[Federal Register: May 6, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 87)]
[Notices]
[Page 25014-25018]
[DOCID:fr06my10-110]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-62001; File No. SR-BX-2010-027]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NASDAQ OMX BX, Inc.; Notice of
Filing of Proposed Rule Change To Establish New Fee for TotalView
Service Available to Non-Professionals and To Establish an Optional
Non-Display Usage Cap for Internal Distributors of TotalView

April 29, 2010.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\

notice is hereby given that on April 23, 2010, NASDAQ OMX BX, Inc. (the
``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 establish a $1 per month fee for non-
professional use of real-time quotation and order information from the
BX Market Center quoting and trading of The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC
(``Nasdaq''), The New York Stock Exchange LLC (``NYSE''), NYSE Amex LLC
(``Amex'') and other regional exchange-listed securities; and (ii) to
approve the creation of an optional non-display usage cap of $16,000
per month for internal distributors of BX TotalView.
    The text of the proposed rule change is below. Proposed new
language is in italics and proposed deletions are in brackets.
* * * * *
7023. BX TotalView
(a) BX TotalView Entitlement
    The BX TotalView entitlement allows a subscriber to see all
individual NASDAQ OMX BX Equities System participant orders and quotes
displayed in the system [as well as] the aggregate size of such orders
and quotes at each price level, and the trade data for executions that
occur within [in the execution functionality of] the NASDAQ OMX BX
Equities System.
    (1) Except as provided elsewhere in this rule, [in (a)(2)], for the
BX TotalView entitlement there shall be a $20 monthly charge for each
Subscriber of BX TotalView for Nasdaq issues and a $20 monthly charge
for each Subscriber of BX TotalView for NYSE and regional issues.
    (2) As an alternative to (a)(1), a market participant may purchase
an enterprise license at a rate of $16,000 per month for internal use
of non-display data. The enterprise license entitles a distributor to
provide BX TotalView to an unlimited number of non-display devices
within its firm.
    (3) Free-Trial Offers
    (A)-(B) No change.
    (b) Non-Professional Services
    (1) The charge to be paid by non-professional subscribers for
access to TotalView Service through an authorized vendor shall be $1.00
per interrogation device per month.
    (2) A ``non-professional'' is a natural person who is neither:
    (A) registered or qualified in any capacity with the Commission,
the Commodities Futures Trading Commission, any state securities
agency, any securities exchange or association, or any commodities or
futures contract market or association;
    (B) engaged as an ``investment adviser'' as that term is defined in
Section 201(11) of the Investment Advisors Act of 1940 (whether or not
registered or qualified under that Act); nor
    (C) employed by a bank or other organization exempt from
registration under federal or state securities laws to perform
functions that would require registration or qualification if such
functions were performed for an organization not so exempt.
    (c) No change.
* * * * *

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: (i) To establish a $1 per month fee for non-
professional use of real-time quotation and order information from the
BX Market Center quoting and trading of Nasdaq-, NYSE-, Amex- and other
regional exchange-listed securities; and (ii) to approve the creation
of an optional non-display usage cap of $16,000 per month for internal
distributors of BX TotalView.
    BX TotalView $1 Fee for Non-Professional Subscribers:
    The Exchange proposes to establish a new fee for its BX TotalView
data product that is similar to that of Nasdaq. Like Nasdaq TotalView,
BX TotalView provides all displayed quotes and orders in the market,
with attribution to the relevant market participant, at every price
level, as well as total displayed anonymous interest at every price
level.
    To encourage more competition in the trading and quoting of U.S.
exchange-listed stocks, as well as to encourage subscribership to
Exchange full-depth products, the Exchange is proposing Rule 7023(b) to
establish a $1 per month fee for non-professional subscribers to BX
TotalView.\3\ BX TotalView consists of real-time market participant
quotation information regarding the Exchange's trading of Nasdaq-,
NYSE-, Amex- and other exchange-listed stocks.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Both NYSE Arca, Inc. and the New York Stock Exchange LLC
offer full-depth products. See, e.g., Securities Exchange Act
Release No. 53469 (March 10, 2006), 71 FR 14045 (March 20, 2006)
(SR-PCX-2006-24) and Securities Exchange Act Release No. 44138
(December 7, 2001), 66 FR 64895 (December 14, 2001) (SR-NYSE-2001-
42), respectively.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission has previously only approved a fee of $20 per month
for both BX TotalView for Nasdaq and NYSE and all other regional
exchange-listed issues combined. BX intended to establish these as
separate fees and charged users beginning in January of 2010 a fee of
$20 per month for BX TotalView and an additional fee of $20 for NYSE
and all other regional exchange-listed issues. Therefore, Rule
7023(a)(1) is being amended to correct this inadvertent error since the
existing rule language does not clearly establish a fee of $20 per
month for BX TotalView for Nasdaq issues and a separate fee of $20 per
month for BX TotalView for NYSE and all other regional exchange-listed
issues, as intended. All such fees exceeding the $20 combined fee as
currently stated in the rulebook are being refunded and BX will
continue to assess a single $20 fee until this proposed rule change is
approved. The Exchange notes that it operates in a highly competitive
market in which market participants can readily switch to competing
venues if they deem fee levels at a particular venue to be excessive.
The Exchange believes that its fees continue to be reasonable and
equitably allocated.
    The Exchange believes that establishing a $1 per month fee for non-
professional subscribers to BX TotalView will promote wider
distribution of data and benefit investors wishing to use that data in
making investment decisions. The establishment of non-professional fees
is a well-established practice of the network processors that
distribute real-time consolidated data for Nasdaq, NYSE, and Amex
stocks. As such, non-professional fees have been determined to be
consistent with the Act and also

