[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 210 (Tuesday, November 1, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 65837-65841]
[FR Doc No: 2022-23675]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-96160; File No. SR-MRX-2022-23]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Nasdaq MRX, LLC; Notice of Filing
and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Amend Options 3,
Section 11 Related to ISO Functionality

October 26, 2022.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that
on October 21, 2022, Nasdaq MRX, LLC (``MRX'' or ``Exchange'') filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'') the
proposed rule change as described in Items I, II, and III, below, which
Items have been prepared by the Exchange. The Commission is publishing
this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change from
interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange proposes to amend Options 3, Section 11 related to ISO
Functionality.
    The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's
website at https://listingcenter.nasdaq.com/rulebook/mrx/rules, at the
principal office of the Exchange, and at the Commission's Public
Reference Room.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to amend Options 3, Section 11 with respect
to the ability of Members to submit ISOs in the Exchange's Facilitation
Mechanism (``Facilitation ISO''), and Solicited Order Mechanism
(``Solicitation ISO''), to codify current System functionality.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ This functionality is currently offered on the Exchange, so
the proposed rule change codifies existing functionality in the
Exchange's rules.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As set forth in Options 3, Section 11(b), the Facilitation
Mechanism is a process wherein the Electronic Access Member seeks to
facilitate a block-size order it represents as agent, and/or a
transaction wherein the Electronic Access Member solicited interest to
execute against a block-size order it represents as agent. Electronic
Access Members must be willing to execute the entire size of orders
entered into the Facilitation Mechanism. As set forth in Options 3,
Section 11(d), the Solicited Order Mechanism is a process by which an
Electronic Access Member can attempt to execute orders of 500 or more
contracts it represents as agent against contra orders it solicited.
Each order entered into the Solicited Order Mechanism shall be
designated as all-or-none.
    An ISO is defined in Options 3, Section 7(b)(5) as a limit order
that meets the requirements of Options 5, Section 1(h) and trades at
allowable prices on the Exchange without regard to the ABBO.
Simultaneously with the routing of the ISO to the Exchange, one or more
additional ISOs, as necessary, are routed to execute against the full
displayed size of any Protected Bid, in the case of a limit order to
sell, or any Protected Offer, in the case of a limit order to buy, for
the options series with a price that is superior to the limit price of
the ISO.\4\ A Member may submit an ISO to the Exchange only if it has
simultaneously routed one or more additional ISOs to execute against
the full displayed size of any Protected Bid, in the case of a limit
order to sell, or Protected Offer, in the case of a limit order to buy,
for an options series with a price that is superior to the limit price
of the ISO.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ ``Protected Bid'' or ``Protected Offer'' means a Bid or
Offer in an options series, respectively, that: (a) is disseminated
pursuant to the Options Order Protection and Locked/Crossed Market
Plan; and (b) is the Best Bid or Best Offer, respectively, displayed
by an Eligible Exchange. See Options 5, Section 1(o).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As discussed further below, none of the proposed rule changes will
amend current functionality. Rather, these changes are designed to
bring greater transparency around certain order types currently
available on the Exchange. The Exchange notes that the Facilitation

ISO and Solicitation ISO \5\ are functionally similar to the Exchange's
Price Improvement Mechanism \6\ ISO (``PIM ISO'') as set forth in
Supplementary Material .08 to Options 3, Section 13, as further
discussed below.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ The Exchange notes that it has an ISO trade through
surveillance in place that will identify and capture when a Member
marks a Facilitation or Solicitation ISO and the order possibly
trades through a Protected Bid or Protected Offer price at an away
exchange. The Exchange will monitor the NBBO prior to and after the
order trades on the Exchange to detect potential trade through
violations.
    \6\ The Price Improvement Mechanism (``PIM'') is a process that
allows an Electronic Access Member to provide price improvement
opportunities for a transaction wherein the Electronic Access Member
seeks to facilitate an order it represents as agent, and/or a
transaction wherein the Electronic Access Member solicited interest
to execute against an order it represents as agent. See Options 3,
Section 13(a).
    \7\ The Exchange also notes that its affiliates, Nasdaq BX
(``BX'') and Nasdaq Phlx (``Phlx''), currently allow ISOs to be
entered into BX's Price Improvement Mechanism (``PRISM'') and Phlx's
Price Improvement XL (``PIXL''), respectively. See BX Options 3,
Section 13(ii)(K) (describing PRISM ISOs) and Phlx Options 3,
Section 13(b)(11) (describing PIXL ISOs). Other options exchanges
like Cboe Exchange, Inc. (``Cboe'') and Cboe EDGX Exchange, Inc.
(``EDGX'') similarly allow ISOs to be entered into their auction
mechanisms. See Cboe Rule 5.37(b)(4)(A) and EDGX Rule 21.19(b)(3)(A)
(allowing ISOs to be entered into Cboe's and EDGX's Automated
Improvement Mechanism (``AIM ISOs'')) and Cboe Rule 5.39(b)(4) and
EDGX Rule 21.21(b)(4) (allowing ISOs to be entered into Cboe's and
EDGX's Solicitation Auction Mechanism (``SAM ISOs'')). See also
Securities Exchange Act Release No. 60551 (August 20, 2009), 74 FR
43196 (August 26, 2009) (SR-CBOE-2009-040) (Order Granting Approval
of a Proposed Rule Change to Adopt Rules Implementing the Options
Order Protection and Locked/Crossed Market Plan, including to adopt
AIM ISOs).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Facilitation ISO
    Today, the Exchange allows the submission of ISOs into its
Facilitation Mechanism as Facilitation ISOs. To promote transparency,
the Exchange proposes to memorialize Facilitation ISOs as an order type
in Supplementary Material .06 to Options 3, Section 11. Specifically,
the Exchange proposes:

A Facilitation ISO order (``Facilitation ISO'') is the transmission
of two orders for crossing pursuant to paragraph (b) above without
regard for better priced Protected Bids or Protected Offers (as
defined in Options 5, Section 1) because the Member transmitting the
Facilitation ISO to the Exchange has, simultaneously with the
transmission of the Facilitation ISO, routed one or more ISOs, as
necessary, to execute against the full displayed size of any
Protected Bid or Protected Offer that is superior to the starting
Facilitation auction price. Any execution(s) resulting from such
sweeps shall accrue to the Agency order.

