement without further delay the extension of its pilot
program.\16\ This will prevent FINRA Rule 4240 from lapsing.
Additionally, the Commission extended the temporary exemptions for
eligible credit default swaps and therefore agrees with FINRA that it
is appropriate to extend the implementation of the Interim Pilot
Program to November 30, 2010.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ For the purposes only of waiving the 30-day operative
delay, the Commission has considered the proposed rule's impact on
efficiency, competition, and capital formation.
    \17\ See supra note 6 and accompanying text.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule
change, the Commission may summarily abrogate such rule change if it
appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate
in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise
in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://
www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-FINRA-2009-063 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

     Send paper comments in triplicate to Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street,
NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.
    All submissions should refer to File Number SR-FINRA-2009-063. This
file number should be included on the subject line if e-mail 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 inspection
and copying in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street,
NE., Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours
of 10 a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of such filing also will be available for
inspection and copying at the principal office of FINRA. 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-FINRA-2009-063 and should be
submitted on or before October 22, 2009.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\18\
Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. E9-23699 Filed 9-30-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 12 (Thursday, January 19, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Pages 3452-3453]
[FR Doc No: 2023-00971]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Investment Company Act Release No. 34807; File No. 812-15297]

Prospect Capital Management L.P. and Prospect Floating Rate and
Alternative Income Fund, Inc.

January 13, 2023.
AGENCY: Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'' or ``SEC'').

ACTION: Notice.

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

    Notice of application for an order under section 6(c) of the
Investment Company Act of 1940 (the ``Act'') granting an exemption from
section 23(a)(1) of the Act.

SUMMARY OF APPLICATION:  Applicants request an order to permit certain
registered closed-end management investment companies and business
development companies (as defined under section 2(a)(48) of the Act) to
pay investment advisory fees (as described in the application) in
shares of their common stock.

APPLICANTS:  Prospect Capital Management L.P. and Prospect Floating
Rate and Alternative Income Fund, Inc.

FILING DATES:  The application was filed on January 1, 2022 and amended
on September 14, 2022 and December 13, 2022.

HEARING OR NOTIFICATION OF HEARING:  An order granting the requested
relief will be issued unless the Commission orders a hearing.
Interested persons may request a hearing on any application by emailing
the SEC's Secretary at [email protected] and serving the
applicants with a copy of the request by email, if an email address is
listed for the relevant Applicant below, or personally or by mail, if a
physical address is listed for the relevant Applicant below. Hearing
requests should be received by the Commission by 5:30 p.m. on February
7, 2023, and should be accompanied by proof of service on applicants,
in the form of an affidavit or, for lawyers, a certificate of service.
Pursuant to rule 0-5 under the Act, hearing requests should state the
nature of the writer's interest, any facts bearing upon the
desirability of a hearing on the matter, the reason for the request,
and the issues contested. Persons who wish to be notified of a hearing
may request notification by emailing the Commission's Secretary at
[email protected].

ADDRESSES: The Commission: [email protected]. Applicants:
Russell Wininger, Prospect Floating Rate and Alternative Income Fund,
Inc., 10 East 40th Street, 42nd Floor, New

York, NY 10016; Steven B. Boehm, Esq., and Cynthia R. Beyea, Esq.,
Eversheds Sutherland (US) LLP, 700 6th Street NW, Washington, DC 20001.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Christopher D. Carlson, Senior
Counsel, or Trace W. Rakestraw, Branch Chief, at<PHONE_NUMBER>
(Division of Investment Management, Chief Counsel's Office).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: For applicants' representations, legal
analysis, and conditions, please refer to applicants' second amended
and restated application, dated December 13, 2022, which may be
obtained via the Commission's website by searching for the file number
at the top of this document, or for an applicant using the Company name
search field, on the SEC's EDGAR system. The SEC's EDGAR system may be
searched at http://www.sec.gov/edgar/searchedgar/legacy/companysearch.html. You may also call the SEC's Public Reference Room
at<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Investment Management,
under delegated authority.
Sherry R. Haywood,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2023-00971 Filed 1-18-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


                      US ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
                          HUMAN STUDIES REVIEW BOARD
                        JUNE 2014 PUBLIC MEETING AGENDA

               Environmental Protection Agency Conference Center
                 Lobby Level - One Potomac Yard (South Bldg.)
                  2777 S. Crystal Drive, Arlington, VA 22202

                           Wednesday, June 11, 2014

                  HSRB WEB SITE http://www.epa.gov/osa/hsrb/
                       Docket Telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>
                  Docket Number: EPA - HQ - ORD - 2014 - 0411

10:30 AM*	Convene Public Meeting  -  Jim Downing, Designated Federal Officer, EPA Human Studies Review Board, Office of the Science Advisor
            Introduction of Board Members  - Rebecca Parkin, Ph.D., MPH, HSRB Chair
	Opening Remarks  -  Toby Schonfeld, Ph.D., Human Subjects Research Review Official, EPA
	Welcome  -  Mr. Jack Housinger, Director, Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP), Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention, EPA

Session 1:	A published report by Paul et al (1988) of an intentional exposure human study measuring the effects of small increases of dietary iodine on thyroid function.

10:45 AM 	EPA Science Review  -  Jonathan Leshin, Ph.D. (OPP, EPA)
11:00 AM 	Board Questions of Clarification  -  Rebecca Parkin, Ph.D., MPH (HSRB Chair), EPA staff
11:15 AM	EPA Ethics Review - Ms. Kelly Sherman (OPP, EPA)
11:25 AM	Board Questions of Clarification  -  Rebecca Parkin, Ph.D., MPH (HSRB Chair), EPA staff
11:35 AM 	Public Comments
11:40 AM	Board Discussion

Charge to the Board - Science:

   * Was the research reported in the published report by Paul et al (1988) faithful to the design and objectives of the protocol and governing documents of AEATF?