to be in the best interests of investors and the public.
    The fees are not unreasonably discriminatory, since the fees for
non-professionals are uniform for all non-professionals. The fees are
fair and reasonable in that they compare favorably to fees charged by
other exchanges for comparable products.
    Rule 7023(a) is also being amended to clarify the data that is
included in the BX TotalView Entitlement specifically includes trade
data for executions that occur within the NASDAQ OMX Equities System.
The data included remains consistent with what has always been included
in the BX TotalView Entitlement, as well as the data included in the
Nasdaq TotalView Entitlement. This revision is intended for
clarification purposes only.
    BX TotalView Enterprise License:
    The Exchange is proposing to amend Exchange Rule 7023 and establish
an optional $16,000 per month non-display BX TotalView fee cap for
internal distributors, which would encompass both BX TotalView for
Nasdaq issues and BX TotalView for NYSE and regional issues. The BX
TotalView fee cap would not include distributor fees. By providing this
non-display usage cap, firms will have more administrative flexibility
in their consumption of BX TotalView information.
    Currently, the Exchange requires that internal distributors count
and report each server and display device that processes BX TotalView-
ITCH data as a professional BX TotalView user. Some firms report
upwards of 500 devices, while other firms report as few as one non-
display device using BX TotalView-ITCH data.
    The Exchange proposes to permit a market participant to purchase an
enterprise license at a rate of $16,000 per month for non-display usage
in a firm. As the number of devices increase, so does the
administrative burden on the end customer of counting these devices.
For firms that feel they are near the capped amount, this new
enterprise license helps relieve this administrative burden.
Additionally, firms would purchase this optional enterprise license to
reduce fees so no firms would experience a fee increase as a result of
this filing. The Exchange's filing is substantially similar to a recent
Nasdaq filing.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 61700 (March 12,
2010), 75 FR 13172 (March 18, 2010) (SR-NASDAQ-2010-034).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with the provisions of Section 6 of the Act,\5\ in general, and with
Sections 6(b)(4) and 6(b)(5) of the Act,\6\ in particular, in that it
provides for the equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees and
other charges among members and issuers and other persons using any
facility or system which the Exchange operates or controls and is not
designed to permit unfair discrimination between customers, issuers,
brokers, or dealers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ 15 U.S.C. 78f.
    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4), (5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Specifically, the BX TotalView fee for non-professional
subscribers, the Exchange makes all services and products subject to
these fees available on a non-discriminatory basis to similarly
situated recipients. All fees are structured in manner comparable to
corresponding fees of Nasdaq already in effect. The proposed fees for
BX TotalView are equitably allocated since the fees for non-
professionals are uniform for all non-professionals. The fees are fair
and reasonable in that they compare favorably to fees charged by other
exchanges for comparable products.
    The Exchange proposes to increase the existing $20 combined fee for
both BX TotalView for Nasdaq and NYSE and all other regional exchange-
listed issues by charging two separate $20 fees per month. One $20 fee
would be charged for BX TotalView for Nasdaq and the other $20 fee
would be charged for NYSE and all other regional exchange-listed
issues. The $20 increase per month for subscribers is modest.
Additionally, the Exchange notes that it operates in a highly
competitive market in which market participants can readily switch to
competing venues if they deem fee levels at a particular venue to be
excessive. The Exchange believes that its fees continue to be
reasonable and equitably allocated.
    The Exchange's competitive response to pricing pressures in a
competitive marketplace is consistent with what the Commission has
described as ``the clear intent of Congress in adopting Section 11A of
the Exchange Act that, whenever possible, competitive forces should
dictate the services and practices that constitute the U.S. national
market system for trading equity securities.'' \7\ Specifically with
respect to pricing of non-core data products, the Commission has stated
that ``[t]he Exchange Act and its legislative history strongly support
the Commission's reliance on competition, whenever possible, in meeting
its regulatory responsibilities.'' \8\ A price reduction in response to
competitive forces, such as the proposal here, is the essence of
competition.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ Securities Exchange Act Release No. 59039 (December 2,
2008), 73 FR 74770 (December 9, 2008) (SR-NYSEArca-2006-21).
    \8\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that it is neither inequitable nor unfairly
discriminatory to provide volume-based discounts to members that
contribute to the success of both the transaction execution and data
businesses, in light of the link between these businesses that the
Commission has recognized. In doing so, the Exchange not only
acknowledges the multiple contributions of such customers to its
profitability and the value it provides to other customers, but also
provides incentives for other firms to increase their use of the
Exchange's services across these business lines.
    Discounts based on a member's aggregate volumes of usage have
routinely been adopted by exchanges (and by participants in many other
industries), even though a member that reduces its volumes by trading
in other markets may no longer qualify for the discount. For example,
Nasdaq has volume pricing discounts for transaction executions and data
currently in effect under Rules 7018 and 7023. A member that opts to
provide high volumes of liquidity and distribute TotalView to large
numbers of subscribers under an enterprise license currently receives
favorable pricing for both executions and data, based on the aggregate
volume of business that it brings to the exchange. If the member opts
to direct order flow to another exchange or distribute other data
products in lieu of TotalView, the discount will no longer be
available--not because the member is being penalized, but simply
because its consumption of products has dropped to a level that no
longer justifies discounted pricing.
    As the Commission has found, market data and execution services are
effectively a joint product--one in which market data is both an input
to, and a byproduct of, trade execution.\9\ Accordingly, the Exchange
believes that it is entirely appropriate that the benefits to the
Exchange when a member provides liquidity and consumes and distributes
data should be shared with the customers that provide those benefits.
Notably, the Act does not prohibit all distinctions among customers,
but rather discrimination that is unfair. And, as the Commission has
recognized, ``[i]f competitive forces are operative, the self-interest
of the exchanges themselves will work powerfully to constrain
unreasonable or