    Today, the Exchange will accept a Facilitation ISO provided the
order adheres to the current order entry requirements for the
Facilitation Mechanism as set forth in Options 3, Section 11(b)(1),\8\
but without regard to the ABBO (similar to a regular ISO in Options 3,
Section 7(b)(5)). Therefore, Facilitation ISOs must be entered at a
price that is equal to or better than the Exchange best bid or offer on
the same side of the market as the agency order unless there is a
Priority Customer order on the same side Exchange best bid or offer, in
which case the Facilitation ISO must be entered at an improved price.
The Exchange does not check the Exchange best bid or offer on the
opposite side of the Facilitation ISO because the underlying
Facilitation Mechanism similarly does not check the opposite side
Exchange best bid or offer. As discussed above, the Facilitation
Mechanism only requires that the opposite side of the Facilitation
order be equal to or better than the ABBO.\9\ The Facilitation
Mechanism does not check the opposite side Exchange best bid or offer
because any interest that is available on the opposite side of the
market would allocate against the Facilitation agency order and provide
price improvement. As an example of the current underlying Facilitation
Mechanism:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ Specifically, Options 3, Section 11(b)(1) provides that
orders must be entered into the Facilitation Mechanism at a price
that is (A) equal to or better than the NBBO on the same side of the
market as the agency order unless there is a Priority Customer order
on the same side Exchange best bid or offer, in which case the order
must be entered at an improved price; and (B) equal to or better
than the ABBO on the opposite side. Orders that do not meet these
requirements are not eligible for the Facilitation Mechanism and
will be rejected. The Exchange notes that it is amending this
provision in a concurrent rule filing (SR-MRX-2022-18), but that the
proposed changes in this filing do not impact SR-MRX-2022-18 and
vice versa. See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 95982 (October
4, 2022), 87 FR 61391 (October 11, 2022) (SR-MRX-2022-18).
    \9\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Assume the following market:
    Exchange BBO: 1 x 2 (also NBBO).
    CBOE: 0.75. x 2.25 (next best exchange quote).
    Facilitation order is entered to buy 50 contracts @ 2.05.
    No Responses are received.
    The Facilitation order executes with resting 50 lot quote @ 2. In
this instance, the Facilitation order is able to begin crossed with the
contra side Exchange BBO because in execution, the resting 50 lot quote
@ 2 is able to provide price improvement to the facilitation order.
    Given that the Facilitation ISO is accepted so long as it adheres
to the order entry requirements of the underlying Facilitation
Mechanism, but without regard to the ABBO, the Exchange believes that
it is appropriate and logical to align the order entry checks of the
Facilitation ISO in the manner discussed above.
    The Exchange processes the Facilitation ISO in the same manner that
it processes any other Facilitation orders, except that it will
initiate a Facilitation auction without protecting prices away.
Instead, the Member entering the Facilitation ISO will bear the
responsibility to clear all better priced interest away simultaneously
with submitting the Facilitation ISO to the Exchange. The Exchange
believes that offering this order type is beneficial for Members as it
provides them with an efficient method to initiate a Facilitation
auction while preventing trade-throughs.
    The Exchange notes that the Facilitation ISO is similar to the PIM
ISO that is currently described in Supplementary Material .08 to
Options 3, Section 13.\10\ Similar to the Facilitation ISO, the PIM ISO
must meet the order entry requirements for PIM in Options 3, Section
13(b) but does not consider the ABBO.\11\ Further, the Exchange
processes a PIM ISO order the same way as any other PIM order except
the Exchange will initiate a PIM auction without protecting away
prices. As with Facilitation ISOs, the Member entering the PIM ISO
bears responsibility to clear all better priced interest away

simultaneously with submitting the PIM ISO to the Exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ Supplementary Material .08 to Options 3, Section 13 defines
PIM ISO as the transmission of two orders for crossing pursuant to
this Rule without regard for better priced Protected Bids or
Protected Offers (as defined in Options 5, Section 1) because the
Member transmitting the PIM ISO to the Exchange has, simultaneously
with the routing of the PIM ISO, routed one or more ISOs, as
necessary, to execute against the full displayed size of any
Protected Bid or Protected Offer that is superior to the starting
PIM auction price and has swept all interest in the Exchange's book
priced better than the proposed auction starting price. Any
execution(s) resulting from such sweeps shall accrue to the PIM
order.
    \11\ Unlike the Facilitation Mechanism, PIM requires an opposite
side NBBO check, which would include the Exchange best bid or offer.
As discussed above, the Facilitation order entry checks only require
that the opposite side of the Facilitation order be equal to or
better than the ABBO (i.e., there is no opposite side local book
check). For PIM, the order must be entered at one minimum price
improvement increment better than the NBBO on the opposite side of
the market if the Agency Order is for less than 50 option contracts
and if the difference between the NBBO is $0.01. If the Agency Order
is for 50 option contracts or more, or if the difference between the
NBBO is greater than $0.01, the PIM order must be entered at a price
that is equal to or better than the NBBO on the opposite side. See
Options 3, Section 13(b)(1) and (2). As such, PIM ISOs additionally
require the entering Member to sweep all interest in the Exchange's
book priced better than the proposed auction starting price (unlike
Facilitation ISO which does not have a similar sweep requirement).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The following example illustrates how Facilitation ISO operates:
    Assume:
    ABBO: 1 x 1.20.
    MRX BBO: 0.90 x 1.30.
    Member enters Facilitation ISO with Agency side to buy 50 @ 1.25
and simultaneously routes multiple ISOs to execute against the full
displayed size of any Protected Bids priced better than the starting
Facilitation auction price.
    Facilitation ISO auction period concludes with no responses
arriving.
    Facilitation ISO executes with contra side 50 @ 1.25 because the
away market Best Offer of 1.20 has been cleared by the ISOs clearing
the way for the Agency side to trade with the counter-side order at
1.25.

