[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 249 (Friday, December 29, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Pages 90194-90195]
[FR Doc No: 2023-28748]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Docket ID FEMA-2014-0022]

Technical Mapping Advisory Council; Meeting

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, Department of Homeland
Security.

ACTION: Notice of open Federal advisory committee meeting.

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

SUMMARY: The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Technical
Mapping Advisory Council (TMAC) will hold an in-person public meeting
with a virtual option on Tuesday, February 27, 2024, and Wednesday,
February 28, 2024. The meeting will be open to the public in-person and
via a Microsoft Teams Video Communications link.

DATES: The TMAC will meet on Tuesday, February 27, 2024, and Wednesday,
February 28, 2024, from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. eastern standard time (EST).
Please note that the meeting will close early if the TMAC has completed
its business.

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held in-person at 400 C Street SW,
Washington, DC 20472 and virtually using the following Microsoft Teams
Video Communications link (Tuesday Link: https://tinyurl.com/y2wt72by;
Wednesday Link: https://tinyurl.com/r58zen9e). Members of the public
who wish to attend the in-person or virtual meeting must register in
advance by sending an email to [email protected] (Attn: Brian
Koper) by 5 p.m. EST on Friday, February 23, 2024.
    To facilitate public participation, members of the public are
invited to provide written comments on the issues to be considered by
the TMAC, as listed in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION caption below.
Associated meeting materials will be available upon request after
Wednesday, February 21, 2024. To receive a copy of any relevant
materials, please send the request to: [email protected] (Attn:
Brian Koper). Written comments to be considered by the committee at the
time of the meeting must be submitted and received by Thursday,
February 22, 2024, 5 p.m. EST identified by Docket ID FEMA-2014-0022,
and submitted by the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
     Email: Address the email to [email protected].
Include the docket number in the subject line of the message. Include
name and contact information in the body of the email.
    Instructions: All submissions received must include the words
``Federal Emergency Management Agency'' and the docket number for this
action. Comments received will be posted without alteration at http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided. You
may wish to review the Privacy and Security Notice via a link on the
homepage of http://www.regulations.gov.
    Docket: For docket access to read background documents or comments
received by the TMAC, go to http://www.regulations.gov and search for
the Docket ID FEMA-2014-0022.
    A public comment period will be held on Tuesday, February 27, 2024,
from 3:30 p.m. to 4 p.m. EST and Wednesday, February 28, 2024, from 12
p.m. to 12:30 p.m. EST. The public comment period will not exceed 30
minutes. Please note that the public comment period may end before the
time indicated, following the last call for comments. Contact the
individual listed below to register as a speaker by Monday, February
26, 2024, 5 p.m. EST. Please be prepared to submit a written version of
your public comment.
    FEMA is committed to ensuring all participants have equal access
regardless of disability status. If you require reasonable
accommodation to fully participate due to a disability, please contact
the individual listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT caption as
soon as possible.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Brian Koper, Designated Federal
Officer for the TMAC, FEMA, 400 C Street SW, Washington, DC 20472,
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, and email [email protected]. The TMAC
website is: https://www.fema.gov/flood-maps/guidance-partners/technical-mapping-advisory-council.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice of this meeting is given under the
Federal Advisory Committee Act, Pub. L. 117-286, 5 U.S.C. ch. 10.
    In accordance with the Biggert-Waters Flood Insurance Reform Act of
2012, the TMAC makes recommendations to the FEMA Administrator on: (1)
how to improve, in a cost-effective manner, the (a) accuracy, general
quality, ease of use, and distribution and dissemination of flood
insurance rate maps and risk data; and (b) performance metrics and
milestones required to effectively and efficiently map flood risk areas
in the United States; (2) mapping standards and guidelines for (a)
flood insurance rate maps, and (b) data accuracy, data quality, data
currency, and data eligibility; (3) how to maintain, on an ongoing
basis, flood insurance rate maps and flood risk identification; (4)
procedures for delegating mapping activities to State and local mapping
partners; and (5) (a) methods for improving interagency and
intergovernmental coordination on flood mapping and flood risk
determination, and (b) a funding strategy to leverage and coordinate
budgets and expenditures across Federal agencies. Furthermore, the TMAC
is required to submit an annual report to the FEMA Administrator that
contains: (1) a description of the activities of the Council; (2) an
evaluation of the status and performance of flood insurance rate maps
and mapping activities to revise and update Flood Insurance Rate Maps;
and (3) a summary of recommendations made by the Council to the FEMA
Administrator.
    Agenda: The purpose of this meeting is for the TMAC members to
discuss and vote on the content of the 2023 TMAC Annual Report. Any
related materials will be available upon request prior to the meeting
to provide the public with an opportunity to review the materials. The
full agenda and related meeting materials will be available upon
request by Wednesday, February 21, 2024. To receive a copy of any
relevant materials, please send the request to: [email protected]
(Attn: Brian Koper).