unfair behavior.'' \10\ Accordingly, ``the existence of significant
competition provides a substantial basis for finding that the terms of
an exchange's fee proposal are equitable, fair, reasonable, and not
unreasonably or unfairly discriminatory.'' \11\ The proposal here was
made not only in the presence of competition, but it is a direct
product of competitive forces.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ Id.
    \10\ Id.
    \11\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
result in any burden on competition. To the contrary, the Exchange's
proposed price reduction in response to competitive pricing offers is
the essence of competition. As the Supreme Court has recognized,
``cutting prices in order to increase business often is the very
essence of competition.'' Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio
Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 594 (1986).
    If competitors lose business to the Exchange because the Exchange
offers more attractive pricing, that is not a reduction of competition.
Rather, it is a result of competition. As the Supreme Court has
recognized:

    When a firm * * * lowers prices but maintains them above
predatory levels, the business lost by rivals cannot be viewed as an
``anticompetitive'' consequence of the claimed violation. A firm
complaining about the harm it suffers from nonpredatory price
competition ``is really claiming that it [is] unable to raise
prices.'' This is not antitrust injury; indeed, ``cutting prices in
order to increase business often is the very essence of
competition.'' The antitrust laws were enacted for ``the protection
of competition, not competitors.''

Atlantic Richfield Co. v. USA Petroleum Co., 495 U.S. 328, 337-38
(1990) (emphasis in original; citations omitted).

    Likewise with respect to the Exchange Act, Congress has ``expressed
its preference for the Commission to rely on competition'' with respect
to market information.\12\ Accordingly, in circumstances analogous to
those here, the Commission has stated that ``reliance on competitive
forces is the most appropriate and effective means to assess whether
terms for the distribution of non-core data are equitable, fair and
reasonable, and not unreasonably discriminatory. If competitive forces
are operative, the self-interest of the exchanges themselves will work
powerfully to constrain unreasonable or unfair behavior.'' \13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ Id.
    \13\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As the Commission recently recognized,\14\ the market for
transaction execution and routing services is highly competitive, and
the market for proprietary data products is complementary to it, since
the ultimate goal of such products is to attract further order flow to
an exchange. Thus, exchanges lack the ability to set fees for
executions or data at inappropriately high levels. Order flow is
immediately transportable to other venues in response to differences in
cost or value. Similarly, if data fees are set at inappropriate levels,
customers that control order flow will not make use of the data and
will be more inclined to send order flow to exchanges providing data at
fees they consider more reasonable.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The market for proprietary data products is currently competitive
and inherently contestable because there is fierce competition for the
inputs necessary to the creation of proprietary data and strict pricing
discipline for the proprietary products themselves. Numerous exchanges
compete with each other for listings, trades, and market data itself,
providing virtually limitless opportunities for entrepreneurs who wish
to produce and distribute their own market data. This proprietary data
is produced by each individual exchange, as well as other entities, in
a vigorously competitive market.
    With regard to the market for executions, broker-dealers currently
have numerous alternative venues for their order flow, including
multiple competing self-regulatory organization (``SRO'') markets, as
well as broker-dealers (``BDs'') and aggregators such as the Direct
Edge and LavaFlow electronic communications networks (``ECNs''). Each
SRO market competes to produce transaction reports via trade
executions, and FINRA-regulated Trade Reporting Facilities (``TRFs'')
compete to attract internalized transaction reports. It is common for
BDs to further and exploit this competition by sending their order flow
and transaction reports to multiple markets, rather than providing them
all to a single market.
    Competitive markets for order flow, executions, and transaction
reports provide pricing discipline for the inputs of proprietary data
products. The large number of SROs, TRFs, and ECNs that currently
produce proprietary data or are currently capable of producing it
provides further pricing discipline for proprietary data products. Each
SRO, TRF, ECN and BD is currently permitted to produce proprietary data
products, and many currently do or have announced plans to do so,
including NASDAQ, NYSE, NYSEArca, BATS, and Direct Edge.
    Any ECN or BD can combine with any other ECN, broker-dealer, or
multiple ECNs or BDs to produce jointly proprietary data products.
Additionally, non-BDs such as order routers like LAVA, as well as
market data vendors can facilitate single or multiple broker-dealers'
production of proprietary data products. The potential sources of
proprietary products are virtually limitless.
    The fact that proprietary data from ECNs, BDs, and vendors can by-
pass SROs is significant in two respects. First, non-SROs can compete
directly with SROs for the production and distribution of proprietary
data products, as Archipelago and BATS
    Trading did prior to registering as SROs. Second, because a single
order or transaction report can appear in an SRO proprietary product, a
non-SRO proprietary product, or both, the data available in proprietary
products is exponentially greater than the actual number of orders and
transaction reports that exist in the marketplace writ large.
    Market data vendors provide another form of price discipline for
proprietary data products because they control the primary means of
access to end users. Although their business models may differ, vendors
exercise pricing discipline because they can simply refuse to purchase
any proprietary data product that fails to provide sufficient value.
The Exchange and other producers of proprietary data products must
understand and respond to these varying business models and pricing
disciplines in order to successfully market proprietary data products.
    In addition to the competition and price discipline described
above, the market for proprietary data products is also highly
contestable because market entry is rapid, inexpensive, and profitable.
The history of electronic trading is replete with examples of entrants
that swiftly grew into some of the largest electronic trading platforms
and proprietary data producers: Archipelago, Bloomberg Tradebook,
Island, RediBook, Attain, TracECN, BATS Trading, and Direct Edge.
Today, BATS publishes its data at no charge on its website in order to
attract order flow, and it uses market data revenue rebates from the
resulting executions to maintain low execution charges for its
users.\15\ Several ECNs have existed

