[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 191 (Wednesday, October 4, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Pages 68822-68827]
[FR Doc No: 2023-21962]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-98597; File No. SR-CboeBZX-2023-071]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Cboe BZX Exchange, Inc.;
Suspension of and Order Instituting Proceedings To Determine Whether To
Approve or Disapprove a Proposed Rule Change To Amend Its Fee Schedule
Relating to the Options Regulatory Fee

September 28, 2023

I. Introduction

    On September 12, 2023, Cboe BZX Exchange, Inc. (the ``Exchange'' or
``BZX'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the
``Commission''), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ a
proposed rule change

(file number SR-CboeBZX-2023-071) to increase the amount of its Options
Regulatory Fee (``ORF'').\3\ The proposed rule change was immediately
effective upon filing with the Commission pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A) of the Act.\4\ The proposed rule change was published for
comment in the Federal Register on September 22, 2023.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 98420 (September 18,
2023), 88 FR 65412 (September 22, 2023) (``Notice'').
    \4\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A). A proposed rule change may take
effect upon filing with the Commission if it is designated by the
exchange as ``establishing or changing a due, fee, or other charge
imposed by the self-regulatory organization on any person, whether
or not the person is a member of the self-regulatory organization.''
15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii).
    \5\ See Notice, supra note 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(C) of the Act,\6\ the Commission is
hereby: (1) temporarily suspending file number SR-CboeBZX-2023-071; and
(2) instituting proceedings to determine whether to approve or
disapprove file number SR-CboeBZX-2023-071.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

II. Description of the Proposed Rule Change

    The Exchange proposes to increase the amount of its ORF from
$0.0001 to $0.0003 per contract.\7\ The Exchange assesses the ORF to
each Member for options transactions cleared by the Member that are
cleared by the Options Clearing Corporation (``OCC'') in the
``customer'' range, regardless of the exchange on which the transaction
occurs.\8\ The Exchange states that ``[r]evenue generated from ORF,
when combined with all of the Exchange's other regulatory fees and
fines, is designed to recover a material portion of the regulatory
costs to the Exchange of the supervision and regulation of Member
customer option business. . ..'' \9\ Noting that it monitors the amount
of ORF revenue it collects ``to ensure that it, in combination with its
other regulatory fees and fines, does not exceed the Exchange's total
regulatory costs,'' the Exchange proposed to increase the amount of its
ORF ``based on the Exchange's estimated projections for its regulatory
costs, which have increased.'' \10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See Notice, supra note 3, at 65412.
    \8\ See id. The ORF is collected by OCC on behalf of the
Exchange from either the Clearing Member or the non-Member that
ultimately clears the transaction. See id.
    \9\ Id.
    \10\ Id. at 65413.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Suspension of the Proposed Rule Change