   * Has EPA adequately characterized, from a scientific perspective, the limitations on these data that should be considered when using the data in estimating the exposure?

Charge to the Board - Ethics:

   * Is the research likely to meet the applicable requirements of 40 CFR part 26, subparts K and L?

Session 2:	A published report by Gardner et al (1988) of an intentional exposure human study measuring the effects of low dose oral iodide supplementation on thyroid function.

12:05 PM 	EPA Science Review  -  Jonathan Leshin, Ph.D. (OPP, EPA)
12:20 PM 	Board Questions of Clarification  -  Rebecca Parkin, Ph.D., MPH (HSRB Chair), EPA staff
12:30 PM	EPA Ethics Review - Ms. Kelly Sherman (OPP, EPA)
12:40 PM	Board Questions of Clarification  -  Rebecca Parkin, Ph.D., MPH (HSRB Chair), and EPA staff
12:50 PM 	Public Comments
12:55 PM	Board Discussion

Charge to the Board - Science:

   * Was the research reported in the published report by Gardner et al (1988) faithful to the design and objectives of the protocol and governing documents of AEATF?

   * Has EPA adequately characterized, from a scientific perspective, the limitations on these data that should be considered when using the data in estimating the exposure?

Charge to the Board - Ethics:

   * Is the research likely to meet the applicable requirements of 40 CFR part 26, subparts K and L?

1:20 PM 	Lunch

Session 3: 	A published report by Lemar et al (1995) of an intentional exposure human study measuring the effects of chronic tetraglycine hydroperiodide water purification tablet use on thyroid function.

2:00 PM 	EPA Science Review  -  Jonathan Leshin, Ph.D. (OPP, EPA)
2:15 PM	Board Questions of Clarification  -  Rebecca Parkin, Ph.D., MPH (HSRB Chair), EPA staff
2:25 PM	EPA Ethics Review - Ms. Kelly Sherman (OPP, EPA)
2:35 PM	Board Questions of Clarification  -  Rebecca Parkin, Ph.D., MPH (HSRB Chair), EPA staff
2:45 PM 	Public Comments
2:50 PM 	Board Discussion

Charge to the Board - Science:

   * Was the research reported in the published report by Lemar et al (1995) faithful to the design and objectives of the protocol and governing documents of AEATF?

   * Has EPA adequately characterized, from a scientific perspective, the limitations on these data that should be considered when using the data in estimating the exposure?
Charge to the Board - Ethics:

   * Is the research likely to meet the applicable requirements of 40 CFR part 26, subparts K and L?

3:20 PM	Discussion of HSRB Work Group on Return of Individual Research Results Report

4:00 PM* 	Adjourn


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 58 (Monday, March 27, 2023)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 18054-18056]
[FR Doc No: 2023-06120]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R08-OAR-2022-0612; FRL-10300-02-R8]

Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Colorado;
Revisions to Code of Colorado Regulations; Regulation Number 3

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is approving the
majority of revisions to Regulation Number 3 of the Code of Colorado
Regulations (CCR) submitted to the EPA by the State of Colorado on
March 22, 2021. The revisions that the EPA is finalizing approval on
include updated references to other sections of the CCR that were moved
to a new location, as well as changes to Regulation 3 to reflect
digitalization of public notice and comment procedures. The EPA is not
finalizing approval of revisions that reflect changes made by Colorado
to update dates of incorporation by reference (IBR) of sections of the
Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) for the reasons outlined in section I
of the preamble of this final rule. The EPA is taking this action
pursuant to the Clean Air Act (CAA).

DATES: This rule is effective on April 26, 2023.

ADDRESSES: The EPA has established a docket for this action under
Docket ID No. EPA-R08-OAR-2022-0612. All documents in the docket are
listed on the http://www.regulations.gov website. Although listed in
the index, some information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or
other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain
other material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the
internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy form.
Publicly available docket materials are available through http://www.regulations.gov, or please contact the person identified in the FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section for additional availability
information.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Matthew Lang, Air and Radiation
Division, EPA, Region 8, Mailcode 8ARD-IO, 1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver,
Colorado 80202-1129, telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>, email address:
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document ``we,'' ``us,'' and
``our'' means the EPA.

I. Background

    The background for this action is discussed in detail in our
November 7, 2022 proposal.\1\ In that document we proposed to approve a
State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision submitted by Colorado which
included changes to Regulation 3, Parts A, B, and C. The revisions to
Regulation 3, Part A were originally intended to be finalized as an
update to the date of IBR from November 29, 2013 to December 11, 2014
of Global Warming Potentials as codified in 40 CFR part 98, subpart A,
table A-1. This date of IBR was meant to be added in both sections
I.B.10 and I.B.44.b.(i) of Part A. However, it was determined that the
final version of Regulation 3, Part A, which was inserted into the CCR,
only showed the removal of the November 29, 2013 date without its
necessary replacement with the updated date of IBR. The EPA is not able
to approve the revised date into the SIP since it was not formally
included in Colorado's regulations. Colorado is currently going through
its state rulemaking process to add the revised date to section I.B.10
of Part A. Therefore, in order to prevent the deletion of the existing
date of IBR without having a replacement date, the EPA will not take
final action on the revisions to Regulation 3, Part A, section I.B.10
in this final rule. Further, while the revised date was properly
included in the final version of section I.B.44 of Part A that was
inserted into the CCR, the EPA will also not take final action on the
revisions to section I.B.44 in this final rule in order to prevent
conflicting dates of IBR between sections I.B.10 and I.B.44. Once
Colorado has submitted revisions showing the revised date in section
I.B.10 of Part A as having been formally inserted into the CCR, then
the EPA will propose to take action on the revisions that update the
dates of IBR in both sections I.B.10 and I.B.44.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Colorado;
Revisions to Colorado Code of Regulations; Regulation Number 3, 87
FR 66985 (November 7, 2022).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In this action, the revisions to Regulation 3, Parts B and D are
being finalized as proposed in our November 7, 2022 proposal. In that
rule, we proposed to approve those revisions to Regulation 3, Parts B
and D because they were prepared in accordance with the requirements in
section 110 of the CAA.
    The EPA held a 30-day comment period on the proposed rulemaking
beginning on November 7, 2022 and closing on December 7, 2022. We
received a comment on the proposal from one commenter. Our comment
summary and response to the comment is below.