profitably for many years with a minimal share of trading, including
Bloomberg Tradebook and LavaFlow.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ However, on April 9, 2010 the Commission approved BATS
proposed rule change to begin offering and charging for three new
data products, which include BATS Last Sale Feed, BATS Historical
Data Products, and a data product called BATS Market Insight. See
Securities Exchange Act Release No.61885 (April 9, 2010), 75 FR
20018 (April 16, 2010).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed rule change is a direct response to this competition.
It recognizes the concern that the order flow and data product use that
such firms currently bring to the Exchange may migrate elsewhere if
their contributions are not appropriately recognized. At the same time,
if other customers determine that their fees are too high in comparison
to those paid by firms qualifying for the discount, they will take
their business to other venues. Thus, the proposal must strike a
balance between growing and retaining the business of actual and
potential firms and the business of firms that lack the volume of
business to become eligible. In light of the highly competitive nature
of these markets, the Exchange's revenues and market share are likely
to be diminished by the proposal if it strikes this balance in the
wrong way.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ The Commission has recognized that an exchange's failure to
strike this balance correctly will only harm the exchange. ``[M]any
market participants would be unlikely to purchase the exchange's
data products if it sets fees that are inequitable, unfair,
unreasonable, or unreasonably discriminatory * * *. For example, an
exchange's attempt to impose unreasonably or unfairly discriminatory
fees on a certain category of customers would likely be counter-
productive for the exchange because, in a competitive environment,
such customers generally would be able to respond by using
alternatives to the exchanges data.'' Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, the concern identified by the Commission with respect to
``an exchange proposal that seeks to penalize market participants for
trading in markets other than the proposing exchange'' is inapplicable
here.\17\ It is important that the Commission avoid stifling
competition on the merits--including competition on price--out of a
concern for protecting competitors from pricing pressure. Indeed, the
Supreme Court has cautioned that ``mistaken inferences in cases''
involving alleged harm to competitors from low prices ``are especially
costly, because they chill the very conduct the antitrust laws are
designed to protect.'' Matsushita, 475 U.S. at 594.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A concern that access to market data could be used to ``penalize''
market participants for trading in other markets may be plausible only
if (a) the market data of the exchange in question is so essential to
customers that the exchange has market power by virtue of the data, (b)
the exchange requires customers to trade on its platform in exchange
for access to the market data, and (c) competition on the merits is
thwarted by the conditioning. None of those conditions is met here. As
noted above, there is robust competition for market data, and customers
can and do switch among various providers of market data. It would thus
be implausible to suggest that the Exchange has any market power by
virtue of its market data. Second, the Exchange has not attempted to
condition access to market data on a customer's refusal to use a
competitor's platform. Nor has the Exchange attempted to impose a
``penalty'' on anyone--to the contrary, it is proposing a price
reduction to respond to competitive offers. And, as noted above, the
price reduction proposed here is the essence of competition, rather
than an effort to thwart competition on the merits.

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

    Written comments were neither solicited nor received.

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

    Within 35 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 such proposed rule change, or
    B. Institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule
change should be disapproved.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://
www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-BX-2010-027 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-BX-2010-027. 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 Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 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-BX-2010-027 and should be submitted on or before May 27,
2010.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-10597 Filed 5-5-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 242 (Monday, December 17, 2012)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 74610-74612]
[FR Doc No: 2012-30261]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

44 CFR Part 67

[Docket ID FEMA-2012-0003]

Final Flood Elevation Determinations

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: Base (1% annual-chance) Flood Elevations (BFEs) and modified
BFEs are made final for the communities listed below. The BFEs and
modified BFEs are the basis for the floodplain management measures that
each community is required either to adopt or to show evidence of being
already in effect in order to qualify or remain qualified for
participation in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP).