Nicholas A. Shufro,
Deputy Assistant Administrator, Risk Analysis, Planning & Information
Directorate, Resilience, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2023-28748 Filed 12-28-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-12-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 3 (Thursday, January 4, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 568-569]
[FR Doc No: 2017-28440]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-82418; File No. SR-NYSE-2017-70]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; New York Stock Exchange LLC;
Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To
Amend Its Price List To Waive New Firm Application Fees for Applicants
Seeking Only To Obtain a Bond Trading License for 2018 and Waive the
BTL Fee for 2018

December 28, 2017.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) \1\ of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 (the ``Act'') \2\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\3\ notice is hereby
given that, on December 21, 2017, New York Stock Exchange LLC (the
``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the
``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I, II,
and III below, which Items have been prepared by the self-regulatory
organization. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit
comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 15 U.S.C. 78a.
    \3\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange proposes to amend its Price List to (i) waive new firm
application fees for applicants seeking only to obtain a bond trading
license (``BTL'') for 2018; and (ii) waive the BTL fee for 2018. The
Exchange proposes to implement the fee changes effective January 2,
2018. The proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's website
at www.nyse.com, at the principal office of the Exchange, and at the
Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to amend its Price List to (i) waive new firm
application fees for applicants seeking only to obtain a BTL for 2018;
and (iii) [sic] waive the BTL fee for 2018. The Exchange proposes to
implement the fee changes effective January 2, 2018.
    The Exchange currently charges a New Firm Fee ranging from $2,500
to $20,000, depending on the type of firm, that is charged per
application for any broker-dealer that applies to be approved as an
Exchange member organization. The Exchange proposes to waive the New
Firm Fee for 2018 for new member organization applicants that are
seeking only to obtain a BTL and not trade equities at the Exchange.
The proposed waiver of the New Firm Fee would be available only to
applicants seeking approval as a new member organization, including
carrying firms, introducing firms, or non-public organizations, that
would be seeking to obtain a BTL at the Exchange and not trade
equities. Further, if a new firm that is approved as a member
organization and has had the New Firm Fee waived converts a BTL to a
full trading license within one year of approval, the New Firm Fee
would be charged retroactively. The Exchange believes that charging the
New Firm Fee retroactively within a year of approval is appropriate
because it would discourage applicants to claim that they are applying
for a BTL solely to avoid New Firm Fees.
    Additionally, the Exchange currently charges a BTL fee of $1,000
per year. The Exchange proposes to amend the Price List to waive the
BTL fee for 2018.
    The Exchange believes that the proposed fee changes would provide
increased incentives for bond trading firms that are not currently
Exchange member organizations to apply for Exchange membership and a
BTL. The Exchange believes that having more member organizations
trading on the Exchange's bond platform would benefit investors through
the additional display of liquidity and increased execution
opportunities in Exchange-traded bonds at the Exchange.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with Section 6(b) of the Act,\4\ in general, and furthers the
objectives of Sections 6(b)(4) and 6(b)(5) of the Act,\5\ in
particular, because it provides for the equitable allocation of
reasonable dues, fees, and other charges among its members, issuers and
other persons using its facilities and does not unfairly discriminate
between customers, issuers, brokers or dealers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange believes that it is reasonable to waive the New Firm
Fee and the annual BTL fee for 2018 to provide an incentive for bond
trading firms to apply for Exchange membership and a BTL. The Exchange
believes that providing an incentive for bond trading firms that are
not currently Exchange member organizations to apply for membership and
a BTL would encourage market participants to become members of the
Exchange and bring additional liquidity to the only