    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(C) of the Act,\11\ at any time within
60 days of the date of filing of an immediately effective proposed rule
change pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Act,\12\ the Commission
summarily may temporarily suspend the change in the rules of a self-
regulatory organization (``SRO'') 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. As discussed below, the Commission believes a temporary
suspension of the proposed rule change is necessary or appropriate in
the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act to allow for additional analysis
of the proposed rule change's consistency with the Act and the rules
thereunder.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(C).
    \12\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    When exchanges file their proposed rule changes with the
Commission, including fee filings like the Exchange's present proposal,
they are required to provide a statement supporting the proposal's
basis under the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable
to the exchange.\13\ The instructions to Form 19b-4, on which exchanges
file their proposed rule changes, specify that such statement ``should
be sufficiently detailed and specific to support a finding that the
proposed rule change is consistent with [those] requirements'' \14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ See 17 CFR 240.19b-4 (Item 3 entitled ``Self-Regulatory
Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis for,
the Proposed Rule Change'').
    \14\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Section 6 of the Act, including Sections 6(b)(4), (5), and (8),
require the rules of an exchange to: (1) provide for the equitable
allocation of reasonable fees among members, issuers, and other persons
using the exchange's facilities; \15\ (2) perfect the mechanism of a
free and open market and a national market system, protect investors
and the public interest, and not be designed to permit unfair
discrimination between customers, issuers, brokers, or dealers; \16\
and (3) not impose any burden on competition not necessary or
appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).
    \16\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
    \17\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(8).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In justifying its proposal, the Exchange stated that its proposal
``is reasonable because [the proposed increase] would help ensure that
revenue collected from the ORF, in combination with other regulatory
fees and fines, would help offset, but not exceed, the Exchange's total
regulatory costs.'' \18\ According to the Exchange, its ORF is designed
to ``generate revenues that would be less than or equal to 75% of the
Exchange's regulatory costs.'' \19\ The Exchange stated that the
proposed increase is reasonable based on ``the Exchange's estimated
projections for its regulatory costs, which have increased.'' \20\ The
Exchange further stated that ``although recent options volumes have
increased, it has not increased its ORF rate since it was adopted in
2015'' and ``has been steadily decreasing the rate over the last
several years.'' \21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ Notice, supra note 3, at 65413.
    \19\ Id.
    \20\ Id. (stating that ``the proposed change is reasonable as it
would offset the anticipated increased regulatory costs, while still
not exceeding 75% of the Exchange's total regulatory costs.'').
    \21\ Id. No exchange has increased its ORF rate since 2019.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange also asserted that the ORF is equitably allocated and
not unfairly discriminatory because higher fees are assessed ``to those
Members that require more Exchange regulatory services based on the
amount of customer options business they conduct.'' \22\ In addition,
the Exchange stated that ``[r]egulating customer trading activity is
much more labor intensive and requires greater expenditure of human and
technical resources than regulating non-customer trading activity,
which tends to be more automated and less labor-intensive.'' \23\
Further, the Exchange stated that it has ``broad regulatory
responsibilities with respect to its Members' activities, irrespective
of where their transactions take place'' and therefore the surveillance
programs for customer trading activity ``may require the Exchange to
look at activity across all markets.'' \24\ Consequently, the Exchange
imposes the ORF ``on all customer-range transactions cleared by a
Member, even if the transactions do not take place on the Exchange.''
\25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ Notice, supra note 3, at 65414.
    \23\ Id.
    \24\ Id.
    \25\ Id. at 65412.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In temporarily suspending the Exchange's proposed rule change, the
Commission intends to further consider whether the proposal to increase
the amount of the ORF is consistent with the statutory requirements
applicable to a national securities exchange under the Act. In
particular, the Commission will consider whether the proposed rule
change satisfies the standards under the Act and the rules thereunder
requiring, among other things, that an exchange's rules provide for the
equitable allocation of reasonable fees among

members, issuers, and other persons using its facilities; not permit
unfair discrimination between customers, issuers, brokers or dealers;
and do not impose any burden on competition not necessary or
appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.\26\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ See 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4), (5), and (8), respectively.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Therefore, the Commission finds that it is necessary or appropriate
in the public interest, for the protection of investors, and otherwise
in furtherance of the purposes of the Act, to temporarily suspend the
proposed rule change.\27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ For purposes of temporarily suspending the proposed rule
change, the Commission has considered the proposed rule's impact on
efficiency, competition, and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C.
78c(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Proceedings To Determine Whether To Approve or Disapprove the
Proposed Rule Change