Solicitation ISO

    Today, the Exchange allows the submission of ISOs into its
Solicited Order Mechanism as Solicitation ISOs. To promote
transparency, the Exchange proposes to memorialize Solicitation ISOs as
an order type in Supplementary Material .07 to Options 3, Section 11.
Specifically, the Exchange proposes:

A Solicitation ISO order (``Solicitation ISO'') is the transmission
of two orders for crossing pursuant to paragraph (d) above without
regard for better priced Protected Bids or Protected Offers (as
defined in Options 5, Section 1) because the Member transmitting the
Solicitation ISO to the Exchange has, simultaneously with the
transmission of the Solicitation ISO, routed one or more ISOs, as
necessary, to execute against the full displayed size of any
Protected Bid or Protected Offer that is superior to the starting
Solicitation auction price and has swept all interest in the
Exchange's book priced better than the proposed auction starting
price. Any execution(s) resulting from such sweeps shall accrue to
the Agency order.

    Today, the Exchange will accept a Solicitation ISO provided the
order adheres to the current order entry requirements for the Solicited
Order Mechanism as set forth in Options 3, Section 11(d)(1),\12\ but
without regard to the ABBO (similar to a regular ISO in Options 3,
Section 7(b)(5)). Therefore, Solicitation ISOs must be entered at a
price that is equal to or better than the Exchange best bid or offer on
both sides of the market; provided that, if there is a Priority
Customer order on the Exchange best bid or offer, the Solicitation ISO
must be entered at an improved price.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ Specifically, Options 3, Section 11(d)(1) provides that
orders must be entered into the Solicited Order Mechanism at a price
that is equal to or better than the NBBO on both sides of the
market; provided that, if there is a Priority Customer order on the
Exchange best bid or offer, the order must be entered at an improved
price. Orders that do not meet these requirements are not eligible
for the Solicited Order Mechanism and will be rejected. Similar to
the Facilitation Mechanism, the Exchange is amending the entry
checks for the Solicited Order Mechanism in SR-MRX-2022-18; however,
the proposed changes in this filing do not impact SR-MRX-2022-18 and
vice versa. See supra note 8.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange processes the Solicitation ISO in the same manner that
it processes other orders entered in the Solicited Order Mechanism,
except that it will initiate a Solicited Order auction without
protecting away prices. Instead, the Member entering the Solicitation
ISO will bear the responsibility to clear all better priced interest
away simultaneously with submitting the Solicitation ISO to the
Exchange. Similar to the Facilitation ISO discussed above, the Exchange
believes that offering this order type is beneficial for Members as it
provides them with an efficient method to initiate an auction in the
Solicited Order Mechanism while preventing trade-throughs. Furthermore,
Solicitation ISOs are similar to PIM ISOs in the manner described above
for Facilitation ISOs.\13\ In addition, other options exchanges
currently offer a substantially similar order type as the Exchange's
Solicitation ISO.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ The Exchange notes that similar to the PIM ISO, but unlike
Facilitation ISO, the Solicitation ISO requires entering Members to
sweep all interest in the Exchange's book priced better than the
proposed auction starting price. The order entry checks for the
Solicited Order Mechanism, similar to PIM, requires an opposite side
NBBO check, which would include the Exchange best bid or offer. See
supra notes 11-12.
    \14\ As noted above, both Cboe and EDGX currently offer a SAM
ISO order type, which is defined as the submission of two orders for
crossing in a SAM Auction without regard for better-priced Protected
Quotes (as defined in Cboe Rule 5.65 and EDGX Rule 27.1) because the
Initiating TPH routed an ISO(s) simultaneously with the routing of
the SAM ISO to execute against the full displayed size of any
Protected Quote that is better than the stop price and has swept all
interest in the Book with a price better than the stop price. Any
execution(s) resulting from these sweeps accrue to the SAM Agency
Order. See Cboe Rule 5.39(b)(4) and EDGX Rule 21.21(b)(4). See also
Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 87192 (October 1, 2019), 84 FR
53525 (October 7, 2019) (SR-CBOE-2019-063) (Notice of Filing and
Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change related to the SAM
Auction, including to adopt the SAM ISO); and 87060 (September 23,
2019), 84 FR 51211 (September 27, 2019) (SR-CboeEDGX-2019-047)
(Order Approving a Proposed Rule Change to Adopt a SAM Auction,
including to adopt the SAM ISO).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The following example illustrates how the Solicitation ISO
operates:
    Assume:
    ABBO: 1 x 1.20.
    MRX BBO: 0.90 x 1.30.
    Member enters Solicitation ISO with Agency side to buy 500 @ 1.25
and simultaneously routes multiple ISOs to execute against the full
displayed size of any Protected Bids priced better than the starting
Solicitation auction price.
    Solicitation ISO auction period concludes with no responses
arriving.
    Solicitation ISO executes with contra side 500 @ 1.25.
    Note that in the case a Solicitation ISO was entered with the
Agency side to buy 500 @ 1.35, it would be rejected because it was not
at or better than the NBBO on both sides (which is inclusive of an
Exchange book check). While the 1.20 away Best Offer was cleared by the
simultaneously routed ISOs, the Exchange Best Offer of 1.30 would now
be viewed as the National Best Offer for purposes of the Solicitation
ISO.
    Further note that a Facilitation ISO entered with the Agency side
to buy 50 @ 1.35 can start in the same example above because it does
not have a contra-side (from the Agency order perspective) Exchange
book check to begin. The Facilitation ISO would go on to allocate
against the 1.30 offer on the Exchange book upon the conclusion of the
auction.