II. Response to Comments

    Comment: Commenter stated generally that any grammatical errors in
Regulation 3, Part B should be corrected for clarity and offered their
support of the digital availability of permit application materials.
    Response: We thank the commenter and acknowledge their comments. We
are not aware of, nor did the commenter specifically highlight, any
grammatical errors in the submitted revisions to Regulation 3, Part B.
Moreso, we are not aware of any grammatical errors that would change
the meaning or substance of the submitted revisions. Therefore, the EPA
is finalizing the proposed revisions to Regulation 3, Part B as
proposed.

III. Final Action

    We are approving revisions to Regulation 3, Parts B, sections
III.C, III.C.1.e, III.C.4, and III.D.1 as submitted by the State of
Colorado on March 22, 2021. We are also approving revisions to
Regulation 3, Part D, sections II.A.11.a(viii), IV, IV.A, IV.A.1, and
IV.A.7 submitted by the State of Colorado on March 22, 2021. We are not
finalizing approval of revisions to Regulation 3, Part A, sections
I.B.10 and I.B.44.b(i) in this action as explained in section I of this
preamble. The EPA intends to address Regulation 3, Part A, sections
I.B.10 and I.B.44.b(i) in a future and separate rulemaking action.

IV. Incorporation by Reference

    In this document, the EPA is finalizing regulatory text that
includes IBR. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, the EPA is
finalizing the IBR of Regulation 3, Parts B and D, which include
updated references to other sections of the CCR and changes to
Regulation 3 to reflect digitalization of public notice and comment
procedures, as set forth below in the amendments to 40 CFR part 52. The
EPA has made, and will continue to make, these materials generally
available through www.regulations.gov and at the EPA

Region 8 Office (please contact the person identified in the FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this preamble for more
information). Therefore, these materials have been approved by the EPA
for inclusion in the State implementation plan, have been incorporated
by reference by the EPA into that plan, are fully federally enforceable
under sections 110 and 113 of the CAA as of the effective date of the
final rulemaking of the EPA's approval, and will be incorporated by
reference in the next update to the SIP compilation.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ 62 FR 27968 (May 22, 1997).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve a
SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and
applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a).
Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, the EPA's role is to approve state
choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act.
Accordingly, this action merely approves state law as meeting Federal
requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those
imposed by state law. For that reason, this action:
     Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21,
2011);
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, described in the Unfunded Mandates
Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     Does not have federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Is not subject to requirements of section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the CAA; and
     Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    In addition, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian
reservation land or in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has
demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian
country, the rule does not have tribal implications and will not impose
substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law as
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).
    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. EPA will submit a report containing this action and
other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2).
    Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for
judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court
of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by May 26, 2023. Filing a
petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule
does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of
judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for
judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness
of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in
proceedings to enforce its requirements (see section 307(b)(2)).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide,
Greenhouse gases, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental
relations, Lead, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting
and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic
compounds.

    Dated: March 12, 2023.
K.C. Becker,
Regional Administrator, Region 8.

    For the reasons set forth in the preamble, 40 CFR part 52 is
amended as follows:

PART 52--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS

0
1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

Subpart G--Colorado

0
2. In Sec.  52.320, the table in paragraph (c) is amended by:
0
a. Under the heading ``5 CCR 1001-05, Regulation Number 3, Part B,
Concerning Construction Permits'', revising the entry ``III.
Construction Permit Review Procedures'';
0
b. Under the heading ``5 CCR 1001-05, Regulation Number 3, Part D,
Concerning Major Stationary Source New Source Review and Prevention of
Significant Deterioration'', revising the entries ``II. Definitions'',
and ``IV. Public Comment Requirements''.
    The revisions read as follows:

Sec.  52.320  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                    State effective    EPA effective   Final rule citation/
              Title                      date              date                date                Comments
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                   5 CCR 1001-05, Regulation Number 3, Part B, Concerning Construction Permits
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
III. Construction Permit Review           2/14/2021         4/26/2023  [insert Federal
 Procedures.                                                            Register citation],
                                                                        3/27/2023.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5 CCR 1001-05, Regulation Number 3, Part D, Concerning Major Stationary Source New Source Review and Prevention
                                          of Significant Deterioration
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
II. Definitions..................         2/14/2021         4/26/2023  [insert Federal
                                                                        Register citation],
                                                                        3/27/2023.

                                                  * * * * * * *
IV. Public Comment and Hearing            2/14/2021         4/26/2023  [insert Federal
 Requirements.                                                          Register citation],
                                                                        3/2/2023.

                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2023-06120 Filed 3-24-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 115 (Friday, June 16, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Page 27752]
[FR Doc No: 2017-12537]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request

Upon Written Request, Copies Available From: Securities and Exchange
Commission, Office of FOIA Services, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC
20549-0213