    In addition to temporarily suspending the proposal, the Commission
also hereby institutes proceedings pursuant to Sections 19(b)(3)(C)
\28\ and 19(b)(2)(B) of the Act \29\ to determine whether the
Exchange's proposed rule change should be approved or disapproved.
Institution of proceedings does not indicate that the Commission has
reached any conclusions with respect to any of the issues involved.
Rather, the Commission seeks and encourages interested persons to
provide additional comment on the proposed rule change to inform the
Commission's analysis of whether to approve or disapprove the proposed
rule change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(C). Once the Commission temporarily
suspends a proposed rule change, Section 19(b)(3)(C) of the Act
requires that the Commission institute proceedings under Section
19(b)(2)(B) to determine whether a proposed rule change should be
approved or disapproved.
    \29\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2)(B).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(2)(B) of the Act,\30\ the Commission is
providing notice of the grounds for possible disapproval under
consideration:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \30\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2)(B). Section 19(b)(2)(B) of the Act also
provides that proceedings to determine whether to disapprove a
proposed rule change must be concluded within 180 days of the date
of publication of notice of the filing of the proposed rule change.
See id. The time for conclusion of the proceedings may be extended
for up to 60 days if the Commission finds good cause for such
extension and publishes its reasons for so finding, or if the
exchange consents to the longer period. See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Whether the Exchange has demonstrated how its proposed fee
is consistent with Section 6(b)(4) of the Act, which requires that the
rules of a national securities exchange ``provide for the equitable
allocation of reasonable dues, fees, and other charges among its
members and issuers and other persons using its facilities'' \31\
(emphasis added);
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \31\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Whether the Exchange has demonstrated how its proposed fee
is consistent with Section 6(b)(5) of the Act, which requires, among
other things, that the rules of a national securities exchange not be
``designed to permit unfair discrimination between customers, issuers,
brokers, or dealers'' \32\ (emphasis added); and
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \32\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Whether the Exchange has demonstrated how its proposed fee
is consistent with Section 6(b)(8) of the Act, which requires that the
rules of a national securities exchange ``not impose any burden on
competition not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes
of [the Act].'' \33\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \33\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(8).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As noted above, in response to ``the Exchange's estimated
projections for its regulatory costs, which have increased,'' the
proposal purports to increase the amount of the ORF in a manner that is
``designed to recover a material portion of the regulatory costs to the
Exchange of the supervision and regulation of Member customer options
business . . . .'' \34\ However, those and other statements in support
of its proposed regulatory fee increase are general in nature and lack
sufficient detail and specificity.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \34\ Notice, supra note 3, at 65412-13.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For example, the Exchange does not elaborate on the ``material
portion'' of options regulatory expenses that it seeks to recover from
the ORF and why the threshold it selected (i.e., that ORF will ``not
exceed more than 75% of total annual regulatory costs'') correlates to
the degree of regulatory responsibility and expenses borne by the
Exchange as it relates to the regulation of customer options
transactions.\35\ For example, the Exchange has not provided any
quantifiable information to support its assertion that regulating
customer trading activity is ``much more labor-intensive'' and
therefore, more costly. The Exchange does not claim in its filing that
its regulation of customer activity consumes 75% of total regulatory
costs nor does it assert that customer activity requires a level of
effort that occupies 75% of the regulatory department's attention. The
Exchange does not sufficiently analyze how funding 75% of its total
regulatory costs (including direct and indirect expenses) from ORF,
e.g., constitutes an equitable allocation of reasonable fees among
members, and it does not provide sufficient detail to allow the
Commission and commenters to consider those issues.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \35\ See Notice, supra note 3, at 65413.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Further, the Exchange has not provided specific or detailed
information regarding the regulatory cost associated with monitoring
and surveilling exchange activity compared to off exchange activity. In
particular, the Exchange collects ORF on executions that do not occur
on the Exchange. With a market share under 6% based on matched volume,
that means that the Exchange seeks to collect ORF on the over 94% of
executions that happen elsewhere.\36\ However, the Exchange has not
provided information or analysis in its filing to support the
collection of ORF on away activity. The proposed ORF rate is the same
for on-exchange and off-exchange activity, so the proposal would result
in the Exchange funding a very significant portion of its total
regulatory costs from a fee charged on contracts that execute away from
the Exchange. The Exchange does not provide a sufficiently detailed
analysis or present specific facts to show the level of regulatory
effort and regulatory costs it expends on contracts that execute on
other exchanges. Without more information in the filing on the
Exchange's regulatory revenues, regulatory costs, and regulatory
activities to supervise and regulate members, specifically, e.g.,
customer versus non-customer activity and on-exchange versus off-
exchange activity, the proposal lacks specific information that can
speak to whether the proposed ORF is reasonable, equitably allocated,
and not unfairly discriminatory, particularly given that the ORF is
assessed only on transactions that clear in the ``customer'' range and
regardless of the exchange on which the transaction occurs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \36\ Market share statistic as reported by the Exchange on
September 26, 2023, available at https://www.cboe.com/us/options/market_statistics/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Further, the Exchange states that recent volume has increased, but
does not discuss the specifics or whether it considered how that volume
has impacted its regulatory expenses and regulatory revenues.\37\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \37\ In recent years, several options exchanges have filed
proposed rule changes to reduce their respective ORF rates due to
unanticipated and sustained growth in customer options volume. See,
e.g., Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 98054 (August 4, 2023) 88
FR 54362 (August 10, 2023) (SR-ISE-2023-14) (reducing ORF rate from
$0.0014 to $0.0013 because of continued options volume growth in
2023 and noting in particular that March 2023 options volume was
higher than any month in 2022); 98056 (August 4, 2023), 88 FR 54381
(August 10, 2023) (SR-GEMX-2023-09) (reducing ORF rate from $0.0013
to $0.0012); and 94065 (January 26, 2023), 87 FR 5548 (February 1,
2022) (SR-Phlx-2022-03) (reducing ORF rate from $0.0042 to $0.0034).