Intermarket Sweep Orders

    In light of the changes proposed above to adopt the Facilitation
ISO and Solicitation ISO into its Rulebook, the Exchange proposes to
make related amendments to the ISO rule in Options 3, Section 7(b)(5)
to add that ``ISOs may be entered on the single leg order book or into
the Facilitation Mechanism, Solicited Order Mechanism, or Price
Improvement Mechanism, pursuant to Supplementary Material .06 and .07
to Options 3, Section 11, and Supplementary Material .08 to Options 3,
Section 13.''
    The proposed rule text will be similar to BX's current ISO rule in
BX Options 3, Section 7(a)(6), except the Exchange's ISO rule will
refer to Exchange functionality that BX does not have today.
Specifically, BX does not currently offer Facilitation ISOs or
Solicitation ISOs. PIM ISOs are currently codified in Supplementary
Material .08 to Options 3, Section 13, so the proposed rule text herein
is a non-substantive amendment to add a cross-reference to the PIM ISO
rule. The proposed language does not amend the current ISO
functionality but rather is intended to add more granularity and more
closely align the ISO rule with BX's ISO rule.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ BX's ISO rule currently has more granularity than MRX's ISO
rule, such as requiring ISOs to have a TIF designation of IOC and
prohibiting ISOs from being submitted during the opening process.
The Exchange is adding identical granularity to its ISO rule in SR-
MRX-2022-18. See supra note 8.

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

2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section
6(b) of the Act,\16\ in general, and furthers the objectives of Section
6(b)(5) of the Act,\17\ in particular, in that it is designed to
promote just and equitable principles of trade, 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \17\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Facilitation and Solicitation ISOs

    The Exchange believes that the proposal to adopt Facilitation ISOs
and Solicitation ISOs in Supplementary Material .06 and .07 to Options
3, Section 11 is consistent with the Act. The proposal will codify
current functionality, thereby promoting transparency in the Exchange's
rules and reducing any potential confusion. As it relates to
Solicitation ISOs, the Exchange believes that the proposed rule change
promotes fair competition. Specifically, the proposal allows the
Exchange to offer Members an order type that is already offered by
other options exchanges.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ See supra note 14.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, offering the Facilitation ISO and Solicitation ISO
benefits market participants and investors because this functionality
provides an additional and efficient method to initiate a Facilitation
or Solicited Order auction while preventing trade-throughs. As
discussed above, the Exchange processes the Facilitation and
Solicitation ISO in the same manner as it processes any other order
entered into the Facilitation and Solicited Order Mechanism, except the
Exchange will initiate a Facilitation auction or Solicited Order
auction without protecting away prices (similar to a regular ISO in
Options 3, Section 7(b)(5)). Instead, the entering Member, simultaneous
with the transmission of the Facilitation ISO or Solicitation ISO to
the Exchange, remains responsible for routing one or more ISOs, as
necessary, to execute against the full displayed size of any Protected
Bid or Protected Offer that is superior to the starting Facilitation or
Solicitation auction price, and for Solicitation ISO, has swept all
interest in the Exchange's book priced better than the proposed auction
starting price.\19\ As discussed above, these order types operate in a
similar manner to the PIM ISO that is currently described in
Supplementary Material .08 to Options 3, Section 13.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ See supra note 13.
    \20\ See supra notes 11 and 13.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Intermarket Sweep Orders

    The Exchange believes that the proposed changes to the definition
of ISOs in Options 3, Section 7(b)(5) are consistent with the Act. As
discussed above, the proposed changes are intended to add more
granularity and more closely align the level of detail in the ISO rule
with BX's ISO rule in BX Options 3, Section 7(a)(6) by specifying how
ISOs may be submitted.\21\ As such, the Exchange believes that its
proposal will promote transparency in the Exchange's rules and
consistency across the rules of the Nasdaq affiliated options
exchanges. While the proposed changes to the Exchange's ISO rule
generally track BX's ISO rule, the proposed language will refer to
certain Exchange functionality that BX does not have today (i.e.,
Facilitation ISOs or Solicitation ISOs).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ See supra note 15.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act. Offering Facilitation and
Solicitation ISOs does not impose an undue burden on competition
because it enables the Exchange to provide market participants with an
additional and efficient method to initiate a Facilitation or Solicited
Order auction while preventing trade-throughs, as discussed above. In
addition, all Members may submit a Facilitation ISO or Solicitation
ISO. As it relates to the Solicitation ISO, the Exchange believes that
the proposed rule change will promote fair competition among options
exchanges as it will allow the Exchange to compete with other markets
that already allow ISOs in their solicitation auction mechanisms.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ See supra note 14.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange further believes that the proposed changes to its ISO
rule do not impose an undue burden on competition. As discussed above,
the proposed changes are intended to add more granularity and more
closely align the level of detail in the ISO rule with BX's ISO rule in
BX Options 3, Section 7(a)(6) by specifying how ISOs may be submitted,
except the Exchange's ISO rule will refer to Exchange functionality
that BX does not have today (i.e., Facilitation and Solicitation
ISOs).\23\ With the proposed changes, the Exchange believes that its
proposal will promote transparency in the Exchange's rules and
consistency across the rules of the Nasdaq affiliated options
exchanges.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ See supra note 15.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    No written comments were either solicited or received.