DATES: The date of issuance of the Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM)
showing BFEs and modified BFEs for each community. This date may be
obtained by contacting the office where the maps are available for
inspection as indicated in the table below.

ADDRESSES: The final BFEs for each community are available for
inspection at the office of the Chief Executive Officer of each
community. The respective addresses are listed in the table below.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Luis Rodriguez, Chief, Engineering
Management Branch, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration,
Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW., Washington, DC
20472,<PHONE_NUMBER>, or (email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Federal Emergency Management Agency
(FEMA) makes the final determinations listed below for the modified
BFEs for each community listed. These modified elevations have been
published in newspapers of local circulation and ninety (90) days have
elapsed since that publication. The Deputy Associate Administrator for
Mitigation has resolved any appeals resulting from this notification.
    This final rule is issued in accordance with section 110 of the
Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4104, and 44 CFR part
67. FEMA has developed criteria for floodplain

management in floodprone areas in accordance with 44 CFR part 60.
    Interested lessees and owners of real property are encouraged to
review the proof Flood Insurance Study and FIRM available at the
address cited below for each community. The BFEs and modified BFEs are
made final in the communities listed below. Elevations at selected
locations in each community are shown.
    National Environmental Policy Act. This final rule is categorically
excluded from the requirements of 44 CFR part 10, Environmental
Consideration. An environmental impact assessment has not been
prepared.
    Regulatory Flexibility Act. As flood elevation determinations are
not within the scope of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601-
612, a regulatory flexibility analysis is not required.
    Regulatory Classification. This final rule is not a significant
regulatory action under the criteria of section 3(f) of Executive Order
12866 of September 30, 1993, Regulatory Planning and Review, 58 FR
51735.
    Executive Order 13132, Federalism. This final rule involves no
policies that have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132.
    Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform. This final rule meets
the applicable standards of Executive Order 12988.

List of Subjects in 44 CFR Part 67

    Administrative practice and procedure, Flood insurance, Reporting
and recordkeeping requirements.

    Accordingly, 44 CFR part 67 is amended as follows:

PART 67--[AMENDED]

0
1. The authority citation for part 67 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 4001 et seq.; Reorganization Plan No. 3 of
1978, 3 CFR, 1978 Comp., p. 329; E.O. 12127, 44 FR 19367, 3 CFR,
1979 Comp., p. 376.

Sec.  67.11  [Amended]

0
2. The tables published under the authority of Sec.  67.11 are amended
as follows:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                      * Elevation in
                                                                      feet (NGVD) +
                                                                    Elevation in feet
                                                                     (NAVD)
           Flooding source(s)              Location of referenced     Depth in feet       Communities affected
                                                 elevation             above ground
                                                                    [caret] Elevation
                                                                     in meters (MSL)
                                                                         Modified
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                  Midland County, Michigan (All Jurisdictions)
                                             Docket No.: FEMA-B-1223
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tittabawassee River....................  Approximately 0.43 mile                 +631  Township of Edenville,
                                          upstream of Pere                              Township of Jerome,
                                          Marquette Rail-Trail of                       Village of Sanford.
                                          Mid-Michigan.
                                         Approximately 1 mile                    +638
                                          upstream of Meridian
                                          Road.
Tobacco River..........................  At the Tittabawassee                    +638  Township of Edenville.
                                          River confluence.
                                         Approximately 0.85 mile                 +640
                                          upstream of the
                                          Tittabawassee River
                                          confluence.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* National Geodetic Vertical Datum.
+ North American Vertical Datum.
 Depth in feet above ground.
[caret] Mean Sea Level, rounded to the nearest 0.1 meter.

                                                    ADDRESSES
Township of Edenville

Maps are available for inspection at the Township Hall, 467 Moore Street, Edenville, MI 48620.

Township of Jerome

Maps are available for inspection at the Jerome Township Hall, 3243 North West River Road, Sanford, MI 48657.

Village of Sanford

Maps are available for inspection at the Village Hall, 106 Lincoln Street, Sanford, MI 48657.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                 Saline County, Missouri, and Incorporated Areas
                                             Docket No.: FEMA-B-1158
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bell Branch (backwater effects from      From the confluence with                +657  City of Miami,
 Missouri River).                         the Missouri River to                         Unincorporated Areas of
                                          approximately 0.76 mile                       Saline County.
                                          upstream of the
                                          confluence with the
                                          Missouri River.
Missouri River.........................  Approximately 1,400 feet                +611  City of Miami, Village of
                                          upstream of the Cooper                        Arrow Rock, Village of
                                          County boundary.                              Grand Pass,
                                                                                Unincorporated Areas of
                                                                                Saline County
                                         At the Lafayette County                 +672
                                          boundary.
North Fork Finney Creek................  Approximately 850 feet                  +703  Unincorporated Areas of
                                          downstream of Fairground                      Saline County.
                                          Road.
                                         Approximately 900 feet                  +721
                                          downstream of Arrow
                                          Street.
North Fork Finney Creek Tributary......  At the confluence with                  +708  City of Marshall,
                                          North Fork Finney Creek.                      Unincorporated Areas of
                                                                                Saline County.