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

    Under the Commission's Rules of Practice, the ``burden to
demonstrate that a proposed rule change is consistent with the [Act]
and the rules and regulations issued thereunder . . . is on the [SRO]
that proposed the rule change.'' \38\ The description of a proposed
rule change, its purpose and operation, its effect, and a legal
analysis of its consistency with applicable requirements must all be
sufficiently detailed and specific to support an affirmative Commission
finding,\39\ and any failure of an SRO to provide this information may
result in the Commission not having a sufficient basis to make an
affirmative finding that a proposed rule change is consistent with the
Act and the applicable rules and regulations.\40\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \38\ 17 CFR 201.700(b)(3).
    \39\ See id.
    \40\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As explained above, the Exchange's statements in support of the
proposed rule change are general in nature and lack detail and
specificity. The Commission cannot unquestionably rely on an exchange's
statements and representations.\41\ Instead, the Commission needs
sufficient information to support independent findings that a proposal
is consistent with the requirements of the Act.\42\ Here, such an
analysis includes, among other things, whether the proposed ORF is an
equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees, and other changes among
the Exchange's members, as well as whether the proposed ORF is
equitable and not unfairly discriminatory.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \41\ See Susquehanna Int'l Grp., LLP v. SEC, 866 F.3d 442, 447
(August 8, 2017).
    \42\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission needs additional information from the Exchange to
demonstrate how the proposal meets those and other applicable
requirements of the Act, to assess whether the Exchange has established
a sufficient nexus between the proposed ORF and the Exchange's
regulation of customer trading activity both on and off exchange. While
the Commission broadly solicits comment from all interested parties on
the proposal, the Commission believes that the Exchange alone has
access to much of the specific detail necessary to fully address these
questions and concerns because these matters involve qualitative and
quantitative information about the Exchange's operations. Specifically,
among other things, the Commission asks that commenters address the
sufficiency of the Exchange's statements in support of the proposal
contained in the Notice.\43\ In particular, the Commission seeks
comment on the following aspects of the proposal and asks commenters to
submit data where appropriate to support their views:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \43\ See Notice, supra note 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    1. Information on the Exchange's Projected Regulatory Costs and
Revenues. The Exchange states that its proposed ORF rate increase is
reasonable after considering its projected increase in regulatory
costs. The Exchange notes that its regulatory costs include direct
regulatory expenses and certain indirect expenses for work ``allocated
in support of the regulatory function.'' \44\ According to the
Exchange, indirect regulatory expenses (including, among other things,
human resources, legal, compliance, information technology, facilities
and accounting) are estimated to be approximately 50.5% of the
Exchange's total regulatory costs for 2023 and direct regulatory
expenses are estimated to be approximately 49.5% of the Exchange's
total regulatory costs for 2023. The Exchange did not provide in the
filing any further analysis regarding its projected regulatory cost
increases. Do commenters believe the Exchange has provided adequate
detail regarding these metrics? If not, what additional information
should be provided to demonstrate how the proposal is consistent with
the Act? How have recent options volumes impacted the Exchange's
regulatory expenses and revenues? How should the Commission consider
the Exchange's proposal in light of recent proposals from other
exchanges to reduce their ORF on account of increasing customer options
volume placing them at risk of over-collecting ORF in excess of their
regulatory expenses?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \44\ See Notice, supra note 3, at 65413.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    2. Information on the Exchange's Imposition of ORF on Customer
Orders. The Exchange states that it is its ``practice that revenue
generated from ORF not exceed more that 75% of total annual regulatory
costs.'' \45\ Do commenters believe that the Exchange has sufficiently
analyzed and justified its proposal to fund 75% of its total regulatory
expenses from a fee imposed only on options transactions clearing in
the customer-range, where those expenses include the regulation of
transactions that clear in the non-customer-range (e.g., broker-dealer
and market maker trades)? In addition, explaining that the proposed ORF
would be charged to ``all Members on all their transactions that clear
in the customer range at the OCC,'' the Exchange states that such
methodology ``ensures fairness by assessing higher fees to those
Members that require more Exchange regulatory services based on the
amount of customer options business they conduct.'' \46\ The Exchange
further asserts that ``[r]egulating customer trading activity is much
more labor intensive and requires greater expenditure of human and
technical resources than regulating non-customer trading activity,
which tends to be more automated and less labor-intensive.'' \47\
According to the Exchange, ``the costs associated with administering
the customer component of the Exchange's overall regulatory program are
materially higher than the costs associated with administering the non-
customer component (e.g., Member proprietary transaction) of its
regulatory program.'' \48\ Do commenters believe that the Exchange has
provided sufficiently detailed quantitative and qualitative evidence in
support of this aspect of its proposal? Specifically, examples of
information that would be helpful to demonstrate how the assessment of
ORF only on orders that clear in the customer-range correlates to the
level of effort and costs the Exchange expends to regulate customer
options transactions include: (a) the percentage of volume that clears
in the customer-range both on and off the Exchange compared to the
percentage of volume that clears in a range other than customer both on
and off Exchange; (b) the percentage of the Exchange's regulatory
budget attributable to the regulation of orders that clear in the
customer-range compared to the percentage of the Exchange's regulatory
budget attributable to orders that clear in a range other than
customer; (c) the percentage of the Exchange's regulatory level of
effort attributable to the regulation of orders that clear in the
customer-range compared to the percentage of the Exchange's regulatory
level effort attributable to orders that clear in a range other than
customer; and (d) the proportion of the Exchange's revenues, as
reported in the most recent annual financials it submitted on Form 1,
represented by ORF revenue.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \45\ See id.
    \46\ See id. at 65413-14.
    \47\ See id. at 65414.
    \48\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    3. Information on the Exchange's Assessment of ORF on Away-Market
Activity. The Exchange states that ``it has broad regulatory
responsibilities with respect to its Members' activities, irrespective
of where their transactions take place.'' \49\ The Exchange therefore