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

    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)(iii) of the Act \24\ and
subparagraph (f)(6) of Rule 19b-4 thereunder.\25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(iii).
    \25\ 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 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule
change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule
change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or
appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or
otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission
takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings to
determine whether the proposed rule should be approved or 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 protected]. Please include
File Number SR-MRX-2022-23 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-MRX-2022-23. 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-MRX-2022-23 and should be submitted on
or before November 22, 2022.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\26\
J. Matthew DeLesDernier,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2022-23675 Filed 10-31-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: October 30, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 211)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 64515-64517]
[DOCID:fr30oc08-1]

========================================================================
Rules and Regulations
                                                Federal Register
________________________________________________________________________

This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains regulatory documents
having general applicability and legal effect, most of which are keyed
to and codified in the Code of Federal Regulations, which is published
under 50 titles pursuant to 44 U.S.C. 1510.

The Code of Federal Regulations is sold by the Superintendent of Documents.
Prices of new books are listed in the first FEDERAL REGISTER issue of each
week.

========================================================================

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 93

[Docket No. FAA-2005-19411; Amdt. No. 93-89]
RIN 2120-AI47

Reservation System for Unscheduled Arrivals at Chicago's O'Hare
International Airport

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule; Extension of expiration date.

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

SUMMARY: This action extends the expiration date of Special Federal
Aviation Regulation (SFAR) No. 105 through October 31, 2010. This
action maintains the reservation system established for unscheduled
arrivals at Chicago O'Hare International Airport (O'Hare) following the
expiration of limitations imposed on scheduled operations at the
airport. This action is necessary to reduce congestion and delays at
the airport and is consistent with O'Hare's status as a Schedules
Facilitated Airport (Level 2) under the International Air Transport
Association (IATA) Worldwide Scheduling Guidelines (WSG).

DATES: This final rule is effective on October 31, 2008, and SFAR No.
105 published at 70 FR 39610 (July 8, 2005), as amended in this rule,
shall remain in effect until October 31, 2010.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gerry Shakley, System Operations
Services, Air Traffic Organization; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>For legal questions concerning this rule,
contact: Robert Hawks, Regulations Division, Office of the Chief
Counsel; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Availability of Rulemaking Documents

    You may obtain an electronic copy using the Internet by:
    (1) Searching the Federal eRulemaking Portal (http://
www.regulations.gov);
    (2) Visiting the FAA's Regulations and Policies Web page at http://
www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/; or
    (3) Accessing the Government Printing Office's Web page at http://
www.gpoaccess.gov/fr/index.html.
    You also may obtain a copy by sending a request to the Federal
Aviation Administration, Office of Rulemaking, ARM-1, 800 Independence
Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591, or by calling<PHONE_NUMBER>. Make
sure to identify the amendment number or docket number of this
rulemaking.

Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act

    The Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA) of
1996 requires the FAA to comply with small entity requests for
information or advice about compliance with statutes and regulations
within its jurisdiction. Therefore, any small entity that has a
question regarding this document may contact its local FAA official, or
the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. You can find
out more about SBREFA on the Internet at http://www/faa/gov/
regulations_policies/rulemaking/sbre_act.

Authority

    The U.S. Government has exclusive sovereignty over the airspace of
the United States.\1\ Under this broad authority, Congress has
delegated to the Administrator extensive and plenary authority to
ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of the nation's
navigable airspace. In this regard, the Administrator is required to
assign by regulation or order use of the airspace to ensure its
efficient use.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 49 U.S.C. 40103(a).
    \2\ 49 U.S.C. 40103(b)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The FAA's broad statutory authority to manage the efficient use of
airspace encompasses management of the nationwide system of air
commerce and air traffic control. To ensure the efficient use of the
airspace, the FAA must take steps to prevent congestion at an airport
from disrupting or adversely affecting the air traffic system for which
the FAA is responsible. Inordinate delays can have a crippling effect
on other parts of the system, causing significant losses in time and
money for individuals and businesses, including the air carriers and
other operators at O'Hare and beyond. This rule facilitates the
Agency's exercise of its authority to manage the safe and efficient use
of the navigable airspace.

Background

    Since November 2003, O'Hare has suffered an inordinate and
unacceptable number of delays resulting from over-scheduling at the
airport, which also has had a crippling effect on the entire National
Airspace System. In August 2004, the FAA intervened by ordering a limit
on the number of scheduled arrivals at the airport during the peak
operating hours of 7 a.m. through 8:59 p.m., Central Time, effective
November 1, 2004, so that the system could return to a reasonably
balanced level of operations and delay.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Operating Limitations at Chicago International Airport,
Docket No. FAA-2004-16944.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On October 20, 2004, the FAA published a notice of proposed
rulemaking (NPRM) seeking public comments on a proposed reservation
system for unscheduled arrivals at O'Hare (69 FR 61708), effective
November 1, 2004. While this rulemaking was pending, the FAA
implemented a corresponding voluntary reservation program for
unscheduled arrivals using the general procedures followed during the
Special Traffic Management Programs and the High Density Rule.
    On July 8, 2005, the FAA published SFAR No. 105, ``Reservation
System for Unscheduled Arrivals at Chicago's O'Hare International
Airport.'' \4\ As stated in SFAR No. 105, the benefits achieved by the
FAA's August 18 Order would dissipate if certain operations at the
airport remained capped but other operations were permitted to grow.
SFAR No. 105 maintained the historical level of unscheduled operations
at O'Hare and supported other agency actions at O'Hare that address
congestion and delay until additional capacity exists at the airport.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ 70 FR 39610.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In SFAR No. 105, the FAA discussed that it may be necessary to
extend this