                                         Approximately 60 feet                   +735
                                          downstream of Miami
                                          Avenue.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* National Geodetic Vertical Datum.
+ North American Vertical Datum.
 Depth in feet above ground.
[caret] Mean Sea Level, rounded to the nearest 0.1 meter.

                                                    ADDRESSES
City of Marshall

Maps are available for inspection at City Hall, 214 North Lafayette Avenue, Marshall, MO 65340.

City of Miami

Maps are available for inspection at the Saline County Courthouse, 19 East Arrow Street, Marshall, MO 65340.

Village of Arrow Rock

Maps are available for inspection at the Saline County Courthouse, 19 East Arrow Street, Marshall, MO 65340.

Village of Grand Pass

Maps are available for inspection at the Saline County Courthouse, 19 East Arrow Street, Marshall, MO 65340.

                                      Unincorporated Areas of Saline County

Maps are available for inspection at the Saline County Courthouse, 19 East Arrow Street, Marshall, MO 65340.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance No. 97.022, ``Flood
Insurance.'')

    Dated: November 28, 2012.
James A. Walke,
Acting Deputy Associate Administrator for Mitigation, Department of
Homeland Security, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2012-30261 Filed 12-14-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-12-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 141 (Friday, July 22, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Page 44028]
[FR Doc No: 2011-18616]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-1997-DR; Docket ID FEMA-2011-0001]

Indiana; Major Disaster and Related Determinations

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This is a notice of the Presidential declaration of a major
disaster for the State of Indiana (FEMA-1997-DR), dated June 23, 2011,
and related determinations.

DATES: Effective Date: June 23, 2011.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Peggy Miller, Office of Response and
Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street, SW.,
Washington, DC 20472,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is hereby given that, in a letter
dated June 23, 2011, the President issued a major disaster declaration
under the authority of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and
Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121 et seq. (the ``Stafford
Act''), as follows:

    I have determined that the damage in certain areas of the State
of Indiana resulting from severe storms, tornadoes, and straight
line winds occurring on April 19, 2011, and April 22 to May 2, 2011,
and flooding resulting from those storms beginning on April 19,
2011, and continuing, is of sufficient severity and magnitude to
warrant a major disaster declaration under the Robert T. Stafford
Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121 et seq.
(the ``Stafford Act''). Therefore, I declare that such a major
disaster exists in the State of Indiana.
    In order to provide Federal assistance, you are hereby
authorized to allocate from funds available for these purposes such
amounts as you find necessary for Federal disaster assistance and
administrative expenses.
    You are authorized to provide Public Assistance in the
designated areas and Hazard Mitigation throughout the State.
Consistent with the requirement that Federal assistance is
supplemental, any Federal funds provided under the Stafford Act for
Public Assistance and Hazard Mitigation will be limited to 75
percent of the total eligible costs.
    Further, you are authorized to make changes to this declaration
for the approved assistance to the extent allowable under the
Stafford Act.

    The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) hereby gives notice
that pursuant to the authority vested in the Administrator, under
Executive Order 12148, as amended, Donald L. Keldson, of FEMA is
appointed to act as the Federal Coordinating Officer for this major
disaster.
    The following areas of the State of Indiana have been designated as
adversely affected by this major disaster:

    Benton, Clark, Crawford, Daviess, Dearborn, Dubois, Floyd,
Franklin, Gibson, Harrison, Jackson, Jefferson, Jennings, Knox,
Martin, Monroe, Ohio, Orange, Parke, Perry, Pike, Posey, Putnam,
Ripley, Scott, Spencer, Starke, Sullivan, Switzerland, Vanderburgh,
Warrick, and Washington Counties for Public Assistance.

    All counties within the State of Indiana are eligible to apply
for assistance under the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program.

    The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers
(CFDA) are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030,
Community Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis
Counseling; 97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster
Unemployment Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance
Grant; 97.048, Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and
Households in Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049,
Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance--Disaster Housing
Operations for Individuals and Households; 97.050, Presidentially
Declared Disaster Assistance to Individuals and Households--Other
Needs; 97.036, Disaster Grants--Public Assistance (Presidentially
Declared Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant.

    Dated: July 18, 2011.
W. Craig Fugate,
Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2011-18616 Filed 7-21-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111-23-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 43 (Friday, March 4, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 12510-12512]
[FR Doc No: 2022-04565]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-94328; File No. SR-CboeBZX-2022-009]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Cboe BZX Exchange, Inc.; Notice of
Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change Relating
To Modify How Drill-Through Price Protection Applies to Users' Orders
When Multiple Stop Order and Stop-Limit Orders Are Triggered by the
Same Price

February 28, 2022.