believes that it is appropriate to impose the ORF on ``all customer-
range transactions cleared by a Member, even if the transactions do not
take place on the Exchange.'' \50\ Do commenters believe that the
Exchange has provided sufficiently detailed quantitative and
qualitative evidence in support of how the assessment of ORF on away-
market transactions correlates to the effort it expends on regulating
away-market transactions compared to the level of effort the Exchange
invests in regulating transactions on Exchange? Specifically, examples
of information that would be helpful to assess the application of the
ORF to executions that do not occur on the Exchange include: (a) the
percentage of the Exchange's overall regulatory budget attributable to
the regulation of away-market transactions compared to the percentage
of the Exchange's overall regulatory budget allocated to regulating on-
Exchange transactions; (b) the percentage of the Exchange's regulatory
level of effort attributable to the regulation of away-market
transactions compared to the percentage of the Exchange's regulatory
level of effort attributable to the regulation of orders that execute
on the Exchange; (c) the percentage of ORF revenue that is derived from
away-market transactions compared to the percentage of ORF revenue that
is derived from executions on the Exchange; and (d) more detail on the
regulatory activities the exchange performs for trades that do not
occur on the Exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \49\ See id.
    \50\ See id. at 65412.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    4. Information on the Exchange's Regulatory Program Concerning
Clearing Brokers. The Exchange states that ORF is collected on
``customer'' range options transactions cleared by a Clearing Member
regardless of the exchange on which the transaction occurs, including
from a non-Member.\51\ Do commenters believe that the Exchange has
provided sufficiently detailed quantitative and qualitative evidence in
support of this aspect of its proposal? Specifically, examples of
information that would be helpful to provide context for the collection
of ORF from member and non-member clearing brokers and determine
whether a sufficient nexus exists between the ORF and the Exchange's
regulation of Clearing Member clearing activity, include: (a) the
percentage of the Exchange's regulatory expenses and level of
regulatory activity that pertain to clearance and settlement activity
and the percentage this accounts for with respect to the Exchange's
overall regulatory costs and regulatory activity, and if that differs
depending on whether the Clearing Member is an Exchange member or not
and whether the contract executes on the Exchange or not; (b) the
number of Clearing Members compared to the number of non-Members from
which ORF is collected on behalf of the Exchange; and (c) the
percentage of ORF revenues collected from Clearing Members compared to
the percentage of ORF revenue collected from non-Members.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \51\ See id. at 65412.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission is instituting proceedings to allow for additional
consideration and comment on the issues raised herein, including as to
whether the proposed fees are consistent with the Act, and
specifically, with the requirements that exchange fees be reasonable,
equitably allocated, and not unfairly discriminatory.\52\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \52\ See 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4), (5), and (8).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