rule limiting unscheduled arrivals at O'Hare to coincide with a final
rule addressing scheduled arrivals, if adopted, or with an extension of
the August 2004 Order. The NPRM addressing scheduled arrivals at O'Hare
was published on March 25, 2005 (70 FR 15520).
    On November 2, 2005, the FAA extended the expiration date on SFAR
No. 105 until March 31, 2006.\5\ On March 31, 2006, the FAA extended
the expiration date on SFAR No. 105 through October 28, 2006,\6\ to
maintain the current operating environment at the airport while
considering comments to the proposed rule for scheduled arrivals.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ 70 FR 66253.
    \6\ The limits on unscheduled arrivals do not apply on
Saturdays.
    \7\ 71 FR 16217.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On August 29, 2006, the FAA published the ``Congestion and Delay
Reduction at Chicago O'Hare International Airport'' final rule.\8\ That
final rule codified the limit on scheduled arrivals initially imposed
under the FAA's August 2004 Order and expires on October 31, 2008. On
November 1, 2006, the FAA extended the expiration date on SFAR No. 105
through October 31, 2008, to coincide with the sunset date of the
``Congestion and Delay Reduction at Chicago O'Hare International
Airport'' final rule.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 71 FR 51382.
    \9\ 71 FR 64111.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The ongoing implementation of the O'Hare Modernization Program
should result in increased capacity at the airport. On October 31,
2008, the ``Congestion and Delay Reduction at Chicago O'Hare
International Airport'' final rule will sunset, and O'Hare will be
designated a Schedules Facilitated Airport (Level 2) under the IATA
WSG. Under the Level 2 guidelines, airlines conducting scheduled
operations at O'Hare must submit their proposed schedules in advance on
a semiannual basis and cooperate through schedule adjustments to reduce
congestion and delays. Through this voluntary system of schedule
adjustments, O'Hare should be able to utilize the increased capacity
without restrictions on arrivals and departures.
    Under the Level 2 guidelines, scheduled operations are managed in
advance to reduce the risks of congestion and delay. Because of the
nature of unscheduled operations, it is impossible to effectively
manage capacity significantly in advance of the operations.
Consequently, to coincide with the Level 2 status of O'Hare, and to
reduce the risks of congestion and delay, the FAA extends the limits
imposed by SFAR No. 105 until October 31, 2010.
    Extending the limits imposed by SFAR No. 105 should not unduly
burden unscheduled operations at O'Hare. The reservation system
currently in place provides reservations in excess of the number of
unscheduled flights arriving at O'Hare. From May 2002 to September
2008, there were on average 25 daily general aviation unscheduled
operations, which constitute the majority of unscheduled operations.
This data reflects a decline from 2006 (33 operations in same period)
and 2007 (29 operations in the same period). Under the current rule, 64
daily arrival reservations are available for allocation. The data also
reflects limited demand for public charter flights, which are permitted
to obtain reservations up to six months in advance of operations.
Although the demand for unscheduled operations does not exceed
available capacity, the reservation system spreads the unscheduled
operations throughout the day to allow the FAA to manage congestion and
delay, and it provides some advance information about the anticipated
number of unscheduled operations.
    Because of the current demand levels, the FAA does not believe that
an increase in the number of hourly reservations exclusively set aside
for unscheduled arrivals is justified. Additionally, the rule allows
the approval of additional reservations that do not result in
significant delay or congestion or when there is additional capacity
temporarily available, which should provide added flexibility for
unscheduled operations.
    Therefore, the FAA finds that notice and comment procedures under 5
U.S.C. section 553(b) are impracticable and contrary to the public
interest. The FAA further finds that good cause exists to make this
rule effective in less than 30 days.

International Compatibility

    In keeping with U.S. obligations under the Convention on
International Civil Aviation, it is FAA policy to comply with
International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) Standards and
Recommended Practices to the maximum extent practicable. The FAA
determined that there are no ICAO Standards and Recommended Practices
that correspond to this regulation.

Paperwork Reduction Act

    As required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C.
3507(d)), the FAA submitted a copy of the new information collection
requirements(s) in this final rule to the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB) for its review. An agency may not collect or sponsor the
collection of information, nor may it impose an information collection
requirement, unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
OMB approved the collection of this information and assigned OMB
Control Number 2120-0694.

Executive Order 12866 and DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures

    Changes to Federal regulations must undergo several economic
analyses. First, Executive Order 12866 directs that each Federal agency
shall propose or adopt a regulation only upon a reasoned determination
that the benefits of the intended regulation justify its costs. Second,
the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (Pub. L. 96-354) requires
agencies to analyze the economic impact of regulatory changes on small
entities. Third, the Trade Agreements Act (Pub. L. 96-39) prohibits
agencies from setting standards that create unnecessary obstacles to
the foreign commerce of the United States. In developing U.S.
standards, the Trade Act requires agencies to consider international
standards and, where appropriate, that they be the basis of U.S.
standards. Fourth, the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L.
104-4) requires agencies to prepare a written assessment of the costs,
benefits, and other effects of proposed or final rules that include a
Federal mandate likely to result in the expenditure by State, local, or
tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100
million or more annually (adjusted for inflation with base year of
1995). This portion of the preamble summarizes the FAA's analysis of
the economic impacts of this final rule.
    Department of Transportation Order DOT 2100.5 prescribes policies
and procedures for simplification, analysis, and review of regulations.
If the expected cost impact is so minimal that a proposed or final rule
does not warrant a full evaluation, this order permits that a statement
to that effect and the basis for it be included in the preamble if a
full regulatory evaluation of the cost and benefits is not prepared.
Such a determination has been made for this final rule. The reasoning
for this determination follows:
    In the preamble of SFAR No. 105, the FAA stated that it might
consider extending SFAR 105 for a time period that would coincide with
a final rule limiting scheduled operations. The FAA will continue to
extend this SFAR

through October 31, 2010. The rule requires maintaining the current
level of operations at Chicago O'Hare to ensure consistency with
O'Hare's Level 2 status. In the final economic assessment of SFAR No.
105, the FAA found that the rule provided system delay benefits at
minimal cost. Similarly, the FAA finds that this extension is cost
beneficial by continuing to provide system delay benefits at minimal
cost.
    FAA has, therefore, determined that this final rule is not a
``significant regulatory action'' as defined in section 3(f) of
Executive Order 12866, and is not ``significant'' as defined in DOT's
Regulatory Policies and Procedures.