transparent bond market. To the extent the existing New Firm Fees or
the BTL fee serves as a disincentive for bond trading firms to become
Exchange member organizations, the Exchange believes that the proposed
fee change could expand the number of firms eligible to trade bonds on
the Exchange. The Exchange believes creating incentives for bond
trading firms to trade bonds on the Exchange protects investors and the
public interest by increasing the competition and liquidity on the only
transparent market for bond trading. The proposed waiver of the New
Firm Fee and BTL fee is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory
because it would be offered to all market participants that wish to
trade at the Exchange the narrower class of debt securities only.

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

    In accordance with Section 6(b)(8) of the Act,\6\ the Exchange
believes that the proposed rule change would not impose any burden on
competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the
purposes of the Act. Debt securities typically trade in a decentralized
over-the-counter (``OTC'') dealer market that is less liquid and
transparent than the equities markets. The Exchange believes that the
proposed change would increase competition with these OTC venues by
reducing the cost of being approved as and operating as an Exchange
member organization that solely trades bonds at the Exchange, which the
Exchange believes will enhance market quality through the additional
display of liquidity and increased execution opportunities in Exchange-
traded bonds at the Exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange notes that it operates in a highly competitive market
in which market participants can readily favor competing venues that
are not transparent. In such an environment, the Exchange must
continually review, and consider adjusting its fees and rebates to
remain competitive with other exchanges as well as with alternative
trading systems and other venues that are not required to comply with
the statutory standards applicable to exchanges. Because competitors
are free to modify their own fees and credits in response, and because
market participants may readily adjust their order routing practices,
the Exchange believes that the degree to which fee changes in this
market may impose any burden on competition is extremely limited. As a
result of all of these considerations, the Exchange does not believe
that the proposed change will impair the ability of member
organizations or competing order execution venues to maintain their
competitive standing in the financial markets.

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

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

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

    The foregoing rule change is effective upon filing pursuant to
Section 19(b)(3)(A) \7\ of the Act and subparagraph (f)(2) of Rule 19b-
4 \8\ thereunder, because it establishes a due, fee, or other charge
imposed by the Exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \8\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of such proposed rule
change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule
change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or
appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or
otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission
takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings under
Section 19(b)(2)(B) \9\ of the Act to determine whether the proposed
rule change should be approved or disapproved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2)(B).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to [email protected]. Please include
File Number SR-NYSE-2017-70 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

     Send paper comments in triplicate to Brent J. Fields,
Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE,
Washington, DC 20549-1090.

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NYSE-2017-70. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's internet website (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml).
Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written
statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with
the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed
rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those
that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions
of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for website viewing and printing in
the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC
20549 on official business days between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and
3:00 p.m. Copies of such filing also will be available for inspection
and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All comments
received will be posted without change. Persons submitting comments are
cautioned that we do not redact or edit personal identifying
information from comment submissions. You should submit only
information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions
should refer to File Number SR-NYSE-2017-70, and should be submitted on
or before January 25, 2018.