V. Commission's Solicitation of Comments

    The Commission requests written views, data, and arguments with
respect to the concerns identified above as well as any other relevant
concerns. Such comments should be submitted by October 25, 2023.
Rebuttal comments should be submitted by November 8, 2023. Although
there do not appear to be any issues relevant to approval or
disapproval which would be facilitated by an oral presentation of
views, data, and arguments, the Commission will consider, pursuant to
Rule 19b-4, any request for an opportunity to make an oral
presentation.\53\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \53\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2). Section 19(b)(2) of the Act grants the
Commission flexibility to determine what type of proceeding--either
oral or notice and opportunity for written comments--is appropriate
for consideration of a particular proposal by an SRO. See Securities
Acts Amendments of 1975, Report of the Senate Committee on Banking,
Housing and Urban Affairs to Accompany S. 249, S. Rep. No. 75, 94th
Cong., 1st Sess. 30 (1975).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission asks that commenters address the sufficiency and
merit of the Exchange's statements in support of the proposal, in
addition to any other comments they may wish to submit about the
proposed rule change.
    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-2023-071 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-2023-071. 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
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. Do not
include personal identifiable information in submissions; you should
submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. We
may redact in part or withhold entirely from publication submitted
material that is obscene or subject to copyright protection. All
submissions should refer to file number SR-CboeBZX-2023-071 and should
be submitted on or before October 25, 2023. Rebuttal comments should be
submitted by November 8, 2023.

VI. Conclusion

    It is therefore ordered, pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(C) of the
Act,\54\ that file number SR-CboeBZX-2023-071, be and hereby is,
temporarily suspended. In addition, the Commission is instituting
proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule change should be
approved or disapproved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \54\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(C).

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

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\55\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \55\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(57) and (58).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sherry R. Haywood,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2023-21962 Filed 10-3-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: July 16, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 135)]
[Notices]
[Page 34632-34634]
[DOCID:fr16jy09-106]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

[Docket No. FMCSA-2001-9258; FMCSA-2001-9561; FMCSA-2003-15268; FMCSA-
2007-27333]

Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; Vision

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

ACTION: Notice of renewal of exemptions; request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: FMCSA announces its decision to renew the exemptions from the
vision requirement in the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations for
20 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

exemption renewals will provide a level of safety that is equivalent
to, or greater than, the level of safety maintained without the
exemptions for these commercial motor vehicle (CMV) drivers.

DATES: This decision is effective August 15, 2009. Comments must be
received on or before August 17, 2009.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments bearing the Federal Docket
Management System (FDMS) Docket ID FMCSA-2001-9258; FMCSA-2001-9561;
FMCSA-2003-15268; FMCSA-2007-27333, using any of the following methods.
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://
www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line instructions for submitting
comments.
     Mail: Docket Management Facility; U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., West Building Ground
Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
     Hand Delivery or Courier: West Building Ground Floor, Room
W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m.
and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal Holidays.
     Fax: 1-202-493-2251.
    Each submission must include the Agency name and the docket number
for this Notice. Note that DOT posts all comments received without
change to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal
information included in a comment. Please see the Privacy Act heading
below.
    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or
comments, go to http://www.regulations.gov at any time or Room W12-140
on the ground level of the West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE.,
Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays. The FDMS is available 24 hours each day, 365
days each year. If you want acknowledgment that we received your
comments, please include a self-addressed, stamped envelope or postcard
or print the acknowledgement page that appears after submitting
comments on-line.
    Privacy Act: Anyone may search the electronic form of all comments
received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual
submitting the comment (or of the person signing the comment, if
submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.).
You may review the DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement in the Federal
Register published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19476). This information is
also available at http://www.regulations.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. Mary D. Gunnels, Director, Medical
Programs,<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>FMCSA, 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 renew an exemption
from the vision requirements in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10), which applies to
drivers of CMVs in interstate commerce, for a two-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 procedures for requesting an exemption (including
renewals) are set out in 49 CFR part 381.