Regulatory Flexibility Determination

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (Pub. L. 96-354) (RFA)
establishes ``as a principle of regulatory issuance that agencies shall
endeavor, consistent with the objectives of the rule and of applicable
statutes, to fit regulatory and informational requirements to the scale
of the businesses, organizations, and governmental jurisdictions
subject to regulation. To achieve this principle, agencies are required
to solicit and consider flexible regulatory proposals and to explain
the rationale for their actions to assure that such proposals are given
serious consideration.'' The RFA covers a wide range of small entities,
including small businesses, not-for-profit organizations, and small
governmental jurisdictions.
    Agencies must perform a review to determine whether a rule will
have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities. If the agency determines that it will, the agency must
prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis as described in the RFA.
    However, if an agency determines that a rule is not expected to
have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities, section 605(b) of the RFA provides that the head of the
agency may so certify and a regulatory flexibility analysis is not
required. The certification must include a statement providing the
factual basis for this determination, and the reasoning should be
clear.
    This final rule extends the expiration date of SFAR No. 105, which
provides for fewer airport delays at minimum cost. Just as in the
initial and final regulatory flexibility analyses, the FAA expects
there will be a substantial number of small entities affected by the
extension of this SFAR, however, the economic impact continues to be
insignificant.
    Therefore as the acting FAA administrator, I certify this rule will
not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities.

International Trade Impact Assessment

    The Trade Agreements Act of 1979 (Pub. L. 96-39) prohibits Federal
agencies from establishing any standards or engaging in related
activities that create unnecessary obstacles to the foreign commerce of
the United States. Legitimate domestic objectives, such as safety, are
not considered unnecessary obstacles. The statute also requires
consideration of international standards and, where appropriate, that
they be the basis for U.S. standards. The FAA has assessed the
potential effect of the extension of this final rule and has determined
that it not have an effect on foreign commerce.

Unfunded Mandates Assessment

    Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-
4) requires each Federal agency to prepare a written statement
assessing the effects of any Federal mandate in a proposed or final
agency rule that may result in an expenditure of $100 million or more
(in 1995 dollars) in any one year by State, local, and tribal
governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector; such a mandate
is deemed to be a ``significant regulatory action.'' The FAA currently
uses an inflation-adjusted value of $136.1 million in lieu of $100
million. This final rule does not contain such a mandate; therefore,
the requirements of Title II of the Act do not apply.

Executive Order 13132, Federalism

    The FAA has analyzed this final rule under the principles and
criteria of Executive Order 13132, Federalism. The FAA determined that
this action will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, or
the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on
the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels
of government. Therefore, the FAA determined that this final rule does
not have federalism implications.

Environmental Analysis

    FAA Order 1050.1E identifies FAA actions that are categorically
excluded from preparation of an environmental assessment or
environmental impact statement under the National Environmental Policy
Act in the absence of extraordinary circumstances. The FAA has
determined this proposed rulemaking action qualifies for the
categorical exclusion identified in paragraph 312f, and involves no
extraordinary circumstances.

Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or
Use

    The FAA has analyzed this final rule under Executive Order 13211,
Actions Concerning Regulations that Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use (66 FR 28355, May 18, 2001). The FAA has
determined that it is not a ``significant energy action'' under the
executive order because it is not a ``significant regulatory action''
under Executive Order 12866, and it is not likely to have a significant
adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy.

List of Subjects for Part 93

    Air traffic control, Airports, Navigation (air), Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.

The Amendment

0
In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration
amends chapter I of title 14 Code of Federal Regulations as follows:

PART 93--SPECIAL AIR TRAFFIC RULES AND AIRPORT TRAFFIC

0
1. The authority citation for part 93 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40103, 40106, 40109, 40113, 44502,
44514, 44514, 44701, 44719, 46301.

0
2. In part 93, Special Federal Aviation Regulation (SFAR) No. 105 is
amended by revising Section 9 to read as follows:

Special Federal Aviation Regulation No. 105--Operating Limitations for
Unscheduled Operations at Chicago's O'Hare International Airport

* * * * *
0
Section 9. Expiration. This Special Federal Aviation Regulation expires
at 9 p.m., Central Time, on October 31, 2010 unless sooner terminated.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on October 24, 2008.
Robert A. Sturgell,
Acting Administrator.
[FR Doc. E8-25904 Filed 10-29-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 25 (Tuesday, February 7, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 6166-6167]
[FR Doc No: 2012-2669]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-66286; File No. SR-C2-2012-005]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; C2 Options Exchange, Incorporated;
Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change
Relating to Minor Rule Violation Plan

February 1, 2012.
    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 26, 2012, the C2 Options Exchange, Incorporated (the
``Exchange'' or ``C2'') 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
Exchange. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments
on the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange proposes to amend its rules to incorporate violations
of C2's Market-Maker continuous quoting obligations into its Minor Rule
Violation Plan. The text of the proposed rule change is available on
the Exchange's Web site (http://www.c2exchange.com/Legal/), at the
Exchange's Office of the Secretary, and at the Commission.

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

    In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements
concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and
discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The
text of 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 aspects of such
statements.