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

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

Robert W. Errett,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2017-28440 Filed 1-3-18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 137 (Tuesday, July 19, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 43084-43091]
[FR Doc No: 2022-15308]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-95273; File No. SR-NYSEArca-2022-38]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE Arca, Inc.; Notice of Filing
and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Modify Rule
7.31-E

July 13, 2022.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) \1\ of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 (the ``Act'') \2\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\3\ notice is hereby
given that on July 6, 2022, NYSE Arca, Inc. (``NYSE Arca'' or the
``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I and
II below, which Items have been prepared by the Exchange. The
Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the
proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 15 U.S.C. 78a.
    \3\ 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 modify Rule 7.31-E to (1) permit certain
non-routable order types to be designated to cancel if they would be
displayed at a price other than their limit price; (2) allow ALO Orders
to be designated as non-displayed; (3) permit ALO Orders to be entered
in any size; (4) modify the operation of the Non-Display Remove
Modifier and eliminate its use with MPL-ALO Orders; and (5) make MPL
Orders eligible to trade at their limit price and eliminate the ``No
Midpoint Execution'' Modifier. The proposed rule change is available on
the Exchange's website at www.nyse.com, at the principal office of the
Exchange, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to amend Rule 7.31-E to (1) permit certain
non-routable order types to be designated to cancel if they would be
displayed at a price other than their limit price; (2) allow ALO Orders
to be designated as non-displayed; (3) permit ALO Orders to be entered
in any size; (4) modify the handling of orders designated with the Non-
Display Remove Modifier and eliminate the use of the Non-Display Remove
Modifier for MPL-ALO Orders; and (5) allow MPL Orders to trade at
either the midpoint or their limit price and eliminate the ``No
Midpoint Execution'' Modifier.
Designation To Cancel
    The Exchange proposes to modify Rules 7.31-E(e)(1), 7.31-E(e)(2),
and 7.31-E(e)(3)(D) to permit Non-Routable Limit Orders, displayed ALO
Orders,\4\ and Day ISO ALO Orders to be designated to cancel if they
would be displayed at a price other than their limit price for any
reason.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ As noted above, the Exchange also proposes in this filing to
permit ALO Orders to be designated as non-displayed, and discussion
of the proposed modification of Rule 7.31-E(e)(2) to effect that
change appears in the ``Non-Displayed ALO'' section below. The
proposed new designation to cancel would be inapplicable to Non-
Displayed ALO Orders, as proposed, because such orders are not
eligible to be displayed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As proposed, Non-Routable Limit Orders, displayed ALO Orders, and
Day ISO ALO Orders would be eligible to be designated to cancel at the
ETP Holder's instruction, thereby providing ETP Holders with increased
flexibility with respect to order handling and the ability to have
greater determinism regarding order processing when such orders would
be repriced to display at a price other than their limit price. The
Exchange notes that this designation would be optional, and if not
designated to cancel, Non-Routable Limit Orders, displayed ALO Orders,
and Day ISO ALO Orders would continue to function as set forth in
current Exchange rules (except as proposed in this filing with respect
to the function of the Non-Display Remove Modifier and odd lots). The
Exchange further notes that providing ETP Holders with the ability to
designate orders to cancel if they would be repriced is not novel, and
other cash equity exchanges currently offer their members a similar
option.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See, e.g., Members Exchange (``MEMX'') Rules 11.6(a)
(defining the Cancel Back instruction, which a User may attach to an
order to instruct that such order be cancelled if it cannot be
posted to the MEMX Book at its limit price) and 11.6(l)(2) (defining
the Post Only instruction; an order with such instruction functions
similarly to the ALO Order and may be designated to be cancelled by
the User); Cboe BZX Exchange, Inc. (``BZX'') Rules 11.9(c)(6) and
11.9(g)(d) (defining the BZX Post Only Order, which functions
similarly to the ALO Order and may be designated to be cancelled at
the User's instruction); Cboe BYX Exchange, Inc. (``BYX'') Rule
11.9(c)(6) and 11.9(g)(d) (defining the BYX Post Only Order, which
functions similarly to the ALO Order and may be designated to be
cancelled at the User's instruction); Nasdaq Stock Exchange LLC
(``Nasdaq'') Rule 4702(b)(4)(A) (defining the Post-Only Order, which
functions similarly to the ALO Order and may be designated to be
cancelled back to the Participant at the Participant's election).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To effect this change, the Exchange proposes the following
modifications to Rules 7.31-E(e)(1), 7.31-E(e)(2), and 7.31-E(e)(3)(D):
 Rule 7.31-E(e)(1)--Non-Routable Limit Orders
    As defined in Rule 7.31-E(e)(1), a Non-Routable Limit Order is a
Limit Order that does not route. Currently, a Non-Routable Limit Order
to buy (sell) will trade with orders to sell (buy) on