Exemption Decision

    This notice addresses 20 individuals who have requested a renewal
of their exemption in accordance with FMCSA procedures. FMCSA has
evaluated these 20 applications for renewal on their merits and decided
to extend each exemption for a renewable two-year period. They are:

Morris R. Beebe, II
James A. Busbin, Jr.
Domenic J. Carassai
Fred W. Duran
Bruce E. Hemmer
Steven P. Holden
Russell R. Inlow
Christopher G. Jarvela
Donald L. Jensen
Darrell D. Kropf
Brad L. Mathna
Vincent P. Miller
Warren J. Nyland
Dennis M. Prevas
Greg L. Riles
Robert N. Taylor
Calvin D. Tomlinson
Wesley E. Turner
Mona J. VanKrieken
Paul S. Yocum

    These exemptions are extended subject to the following conditions:
(1) That each individual have a physical examination every year (a) by
an ophthalmologist or optometrist who attests that the vision in the
better eye continues to meet the standard in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10), and
(b) by a medical examiner who attests that the individual is otherwise
physically qualified under 49 CFR 391.41; (2) that each individual
provide a copy of the ophthalmologist's or optometrist's report to the
medical examiner at the time of the annual medical examination; and (3)
that each individual provide a copy of the annual medical certification
to the employer for retention in the driver's qualification file and
retain a copy of the certification on his/her person while driving for
presentation to a duly authorized Federal, State, or local enforcement
official. Each exemption will be valid for two years unless rescinded
earlier by FMCSA. The exemption will be rescinded 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(e) and
31315.

Basis for Renewing Exemptions

    Under 49 U.S.C. 31315(b)(1), an exemption may be granted for no
longer than two years from its approval date and may be renewed upon
application for additional two year periods. In accordance with 49
U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, each of the 20 applicants has satisfied the
entry conditions for obtaining an exemption from the vision
requirements (66 FR 17743; 66 FR 33990; 68 FR 35772; 70 FR 33937; 72 FR
40360; 66 FR 30502; 66 FR 41654; 68 FR 44837; 70 FR 41811; 68 FR 37197;
68 FR 48989; 70 FR 42615; 72 FR 12666; 72 FR 25831). Each of these 20
applicants has requested renewal of the exemption and has submitted
evidence showing that the vision in the better eye continues to meet
the standard specified at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10) and that the vision
impairment is stable. In addition, a review of each record of safety
while driving with the respective vision deficiencies over the past two
years indicates each applicant continues to meet the vision exemption
standards. These factors provide an adequate basis for predicting each
driver's ability to continue to drive safely in interstate commerce.
    Therefore, FMCSA concludes that extending the exemption for each
renewal applicant for a period of two years is likely to achieve a
level of safety equal to that existing without the exemption.

Request for Comments

    FMCSA will review comments received at any time concerning a
particular driver's safety record and determine if the continuation of
the exemption is consistent with the

requirements at 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315. However, FMCSA requests
that interested parties with specific data concerning the safety
records of these drivers submit comments by August 17, 2009.
    FMCSA believes that the requirements for a renewal of an exemption
under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315 can be satisfied by initially
granting the renewal and then requesting and evaluating, if needed,
subsequent comments submitted by interested parties. As indicated
above, the Agency previously published notices of final disposition
announcing its decision to exempt these 20 individuals from the vision
requirement in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). The final decision to grant an
exemption to each of these individuals was based on the merits of each
case and only after careful consideration of the comments received to
its notices of applications. The notices of applications stated in
detail the qualifications, experience, and medical condition of each
applicant for an exemption from the vision requirements. That
information is available by consulting the above cited Federal Register
publications.
    Interested parties or organizations possessing information that
would otherwise show that any, or all of these drivers, are not
currently achieving the statutory level of safety should immediately
notify FMCSA. The Agency will evaluate any adverse evidence submitted
and, if safety is being compromised or if continuation of the exemption
would not be consistent with the goals and objectives of 49 U.S.C.
31136(e) and 31315, FMCSA will take immediate steps to revoke the
exemption of a driver.

    Issued on: July 9, 2009.
Larry W. Minor,
Associate Administrator for Policy and Program Development.
[FR Doc. E9-16899 Filed 7-15-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 33 (Monday, February 22, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Page 10615]
[FR Doc No: 2021-03508]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

[Summary Notice No. FAA-2020-63]

Petition for Exemption; Summary of Petition Received; National
United States Armed Forces Museum

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of
Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice contains a summary of a petition seeking relief
from specified requirements of Federal Aviation Regulations. The
purpose of this notice is to improve the public's awareness of, and
participation in, the FAA's exemption process. Neither publication of
this notice nor the inclusion or omission of information in the summary
is intended to affect the legal status of the petition or its final
disposition.

DATES: Comments on this petition must identify the petition docket
number and must be received on or before March 15, 2021.