Extension:
    Rule 22d-1, SEC File No. 270-275, OMB Control No. 3235-0310

    Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction
Act of 1995 (``Paperwork Reduction Act'') (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), the
Securities and Exchange Commission (the ``Commission'') has submitted
to the Office of Management and Budget (``OMB'') a request for
extension of the previously approved collection of information
discussed below.
    Rule 22d-1 under the Investment Company Act of 1940 (the ``1940
Act'') (17 CFR 270.22d-1) provides registered investment companies that
issue redeemable securities (``funds'') an exemption from section 22(d)
of the 1940 Act (15 U.S.C. 80a-22(d)) to the extent necessary to permit
scheduled variations in or elimination of the sales load on fund
securities for particular classes of investors or transactions,
provided certain conditions are met. The rule imposes an annual burden
per series of a fund of approximately 15 minutes, so that the total
annual burden for the approximately 4,509 series of funds that might
rely on the rule is estimated to be 1127.25 hours.
    The estimate of average burden hours is made solely for the
purposes of the Paperwork Reduction Act. The estimate is based on
communications with industry representatives, and is not derived from a
comprehensive or even a representative survey or study.
    Responses will not be kept confidential. An agency may not conduct
or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of
information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
    The public may view the background documentation for this
information collection at the following Web site, www.reginfo.gov.
Comments should be directed to: (i) Desk Officer for the Securities and
Exchange Commission, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs,
Office of Management and Budget, Room 10102, New Executive Office
Building, Washington, DC 20503, or by sending an email to:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>and (ii) Pamela Dyson, Director/Chief
Information Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission, c/o Remi
Pavlik-Simon, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549 or send an email
to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Comments must be submitted to OMB within 30
days of this notice.

    Dated: June 13, 2017.
Eduardo A. Aleman,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2017-12537 Filed 6-15-17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 237 (Tuesday, December 14, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 71108-71109]
[FR Doc No: 2021-26854]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[SEC File No. 270-298, OMB Control No. 3235-0337]

Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request

Upon Written Request, Copies Available From: Securities and Exchange

Commission, Office of FOIA Services, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC
20549-2736

Extension:
    Rule 17Ac2-2 and Form TA-2

    Notice is hereby given that pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act
of 1995 (``PRA'') (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), the Securities and Exchange
Commission (``Commission'') has submitted to the Office of Management
and Budget (``OMB'') a request for approval of the existing collection
of information provided for in Rule 17Ac2-2 (17 CFR 240.17Ac2-2) and
Form TA-2 under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78a et
seq.) (``Exchange Act'').
    Rule 17Ac2-2 and Form TA-2 under the Exchange Act require transfer
agents to file an annual report of their business activities with the
Commission. These reporting requirements are designed to ensure that
all registered transfer agents are providing the Commission with
sufficient information on an annual basis about the transfer agent
community and to permit the Commission to effectively monitor business
activities of transfer agents.
    The amount of time needed to comply with the requirements of Rule
17Ac2-2 and Form TA-2 varies. Of the total 362 registered transfer
agents, approximately 9.2% (or 33 registrants) would be required to
complete only questions 1 through 3 and the signature section of Form
TA-2, which the Commission estimates would take each registrant
approximately 30 minutes, for a total burden of approximately 17 hours
(33 x .5 hours). Approximately 26.5% of registrants (or 96 registrants)
would be required to answer questions 1 through 5, question 11 and the
signature section, which the Commission estimates would take
approximately 1 hour and 30 minutes, for a total of approximately 144
hours (96 x 1.5 hours). Approximately 64.2% of the registrants (or 232
registrants) would be required to complete the entire Form TA-2, which
the Commission estimates would take approximately 6 hours, for a total
of approximately 1,392 hours (232 x 6 hours). The aggregate annual
burden on all 362 registered transfer agents is thus approximately
1,553 hours (17 hours + 144 hours + 1,392 hours) and the average annual
burden per transfer agent is approximately 4.29 hours (1,553 / 362).
    This rule does not involve the collection of confidential
information.
    An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required
to respond to, a collection of information under the PRA unless it
displays a currently valid OMB control number.
    The public may view background documentation for this information
collection at the following website: www.reginfo.gov. Find this
particular information collection by selecting ``Currently under 30-day
Review--Open for Public Comments'' or by using the search function.
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information
collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice
to (i) www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain and (ii) David Bottom,
Director/Chief Information Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission,
c/o John R. Pezzullo, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549, or by
sending an email to: [email protected].

    Dated: December 7, 2021.
J. Matthew DeLesDernier,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2021-26854 Filed 12-13-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


Apr 2016..........................         13.0%         42.2%         31.6%         43.6%         39.1%
                                                May 2016..........................          1.7%         39.8%         37.9%         50.2%         42.6%
                                                Jun 2016..........................          2.0%         43.7%         32.2%         48.3%         41.4%
                                                Jul 2016..........................          2.3%         43.2%         31.7%         48.0%         41.0%
[7b] % of time CHX was at the NBO and was the   Aug 2015..........................         24.3%         34.4%         51.2%         39.8%         41.8%
 largest offer at that price.
                                                Sep 2015..........................         27.0%         33.8%         37.8%         46.7%         39.4%
                                                Oct 2015..........................         16.0%         38.1%         31.3%         44.0%         37.8%
                                                Nov 2015..........................         22.6%         36.8%         35.1%         53.4%         41.8%
                                                Dec 2015..........................         23.2%         32.7%         30.6%         36.8%         33.4%
                                                Jan 2016..........................         20.7%         51.1%         41.3%         50.7%         47.7%
                                                Feb 2016..........................         18.5%         54.7%         40.8%         49.4%         48.3%
                                                Mar 2016..........................         12.9%         55.2%         35.3%         51.2%         47.2%
                                                Apr 2016..........................          8.1%         38.6%         30.8%         45.9%         38.4%