    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 February 17, 2022, Cboe BZX Exchange, Inc. (the ``Exchange'' or
``BZX'') 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 Exchange
filed the proposal as a ``non-controversial'' proposed rule change
pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act \3\ and Rule 19b-
4(f)(6) thereunder.\4\ 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\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(iii).
    \4\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    Cboe BZX Exchange, Inc. (``BZX'' or the ``Exchange'') is filing
with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the ``Commission'') a
proposal to modify how drill-through price protection applies to Users'
\5\ orders when multiple Stop Order and Stop-Limit Orders are triggered
by the same price. The text of the proposed rule change is provided in
Exhibit 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ The term ``User'' shall mean any Member or Sponsored
Participant who is authorized to obtain access to the System
pursuant to Rule 11.3. See Rule 1.5(cc).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The text of the proposed rule change is also available on the
Exchange's website (https://markets.cboe.com/us/equities/regulation/rule_filings/bzx/), at the Exchange's Office of the Secretary, and at
the Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    The purpose of this rule filing is to amend current Rule 21.17,
Additional Price Protection Mechanisms and Risk Controls, to add new
Rule 21.17(d)(3), which modifies what the drill-through price will be
for Stop Orders \6\ and Stop-Limit Orders \7\ when multiple Stop Orders
and Stop-Limit Orders are triggered by the same stop price specified by
Users.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ A ``Stop Order'' is an order that becomes a BZX market order
when the stop price is elected. A Stop Order to buy is elected when
the consolidated last sale in the security occurs at, or above, the
specified stop price. A Stop Order to sell becomes a limit order
when the consolidated last sale in the security occurs at, or below,
the specified stop price. See Rule 11.9(c)(16).
    \7\ A ``Stop-Limit Order'' is an order that becomes a limit
order when the stop price is elected. A Stop Limit Order to buy is
elected when the consolidated last sale in the security occurs at,
or above, the specified stop price. A Stop Limit Order to sell
becomes a sell limit order when the consolidated last sale in the
security occurs at, or below, the specified stop price. See Rule
11.9(c)(17).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Drill-through price protection is currently described in Exchange
Rule 21.17(d). Rule 21.17(d) provides that if a buy (sell) order enters
the BZX Options Book at the conclusion of the opening auction process
or would execute or post to the BZX Book at the time of order entry,
the System executes the orders up to a buffer amount (the Exchange
determines the buffer amount on a class and premium basis) above
(below) the offer (bid) limit of the Opening Collar or the NBO (NBB)
that existed at the time of order entry, respective (the, ``Drill
Through Price'').\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See Rule 21.17(d).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Currently, when multiple Stop Orders or Stop-Limit Orders are
triggered by the same price, the System \9\ considers them separate
orders received in sequence and enters them sequentially into the BZX
Book.\10\ As such, when determining the Drill-Through Price for each
order, the System uses the contra side NBBO that existed at the time
each of the orders was entered into the BZX Book.\11\ By applying
drill-through price protection in this manner, the Exchange has
observed, particularly in thinly traded markets, that the first order
triggered will trade with the best priced contra-side order, while the
second triggered order can trade at prices that may be multiple price
levels away, as it is using the NBBO that existed after the first
triggered order executed. Accordingly, the Exchange seeks to enhance
the drill-through price functionality as it relates to Stop Orders and
Stop Limit Orders, through the addition of proposed Rule 21.17(d)(3).
Under proposed Rule 21.17(d)(3), rather than using separate Drill-
Through Prices for each individual Stop Order and Stop-Limit Order, the
System will instead use the contra-side NBBO that existed at the time
the first order in

sequence was entered into the BZX Book as the Drill-Through Price, for
all orders. This is the Drill-Through Price that would apply to each
Stop Order or Stop-Limit Order if it was the only one triggered at that
price. By way of illustration, consider the following examples:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ ``System'' means the electronic communications and trading
facility designated by the Board through which securities orders of
Users are consolidated for ranking, execution and, when applicable,
routing away. See Rule 1.5(aa).
    \10\ ``BZX Book'' means the System's electronic file of orders.
See Rule 1.5.(e).
    \11\ See Rule 5.34(a)(4)(A).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Example 1--Current Functionality
    Assume that the Drill-Through Price buffer \12\ for a certain
option series is $0.25, and that the following quotes are in the BZX
Book: Quote 1 (NBBO): 5.00 x 7.00; Quote 2: 4.00 x 8.00. Each quote has
a size of 1. Additionally, the following Stop Orders/Stop Limit Orders
are being held in the System when the Quote 1 offer is updated to $6.50
(they were received by the System in sequence):
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ The Exchange determines the buffer amount on a premium and
class basis.

Order 1: Sell 1 @ Market, Stop Price = $6.50
Order 2: Sell 1 @ Market, Stop Price = $6.55
Order 3: Sell 1 @ Market, Stop Price = $6.50

    Per current Rule 21.17(d), the following will occur:
    1. Orders 1, 2 and 3 are held in the System, and handled as
separate orders received in sequence. Each have stop prices less than
the NBO, and are therefore triggered by the 6.50 quote, and enter the
BZX Book for execution or posting. Under today's functionality, the
System assigns each order a separate Drill-Through Price, equal to the
contra-side NBBO in existence at the time each order separately entered
the BZX Book for execution.
    2. Order 1 will execute against Quote 1 @ $5.00. Using the NBB of
$5.00 as the Drill-Through Price, the System would prevent execution
beyond $4.75.
    3. When Order 1 executes against Quote 1 @ 5.00, that NBB will no
longer be in the BZX Book. Instead Order 2 will execute against Quote 2
@ 4.00 and use the NBB of 4.00 as the Drill-Through Price and prevent
execution beyond $3.75.
    4. Order 3 will cancel due to no liquidity left at the drill-
through price of $3.75.
    Example 2--Proposed Functionality
    Again, assume that the drill-through price buffer for a certain
option series is $0.25, and that the following quotes are in the BZX
Book: Quote 1 (NBBO): 5.00 x 7.00; Quote 2: 4.00 x 8.00. Each quote has
a size of 1. Additionally, the following Stop Orders/Stop Limit Orders
are being held in the System when the Quote 1 offer is updated to $6.50
(they were received by the System in sequence):