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

1. Purpose
    Chicago Board Options Exchange, Incorporated's (``CBOE'') Minor
Rule Violation Plan imposes sanctions for various technical rule
violations, including violations of CBOE's Market-Maker quoting
obligations.\3\ Chapter 17 of the C2 rules incorporates by reference
CBOE Chapter XVII, including its Minor Rule Violation Plan (CBOE Rule
17.50). CBOE Rule 17.50(g)(14) applies to violations of CBOE's Market-
Maker quoting obligations. As a result, this subparagraph is
inapplicable to C2, and C2's Minor Rule Violation Plan does not cover
C2's Market-Maker continuous quoting obligations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See CBOE Rule 17.50(g)(14).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    C2 Rules 8.5(a)(1) and 8.13(d) require C2 Market-Makers and
Preferred Market-Makers (collectively referred to in this filing as
``Market-Makers''), respectively, to meet specified continuous quoting
obligations. The purpose of the proposed rule change is to amend C2
Chapter 17 to incorporate violations of these continuous quoting
obligations into C2's Minor Rule Violation Plan, which will allow C2 to
impose sanctions upon its Market-Makers for failing to meet such
obligations. C2 believes that these violations are suitable for
incorporation into its Minor Rule Violation Plan because they are
generally technical in nature. Further, incorporating these violations
into the Minor Rule Violation Plan will allow C2 to carry out its
regulatory responsibilities more quickly and efficiently.
    C2 is proposing to adopt ranges for the sanction levels to be
imposed according to the degree of the violation(s). Specifically, C2
is proposing to assess fines ranging from $2,000 to $4,000 for a first
offense and $4,000 to $5,000 for a second offense. Any subsequent
offenses will be subject to a fine of $5,000 or referred to C2's
Business Conduct Committee. C2 will maintain internal guidelines that
will dictate the sanction that will be imposed for a particular
violation (based on the degree of the violation). As with all other
violations incorporated into C2's Minor Rule Violation Plan, C2 retains
the ability to refer a violation of Market-Maker continuous quoting
obligations to its Business Conduct Committee should the circumstances
warrant such a referral.
    In support of this proposal, the Exchange notes that several other
self-regulatory organizations impose sanctions on their market-makers
for violations of their respective continuous quoting obligations
pursuant to their respective minor rule violation plans.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See, e.g., CBOE Rule 17.50(g)(14); Boston Options Exchange
Group LLC (``BOX'') Chapter X, Section 2(d); NYSE Amex LLC (``NYSE
Amex'') Rules 476A and 590(g); and NYSE Arca, Inc. (``NYSE Arca'')
Rule 10.12(h)(39) and (k)(i)(39).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with
the requirements of the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder
applicable to the Exchange and, in particular, the requirements of
Section 6(b) of the Act.\5\ Specifically, the Exchange believes the
proposed rule change is consistent with the Section 6(b)(5) \6\
requirements that the rules of an exchange be designed to promote just
and equitable principles of trade, to prevent fraudulent and
manipulative acts, to remove impediments to and to perfect the
mechanism for a free and open market and a national market system, and,
in general, to protect investors and the public interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In particular, C2 believes that the proposed rule change will
strengthen its ability to carry out its oversight responsibilities as a
self-regulatory organization pursuant to the Act and reinforce its
surveillance and enforcement functions. This proposed rule change will
also promote consistency in the minor rule violation programs and
reporting obligations of option exchanges.

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

    C2 does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any
burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of
the purposes of the Act. As indicated above, the Exchange notes that
several other self-regulatory organizations impose sanctions on market-
makers for violations of their respective quoting obligations pursuant
to their respective minor rule violation plans.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See supra note 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

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

    Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not: (i)
Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public
interest; (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii)
by its terms, become operative for 30 days after 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) \8\ of the Act and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) \9\
thereunder.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \9\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). Pursuant to Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii)
under the Act, the Exchange is required 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-C2-2012-005 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-C2-2012-005. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet 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
a.m. and 3 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-C2-2012-005 and should be
submitted on or before February 28, 2012.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-2669 Filed 2-6-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 239 (Tuesday, December 14, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Pages 77941-77942]
[FR Doc No: 2010-31260]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

[Docket No FMCSA-2000-7165; FMCSA-2006-24783; FMCSA-2008-0106; FMCSA-
2008-0231; FMCSA-2008-0266]

Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Renewals; Vision

AGENCY: Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of final disposition.

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

SUMMARY: FMCSA previously announced its decision to renew the
exemptions from the vision requirement in the Federal Motor Carrier
Safety Regulations for 17 individuals. FMCSA has statutory authority to
exempt individuals from the vision requirement if the exemptions
granted will not compromise safety. The Agency has concluded that
granting these exemptions will provide a level of safety that will be
equivalent to, or greater than, the level of safety maintained,
Director, Medical Programs,<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>
FMCSA, without the exemptions for these commercial motor vehicle (CMV)
drivers.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. Mary D. Gunnels Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Room W64-224, Washington,
DC 20590-0001. Office hours are from 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m. Monday through
Friday, except Federal holidays.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    Under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, FMCSA may grant an exemption
for a 2-year period if it finds ``such exemption would likely achieve a
level of safety that is equivalent to, or greater than, the level that
would be achieved absent such exemption.'' The statute also allows the
Agency to renew exemptions at the end of the 2-year period. The comment
period ended on November 18, 2010 (75 FR 64396).

Discussion of Comments

    FMCSA received no comments in this proceeding.

Conclusion

    The Agency has not received any adverse evidence on any of these
drivers that indicates that safety is being compromised. Based upon its
evaluation of the 17 renewal applications, FMCSA renews the Federal
vision exemptions for Rick A. Benevides, Allen S. Bush, Delone W.
Dudley, Irvin L. Eaddy. James W. Lappan, Jeromy W. Leatherman, Ernest
B. Martin, Mark L. McWhorter, Raymond C. Miller, James G. Mitchell,
Dennis E. Palmer, Jr., Sylvester Silver, James D. St. Peter, Kenneth C.
Steele, Michael Sutton, John E. Rains, and Brian W. Whitmer.
    In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, each renewal
exemption will be valid for 2 years unless revoked earlier by FMCSA.
The exemption will be revoked if: (1) The person fails to comply with
the terms and conditions of the exemption; (2) the exemption has
resulted in a lower level of safety than was maintained before it was
granted; or (3) continuation of the exemption would not be consistent
with the goals and objectives of 49 U.S.C. 31136 and 31315.

    Issued on: December 6, 2010.
Larry W. Minor,
Associate Administrator, Office of Policy.
[FR Doc. 2010-31260 Filed 12-13-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P