                                                May 2016..........................          3.8%         36.7%         29.8%         45.2%         37.2%
                                                Jun 2016..........................          4.6%         44.6%         31.4%         51.8%         42.6%
                                                Jul 2016..........................          1.1%         42.5%         27.0%         31.0%         33.5%
[7c] % of time CHX was at the NBB and was the   Aug 2015..........................          0.2%          5.3%         12.8%          7.1%          8.4%
 largest bid at that price and that CHX was at
 the NBO and was the largest offer at that
 price.
                                                Sep 2015..........................          1.1%          8.5%          7.3%         16.7%         10.9%
                                                Oct 2015..........................          0.9%         12.3%          5.3%         17.7%         11.8%
                                                Nov 2015..........................          2.3%         12.6%          7.0%         23.0%         14.2%
                                                Dec 2015..........................          2.9%          8.1%          6.4%         13.7%          9.4%
                                                Jan 2016..........................          1.9%         17.3%          4.3%         18.5%         13.4%
                                                Feb 2016..........................          0.3%         23.3%          2.8%         13.9%         13.3%
                                                Mar 2016..........................          0.1%         26.0%          2.6%         14.0%         14.2%
                                                Apr 2016..........................          0.0%         10.9%          1.5%         14.0%          8.8%
                                                May 2016..........................          0.0%         10.4%          8.0%         15.6%         11.3%
                                                Jun 2016..........................          0.0%         14.3%          4.8%         18.6%         12.5%
                                                Jul 2016..........................          0.0%         10.7%          2.8%         10.8%          8.1%
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Appendix C: Impact of LEAD on Liquidity Takers
    The purpose of this analysis is to show that implementation of LEAD
would not materially impact the ability of a random market participant
not engaged in a latency arbitrage strategy, such as retail investors,
to take displayed liquidity at CHX. This analysis assumes that LEAD
would not materially change order sending behavior of Participants.
    For the period of May 2016 through July 2016,\97\ the Exchange
observed the following with regards to SPY:

    \97\ For the months prior to May 2016 during the Analysis
Period, the Exchange did not maintain TLTC data. A limitation of
this data is that CHX Market Share and displayed liquidity in SPY
and, by extension, order sending activity had all diminished
considerably by May 2016. See supra Appendix B Calculation Set 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     There were a total of 18,316 orders at least partially
executed.
     During the same period, the Exchange received 1,278
cancel messages to cancel resting orders after the resting order had
been fully executed (``too-late-to-cancel'' or ``TLTC'').
     Of the 1,278 TLTCs, 412 TLTCs (32.24%) were received
sooner than or exactly 350 microseconds after the execution
(``TLTC<=350''), whereas 866 (67.76%) were received later
than 350 microseconds after the execution (``TLTC>350'').
     Of the 412 TLTC<=350, 392 (95.15%)
executions were attributed to SPY latency arbitrage activity while
the remaining 20 (4.85%) executions were not.
     Of the 866 TLTC>350, 780 (90.07%) executions
were attributed to SPY latency arbitrage activity while the
remaining 86 (9.93%) executions were not.

Thus, if LEAD had been in effect for the period of May 2016 through
July 2016, LEAD (1) would have prevented up to 412 orders, virtually
all of which the Exchange believes were submitted as part of SPY
latency arbitrage activity, from being executed during the 350
microsecond Fixed LEAD Period and (2) would have had a negative impact
on only 20 liquidity taking orders not attributed to SPY latency
arbitrage activity. These 20 orders comprised 0.11% of the 18,316
orders executed during the period. That is, during the measurement
period of 63 trading days, LEAD would have had an adverse effect on
approximately one order every three trading days. Thus, LEAD can make a
significant contribution to leveling the playing field between LEAD MMs
and latency arbitrageurs with minimal adverse effect on other liquidity
taking orders.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with Section 6(b) of the Act in general,\98\ and furthers the
objectives of Section 6(b)(5) in particular,\99\ in that it is designed
to promote just and equitable principles of trade, to foster
cooperation and coordination with persons engaged in facilitating
transactions in securities, to remove impediments and perfect the
mechanisms of a free and open market, and, in general, to protect
investors and the public interest; and is not designed to permit unfair
discrimination between customers, issuers, brokers, or dealers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \98\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \99\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Specifically, the Exchange believes that the proposed rule change
would remove impediments and perfect the mechanisms of a free and open
market and, in general, protect investors and the public interest by
enhancing displayed liquidity and price discovery by minimizing the
effectiveness of latency arbitrage strategies that negatively impact
market quality. As shown under the CHX ETF Analysis,\100\ latency
arbitrage lessens competition among orders by dissuading liquidity
providers from displaying large and aggressively priced orders, which
in turn impairs market efficiency.\101\ The Commission has recognized
the crucial role that displayed limit orders play in the price
discovery process.\102\ Thus, the Exchange believes that optimizing
liquidity provision on the Exchange will enhance price discovery and,
thereby, enhance market efficiency. To this end, LEAD is designed to
promote displayed liquidity on the Exchange by giving LEAD MMs a small
head start to the cancellation of stale quotes in the race to react to
symmetric public information. LEAD is designed to achieve these goals
without having a materially negative impact on the ability of liquidity
takers not engaged in latency arbitrage, such as retail investors, to
access displayed liquidity at CHX, as such liquidity will most always
remain on the CHX book after a liquidity taking order has been released
from LEAD.\103\ Thus, the Exchange believes that LEAD will encourage
LEAD MMs to post large aggressively priced orders on the CHX book,
which