ADDRESSES: Send comments identified by docket number FAA-2019-0736
using any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and follow the online instructions for sending your
comments electronically.
     Mail: Send comments to Docket Operations, M-30; U.S.
Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Room W12-140,
West Building Ground Floor, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
     Hand Delivery or Courier: Take comments to Docket
Operations in Room W12-140 of the West Building Ground Floor at 1200
New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590-0001, between 9 a.m. and 5
p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
     Fax: Fax comments to Docket Operations at<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Privacy: In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits comments
from the public to better inform its rulemaking process. DOT posts
these comments, without edit, including any personal information the
commenter provides, to http://www.regulations.gov, as described in the
system of records notice (DOT/ALL-14 FDMS), which can be reviewed at
http://www.dot.gov/privacy.
    Docket: Background documents or comments received may be read at
http://www.regulations.gov at any time. Follow the online instructions
for accessing the docket or go to the Docket Operations in Room W12-140
of the West Building Ground Floor at 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE,
Washington, DC 20590-0001, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through
Friday, except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Brent Hart<PHONE_NUMBER>, Office of
Rulemaking, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue
SW, Washington, DC 20591.
    This notice is published pursuant to 14 CFR 11.85.

    Issued in Washington, DC.
Timothy R. Adams,
Deputy Executive Director, Office of Rulemaking.

Petition for Exemption

    Docket No.: FAA-2019-0736.
    Petitioner: National United States Armed Forces Museum.
    Section(s) of 14 CFR Affected: Sec. Sec.  91.9, 91.315, 91.319(a),
119.5(g), and 119.21(a).
    Description of Relief Sought: The National United States Armed
Forces Museum seeks relief from the above regulations to the extent
necessary to operate the museum's aircraft for the purpose of carrying
passengers for compensation or hire for living history flight
experiences.

[FR Doc. 2021-03508 Filed 2-19-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 194 (Wednesday, October 7, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Page 60749]
[FR Doc No: 2015-25494]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Railroad Administration

[Docket Number FRA-2015-0056]

Petition for Waiver of Compliance

    In accordance with part 211 of Title 49 Code of Federal Regulations
(CFR), this document provides the public notice that by a document
dated May 30, 2015, the Maine Yacht Center, LLC (MYC) has petitioned
the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) for a waiver of compliance
from certain provisions of the Federal railroad safety regulations
contained at 49 CFR part 215-Railroad Freight Car Safety Standards. FRA
assigned the petition Docket Number FRA-2015-0056.
    In an effort to increase business, MYC wants to build a self-
propelled carrier, for boats 30 to 40 or more feet in length, that will
travel one-half mile over the St. Lawrence & Atlantic Railroad from a
waterfront facility to a storage facility. The limiting factor for
over-the-road movement of boats is a fixed bridge height of 14 feet.
Using rail would allow MYC to move larger boats using a route with a
fixed bridge height of 18 feet.
    A copy of the petition, as well as any written communications
concerning the petition, is available for review online at
www.regulations.gov and in person at the U.S. Department of
Transportation's (DOT) Docket Operations Facility, 1200 New Jersey
Avenue SE., W12-140, Washington, DC 20590. The Docket Operations
Facility is open from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except
Federal Holidays.
    Interested parties are invited to participate in these proceedings
by submitting written views, data, or comments. FRA does not anticipate
scheduling a public hearing in connection with these proceedings since
the facts do not appear to warrant a hearing. If any interested party
desires an opportunity for oral comment, they should notify FRA, in
writing, before the end of the comment period and specify the basis for
their request.
    All communications concerning these proceedings should identify the
appropriate docket number and may be submitted by any of the following
methods:
     Web site: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online
instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: Docket Operations Facility, U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., W12-140, Washington, DC
20590.
     Hand Delivery: 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Room W12-140,
Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal Holidays.
    Communications received by November 6, 2015 will be considered by
FRA before final action is taken. Comments received after that date
will be considered as far as practicable.
    Anyone is able to search the electronic form of any written
communications and comments received into any of our dockets by the
name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the document,
if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.).
In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits comments from the
public to better inform its processes. DOT posts these comments,
without edit, including any personal information the commenter
provides, to www.regulations.gov, as described in the system of records
notice (DOT/ALL-14 FDMS), which can be reviewed at www.dot.gov/privacy.
See also http://www.regulations.gov/#!privacyNotice for the privacy
notice of regulations.gov.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on September 30, 2015.
Ron Hynes,
Director, Office of Technical Oversight.
[FR Doc. 2015-25494 Filed 10-6-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-06-P