Order 1: Sell 1 @ Market, Stop Price = $6.50
Order 2: Sell 1 @ Market, Stop Price = $6.55
Order 3: Sell 1 @ Market, Stop Price = $6.50

    Per proposed Rule 21.17(d), the following will occur:
    1. Orders 1, 2 and 3 each have stop prices less than the NBO, and
will therefore be triggered by the $6.50 quote, and enter the BZX Book
for execution or posting. A Drill-Through Price for all three orders is
set at the contra-side NBB of 5.00.
    2. Order 1 will execute against Quote 1 @ $5.00.
    3. Orders 2 and 3 will cancel due to no liquidity left at the
drill-through price of $4.75.
    The Exchange notes that aside from the difference in Drill-Through
Price, the drill-through mechanism will apply in the same manner to
these orders. The Exchange is not proposing wholly new drill-through
protection behavior, but rather only seeks to modify the reference
price utilized by the drill-through price protection for Stop Orders
and Stop Limit Orders if multiple such orders are triggered and entered
into the BZX Book for execution due to the same price event. By using
the same Drill-Through Price for all triggered orders eligible for
execution, the proposed modification will help the drill-through
protection prevent executions too far away from the NBBO when multiple
Stop Orders and Stop Limit Orders become eligible for execution. In
doing so, Stop Orders and Stop Limit Orders will receive executions at
prices more closely aligned to the stop prices specified by Exchange
Users.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes the proposed rule amendment is consistent
with the requirements of Section 6(b) of the Act,\13\ in general, and
Section 6(b)(5) of the Act,\14\ in particular, 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \14\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Specifically, the Exchange believes that proposed Rule 21.17(d)(3)
does not unfairly discriminate amongst Users. Under proposed Rule
21.17(d)(3), all Users with Stop Orders and Stop-Limit Orders triggered
by the same price event will have the same drill-through reference
price. The primary purpose of the drill-through price protection is to
prevent orders from executing at prices ``too far away'' from the
market when they enter the BZX Book for potential execution. The
Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with this
purpose, and thus will promote just and equitable principles of trade
and protect investors, because Users who submit Stop Orders and Stop-
Limit Orders will receive the same level of drill-through price
protection against execution at potentially erroneous prices,
regardless of the sequence in which they enter the BZX Book. As a
result of the proposed rule change, all Users' Stop Orders and Stop-
Limit Orders will receive protection based on the NBBO at the time
those orders were triggered to enter the BZX Book for potential
execution, which is consistent with the drill-through protection as
well as Stop Order functionality.

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change imposes
any burden on intramarket competition that is not necessary or
appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. Under the
current drill-through price protection functionality, the System's use
of separate Drill-Through Prices can result in Stop Orders executed
later in sequence being filled at prices several levels away from the
NBBO in existence at the time they are triggered and entered into the
BZX Book for execution merely because those orders were submitted after
another Stop Order. As discussed above, the proposed rule change will
apply the same Drill-Through Price (and thus the same level of drill-
through price protection) to Stop Orders and Stop-Limit Orders that
become eligible for potential execution at the same time due to the
same price triggering event.
    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on intermarket competition that is not necessary or
appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act because it
relates solely to how an Exchange price protection applies to Stop
Orders and Stop Limit Orders. The proposed enhancement to the drill-
through protection is consistent with the current protection and
provides orders subject to drill-through price protection with improved
protection against execution at potentially erroneous prices.

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

    The Exchange has not solicited, and does not intend to solicit,
comments on this proposal. No written comments were solicited or
received 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)
become operative for 30 days after the date of the filing, or such
shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become effective
pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \15\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(6)
\16\ thereunder.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \16\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange has asked the Commission to waive the 30-day operative
delay such that Exchange Users will be able to more quickly benefit
from the proposed Drill through protections that are designed to: (1)
Prevent potentially erroneous executions and (2) more closely align the
execution prices of Stop Orders and Stop Limit Orders that become
eligible for potential execution at the same time due to the same price
triggering event.\17\ The Commission finds that waiving the 30-day
operative delay is consistent with the protection of investors and the
public interest. Specifically, waiver of the operative delay should
allow Exchange Users to utilize Stop Orders and Stop Limit Orders with
an increased likelihood that the execution price of such orders will be
more closely related to the market at the time the order is triggered
for entry onto the BZX Book. Accordingly, the Commission designates the
proposal operative upon filing.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii).
    \18\ For purposes only of waiving the 30-day operative delay,
the Commission has considered the proposed rule change's impact on
efficiency, competition, and capital formation. 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 (https://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to [email protected]. Please include
File Number SR-CboeBZX-2022-009 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-CboeBZX-2022-009. 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 (https://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; 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-CboeBZX-2022-009 and should
be submitted on or before March 25, 2022.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\19\
J. Matthew DeLesDernier,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2022-04565 Filed 3-3-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P