will enhance liquidity and optimize price discovery in furtherance of
the objectives of Section 6(b)(5) of the Act \104\ and in a manner
consistent with Regulation NMS, as described below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \100\ See supra Appendix A
    \101\ See Regulation NMS Adopting Release, supra note 13, at
37499.
    \102\ See Regulation NMS Adopting Release, supra note 13, at
37526.
    \103\ See also supra note 18; see also supra Appendix C.
    \104\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, the Exchange believes that the proposed LEAD MM
designation would protect investors and the public interest by
requiring LEAD MMs to meet the proposed Minimum Performance Standards
in return for being afforded the benefits of LEAD. Moreover, the
Exchange submits that the proposal to leverage existing Market Maker
rules regarding the procedures for deregistering Market Makers and
involuntary withdrawals from assigned securities will provide the
Exchange with sufficient authority to compel and enforce compliance by
LEAD MMs with the proposed Minimum Performance Standards.
    The Exchange also believes that the proposed rules regarding
assignment of LEAD MM Securities would protect investors and the public
interest by implementing a comprehensive process whereby the Exchange
will be able to select LEAD MMs that have demonstrated the ability and
capacity to enhance displayed liquidity on the Exchange and to comply
with federal rules and regulations, as well as CHX Rules. When
considering these procedures with the proposed Minimum Performance
Standards and enforcement mechanism, the Exchange believes that the
effectiveness of LEAD in enhancing displayed liquidity and price
discovery will be optimized.
    Moreover, for similar reasons, the Exchange submits that the
proposed rules for LEAD are not designed to permit unfair
discrimination. Specifically, the Exchange believes that any
discrimination between LEAD MMs and non-LEAD MMs is permissible under
the Act because (1) LEAD is designed to enhance displayed liquidity and
price discovery by rectifying a current structural bias against
displayed liquidity,\105\ without having a materially negative impact
on the ability of liquidity takers not engaged in latency arbitrage,
such as retail investors, to access displayed liquidity at CHX,\106\
and (2) the proposed Minimum Performance Standards, which will not
apply to non-LEAD MMs, will help ensure that those goals are achieved,
as well as to provide a safeguard against LEAD MMs utilizing LEAD to
engage in manipulative activities or otherwise non-bona fide liquidity
provision strategies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \105\ See supra Section 3(a)(2).
    \106\ See also supra note 18; see also supra Appendix C.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regardless of whether a delay is symmetric (e.g., IEX Delay) or
asymmetric (e.g., LEAD), any intentional delay designed to address
latency arbitrage must necessarily discriminate among members. That is,
correcting asymmetry in the market requires asymmetry in the remedy.
For example, while the IEX Delay delays all incoming messages, the IEX
Delay is asymmetric in that it provides processing advantages to non-
displayed pegged orders resting on the IEX book, which are not provided
to other orders. LEAD would similarly address latency arbitrage by
providing a processing advantage to LEAD MMs, which will not be
provided to non-LEAD MMs.
    The Exchange also believes that the LEAD is narrowly-tailored to
address latency arbitrage as applied to limit orders. In finding that
the rules pertaining to the IEX Delay did not permit unfair
discrimination, and would not impose any unnecessary or inappropriate
burden on competition, the Commission recognized that displayed limit
orders or non-pegged non-displayed limit orders, the types of liquidity
LEAD is designed to protect, would not benefit from the symmetric IEX
Delay \107\ because the purpose of such limit orders is to post or
execute consistent with their fixed limit price, as opposed to being
repriced by an exchange based on changes to the NBBO.\108\ Given that
limit orders are also vulnerable to latency arbitrage and could only be
effectively adjusted by the liquidity providers, if such orders are
provided as part of a broader liquidity provision strategy that
utilizes proprietary algorithms to price and size such limit orders, it
logically flows that the best way to protect such liquidity is through
an asymmetric delay, such as LEAD, that empowers LEAD MMs to better
execute their liquidity provision strategies, which result in valuable
displayed liquidity being provided to the market.\109\ Thus, given the
ineffectiveness of symmetric delays in protecting limit orders from
latency arbitrage and the immaterial impact that LEAD would have on the
ability of random liquidity takers not engaged in latency arbitrage to
access liquidity at CHX,\110\ the Exchange believes that LEAD is
narrowly-tailored to address latency arbitrage as applied to limit
orders.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \107\ See IEX Approval Order, supra note 20, at 41157.
    \108\ See id.
    \109\ See supra notes 7 and 8.
    \110\ See also supra note 18; see also supra Appendix C.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange further submits that LEAD would not confer any unfair
advantage to LEAD MMs or introduce incremental risk of manipulative
activity. While LEAD is long enough to neutralize microsecond speed
advantages exploited by latency arbitrageurs, it is too short to
provide any actionable incremental advantage to LEAD MMs in reacting to
information not already it their possession. LEAD is also too short to
introduce any incremental risk of manipulative practices, which is
supported by the fact that the Commission has recognized that a 350-
microsecond delay would not materially increase the likelihood of
certain manipulative practices such as ``spoofing'' or ``marking-the-
close'' due to the practical difficulties of executing such strategies
within such a short time frame.111 112 Notwithstanding, the
Exchange has elected to adopt the proposed Minimum Performance
Standards to provide additional assurance to the Commission that CHX
displayed liquidity will remain valuable and reliable by tying the
processing advantage afforded to LEAD MMs to heightened market quality
requirements, which will not be applied to non-LEAD MMs. Thus, for all
of the reasons described above, any discrimination between LEAD MMs and
non-LEAD MMs is justified and consistent with the requirements of the
Section 6(b)(5) of the Act.\113\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \111\ Final Interpretation, supra note 30, at n. 70.
    \112\ The Exchange notes that it currently maintains
surveillance protocols designed to detect such manipulative
practices.
    \113\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange notes that the Commission has previously approved
functionality that permissibly discriminates among members for the
purpose enhancing displayed liquidity. Specifically, the Commission has
previously approved the following mechanisms:

     Maker/taker fee. Many national securities exchanges,
including CHX, utilize the ``maker/taker'' fee model, which
discriminates between liquidity providers and takers for the purpose
of incentivizing market participants to provide liquidity to or take
liquidity from the exchange.\114\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \114\ See, e.g., Bats BYX Fee Schedule; see also Section E.1 of
the CHX Fee Schedule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Bulk-quoting interface. Nasdaq offers a bulk-quoting
interface to allow its options market makers to more efficiently
submit and update quotes as ``aiding market makers in their market
making activities will help to

enhance market liquidity for investors.'' \115\ BATS Options offers
a similar functionality, but permits all BATS Options users to
utilize its bulk-quoting interface.\116\ In each case, the exchange
gives liquidity providers a processing advantage to facilitate the
adjusting of stale quotes to the disadvantage of liquidity takers.
Consequently, as bulk-quoting interfaces permit liquidity providers
to adjust numerous quotes through a single message, this would
minimize the possibility of stale quotes being executed before the
liquidity provider has an opportunity to adjust the stale quote.
That is, bulk-quoting interfaces, among other things, minimize the
effectiveness of latency arbitrage strategies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \115\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 65024 (August 3,
2011), 76 FR 48925 (August 9, 2011) (SR-NASDAQ-2011-102).
    \116\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 65307 (September
9, 2011), 76 FR 57092 (September 15, 2011) (SR-BATS-2011-034)
(expanding the availability of the bulk-quoting interface to all
users of BATS Options); Securities Exchange Act Release No. 65133
(August 15, 2011), 76 FR 52032 (August 19, 2011) (SR-BATS-2011-029)
(adopting the bulk-quoting interface).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Market Makers generally. Many national securities
exchange offer a market maker program that provides certain
financial or operational benefits (e.g., Nasdaq's bulk-quoting
interface and NYSE DMM parity \117\) in return for meeting
heightened market quality requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \117\ See NYSE Rules 103B and 104.

    The Exchange also believes that the proposed amendments to the MTP
order modifier would remove impediments and perfect the mechanisms of a
free and open market and, in general, protect investors and the public
interest, in that they are designed to avoid certain unintended
consequences of LEAD on the MTP functionality. Specifically, since an
order would be assigned a sequence number prior to being evaluated
pursuant to LEAD,\118\ LEAD may result in a newer undelayed order being
ranked on the CHX book before an older delayed order, which would not
otherwise occur today. Under this scenario and assuming that the
contra-side orders trigger MTP and the incoming order is marked ``N,''
the current MTP rules would require the incoming older order to be
cancelled, whereas the amended MTP handling would require the resting
newer order to be cancelled subject to the exception for CHX Only
orders described under amended Article 1, Rule 2(b)(3)(F)(iii)(a) and
(b). Thus, the Exchange believes that the amended MTP functionality
better contemplates LEAD and preserves expected results.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \118\ See supra note 45.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange also believes that the proposed rule change is
consistent with Regulation NMS. Specifically, the Exchange believes
that LEAD is consistent with Rule 600(b)(3),\119\ Rule 602(b)(2)
(``Firm Quote Rule''),\120\ Rule 611 \121\ and Rule 610(d).\122\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \119\ See 17 CFR 242.600(b)(3).
    \120\ See 17 CFR 242.602(b)(2).
    \121\ See 17 CFR 242.611.
    \122\ See 17 CFR 242.610(d).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with the ``immedia[cy]'' requirement of Rule 600(b)(3) as LEAD is a de
minimis intentional access delay and thereby compatible with the
Exchange having an ``automated quotation'' under Rule 600(b)(3) and
thus a ``protected quotation'' under Rule 611.\123\ Specifically, Rule
600(b)(3) requires that a trading center displaying an automated
quotation permit, among other things, an incoming IOC order to
immediately and automatically execute against the automated quotation
up to its full size; and immediately and automatically cancel any
unexecuted portion of the IOC order without routing the order
elsewhere.\124\ In the context of determining whether a trading center
maintains an ``automated quotation'' for purposes of Rule 611, the
Commission does not interpret the term ``immediate'' used in Rule
600(b)(3) by itself to prohibit a trading center from implementing an
intentional access delay that is de minimis (i.e., a delay so short as
to not frustrate the purposes of the Order Protection Rule by impairing
fair and efficient access to an exchange's quotations).\125\
Accordingly, the Commission's revised interpretation provides that the
term ``immediate'' precludes any coding of automated systems or other
type of intentional device that would delay the action taken with
respect to a quotation unless such delay is de minimis.\126\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \123\ See Final Interpretation, supra note 30, at 40792.
    \124\ See 17 CFR 242.600(b)(3).
    \125\ See Final Interpretation, supra note 30, at 40792. Thus,
the Exchange's quotations would continue to be ``immediately''
accessible and protected pursuant to Rule 611. See 17 CFR
242.600(b)(3) defining ``automated quotation''; see also 17 CFR
242.600(b)(58) defining ``protected quotation.''
    \126\ See Final Interpretation, supra note 30, at 40792.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that LEAD is so short as to not frustrate the
purposes of the Rule 611 \127\ by impairing fair and efficient access
to the Exchange's quotations. Specifically, all Participants seeking to
take liquidity from the CHX book will have fair and efficient access to
CHX quotations. Also, the 350-microsecond delay is so short that it
does not provide an incremental advantage to a LEAD MM other than
neutralizing a structural bias that permits latency arbitrageurs to
profit off of symmetric public information. To the extent a market
participant has a better algorithm or better information, LEAD is too
short to have a negative impact on such non-latency arbitrage
strategies, much less permit a LEAD MM to decide on a quotation-by-
quotation basis whether to cancel or modify a quote. In addition, LEAD
is narrowly-tailored to minimize the effectiveness of latency arbitrage
strategies at CHX, as described above.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \127\ See 17 CFR 242.611.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange also believes that LEAD is consistent with Rule
602(b)(2).\128\ Specifically, a plain reading of Rule 602(b) indicates
that the delay of a liquidity taking order pursuant to LEAD would not
result in the order being ``presented'' to the LEAD MM.\129\ This is
consistent with the Commission's guidance regarding the applicability
of the Firm Quote Rule in the context of obsolete Intermarket Trading
System (``ITS'') commitments.\130\ Specifically, the Commission stated
that ``the Firm Quote Rule requires that every exchange specialist or
OTC market maker execute any order to buy or sell a security it
receives at a price at least as favorable as its published bid or offer
in any amount up to its published size, subject to two exceptions.''
\131\ The Commission further stated ``that the Firm Quote Rule applies
to ITS commitments; where a specialist or market maker fails to honor
its quote by refusing to execute an ITS commitment received at its
published bid or offer, and neither of the exceptions contained in the
Firm Quote Rule apply, the specialist or market maker is in violation
of the Firm Quote Rule.'' \132\ As such, the Commission's guidance
clearly suggests that a Rule 602(b) violation occurs when a liquidity
provider receives (i.e., is presented) a marketable contra-side order
and refuses to honor its quote.\133\ When also

considering that the Exchange will never notify Participants or the
public of the Exchange's receipt of a liquidity taking order subject to
LEAD and CHX Rules indicate that a liquidity provider's Rule 602(b)
obligation vests only after execution of its order within the Matching
System,\134\ the Exchange submits that LEAD is consistent with the Firm
Quote Rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \128\ ``Subject to the provisions of paragraph (b)(3) of this
section, each responsible broker or dealer shall be obligated to
execute any order to buy or sell a subject security, other than an
odd-lot order, presented to it by another broker or dealer, or any
other person belonging to a category of persons with whom such
responsible broker or dealer customarily deals, at a price at least
as favorable to such buyer or seller as the responsible broker's or
dealer's published bid or published offer (exclusive of any
commission, commission equivalent or differential customarily
charged by such responsible broker or dealer in connection with
execution of any such order) in any amount up to its published
quotation size.'' 17 CFR 242.602(b)(2) (emphasis added).
    \129\ See 17 CFR 242.602(b).
    \130\ See Exchange Act Release No. 40260, 63 FR 40748, 40754
(July 30, 1998).
    \131\ Id (emphasis added).
    \132\ Id (emphasis added).
    \133\ See 17 CFR 242.602(b). A Section 21(a) report from 1996
regarding, among other things, misconduct by certain market makers
with respect to its published quotes is illustrative of the type of
activity that the Firm Quote Rule is designed to address. See Report
Pursuant to Section 21(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
Regarding the NASD, the Nasdaq Market, and Nasdaq Market Makers,
Exchange Act Release No. 37542 (August 8, 1996). Page 32 of the
report provides, in pertinent part, as follows: Certain market
makers at times did not honor their quotation for those with whom
they preferred not to trade and ``backed away'' from their quotes as
reprisal for, among other reasons, perceived prior back way by other
market makers. Certain market makers also variously refused to trade
with order entry firms, certain other market makers, and
participants they ``dislike,'' such as options market makers. Market
makers at times backed away from their trading obligations to avoid
unwanted orders placed when they coordinated their quotations with
other market makers.
    \134\ CHX Article 20, Rule 3(a) provides as follows: Each order
submitted by each Participant is a firm order and each Participant
must, upon execution of the order within the Matching System,
purchase or sell, as the case may be, at the price, size and
conditions identified by the participant at the time it submitted
the order. No Participant may submit an order marked for display as
a ``manual'' quotation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange further believes that LEAD is consistent with the
requirements of Rule 611.\135\ As described above, a portion of a
Routable Order may be immediately routed away to execute against away
protected quotations, with the unrouted remainder being delayed before
being permitted to execute against an order resting on the CHX book at
a price inferior to the away protected quotations. \136\ Given that
LEAD is de minimis in the context of Rule 600(b)(3),\137\ it logically
flows that LEAD would also be considered de minimis for the purposes of
the ``simultaneously routed'' Intermarket Sweep Order (``ISO'')
requirement under Rule 611(b)(6).\138\ Thus, the Exchange submits that
a delay caused by LEAD between the routing of one or more ISOs to
satisfy better priced protected quotation(s) and the delayed execution
of a related order at price inferior to such protected quotation(s) is
consistent with the requirements of Rule 611(b)(6).\139\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \135\ 17 CFR 242.611.
    \136\ See supra Example 3.
    \137\ See 17 CFR 242.600(b)(3).
    \138\ See 17 CFR 242.611(b)(6).
    \139\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Similarly, a portion of a Routable Order may be immediately routed
away to execute against away protected quotations with the unrouted
remainder being delayed before be ranked on the CHX book at a price
that crosses such away protected quotations. This could result if the
resting order on the CHX book that resulted in the unrouted remainder
being delayed was cancelled before the unrouted remainder were released
from LEAD. Under this scenario, given that LEAD is de minimis in the
context of Rule 600(b)(3),\140\ it logically flows that the de minimis
delay caused by LEAD between the routing of one or more ISOs to satisfy
away protected quotations and the display of the related order at a
price that crosses such away protected quotations is permissible and
consistent with the requirements of Rule 610(d).\141\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \140\ See 17 CFR 242.600(b)(3).
    \141\ See ``Division of Trading and Markets: Responses to
Frequency Asked Questions Concerning Rule 611 and Rule 610 of
Regulation NMS.'' U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, 4 April
2008. Web. 20 June 2016 http://www.sec.gov/divisions/marketreg/nmsfaq610-11.htm (``Question 5.02''); see also CHX Article 20, Rule
6(c)(3); see also 17 CFR 242.610(d).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate
in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. To the contrary, the
Exchange believes that any burden on competition is necessary and
appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of Section 6(b)(5) of the
Act because LEAD is functionality that seeks to enhance liquidity and
optimize price discovery by deemphasizing speed as a key to trading
success in order to further serve the interests of investors and
thereby removes impediments and perfects the mechanisms of a free and
open market.
    The Exchange further notes that market participants will continue
to be able to obtain CHX book data via the Securities Information
Processors or through the Exchange's proprietary book feed, the CHX
Book Feed,\142\ without delay as the Exchange does not propose to delay
any outbound messages or market data. As such, the Exchange submits
that any burden on competition, while necessary and appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of that Act, has been minimized.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \142\ See CHX Article 4, Rule 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    No written comments were solicited or received with respect to 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 (i) as the Commission may
designate up to 90 days of such date if it finds such longer period to
be appropriate and publishes its reasons for so finding or (ii) as to
which the self-regulatory organization consents, the Commission will:
    A. By order approve or disapprove the 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-CHX-2017-04 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-CHX-2017-04. 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-CHX-2017-04 and should be submitted on or before March
14, 2017.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\143\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \143\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Eduardo A. Aleman,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2017-03296 Filed 2-17-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P