the NYSE Arca Book that are priced at or below (above) the PBO (PBB)
and will be repriced based on updates to the Away Market PBO (PBB) as
set forth in current Rules 7.31-E(e)(1)(A)(i) through (iv).
    The Exchange proposes to delete the current text of Rule 7.31-
E(e)(1)(A) and add new text to provide that a Non-Routable Limit Order
would not be displayed at a price that would lock or cross the PBO
(PBB) of an Away Market, and such order to buy (sell) would trade with
orders on the NYSE Arca Book that are priced equal to or below (above)
the PBO (PBB) of an Away Market. These proposed changes would merely
rephrase and clarify the existing behavior of a Non-Routable Limit
Order as already set forth in Rule 7.31-E(e)(1)(A), without substantive
changes.
    The Exchange further proposes to modify Rule 7.31-E(e)(1)(A)(i) to
delete the current text and add new text providing for the option to
designate a Non-Routable Limit Order to be cancelled, as described
above.
    The Exchange also proposes to modify Rule 7.31-E(e)(1)(A)(ii) and
add new subparagraphs thereunder to describe how any untraded quantity
of a Non-Routable Limit Order would be processed if not designated to
cancel. New subparagraph (a) would contain the rule text previously set
forth in Rule 7.31-E(e)(1)(A)(i), without substantive changes, and
provide that, if the limit price of a Non-Routable Limit Order to buy
(sell) locks or crosses the PBO (PBB) of an Away Market, it would have
a working price equal to the PBO (PBB) of the Away Market and a display
price one MPV below (above) the PBO (PBB) of the Away Market. Proposed
new subparagraph (b) would contain rule text currently set forth in
Rule 7.31-E(e)(1)(A)(ii) describing how a Non-Routable Limit Order
would be processed when the PBO (PBB) of an Away Market reprices higher
(lower), without substantive changes. Finally, the Exchange proposes to
renumber current Rules 7.31-E(e)(1)(A)(iii) and (iv) as Rules 7.31-
E(e)(1)(A)(ii)(c) and (d), respectively, with no changes to the rule
text.
    The Exchange also proposes non-substantive changes to Rules 7.31-
E(e)(1)(B) and (C) \6\ to delete the word ``Only'' in ``Non-Routable
Limit Only Order'' to reflect the correct name of the order type, thus
promoting clarity and consistency in Exchange rules.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Additional proposed changes to Rule 7.31-E(e)(1)(C) relating
to the Non-Display Remove Modifier are discussed in the ``Non-
Display Remove Modifier'' section below.
    \7\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 83967 (August 28,
2018), 83 FR 44984 (September 4, 2018) (Notice of Filing and
Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change to Amend Rule 7.31-E
relating to Reserve Orders, to Re-Name Two Order Types, and to
Delete Inoperative Rule Text).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

 Rule 7.31-E(e)(2)--ALO Orders
    Rule 7.31-E(e)(2) and the subparagraphs thereunder define the ALO
Order, which is a Non-Routable Limit Order that will trade with contra-
side interest if its limit price crosses the working price of any
displayed or non-displayed orders to sell (buy) on the NYSE Arca Book
priced equal to or below (above) the PBO (PBB) of an Away Market. In
other words, an ALO Order will not remove liquidity from the NYSE Arca
Book unless it receives price improvement. Accordingly, the Exchange
proposes to modify Rule 7.31-E(e)(2) to simplify the definition of an
ALO Order, without any substantive changes, and state that ALO Orders
are Non-Routable Limit Orders that would not remove liquidity from the
NYSE Arca Book unless they receive price improvement. The Exchange also
proposes to add new text to Rule 7.31-E(e)(2) \8\ to effect the change
described above, permitting an ALO Order to be designated to cancel if
it would be displayed at a price other than its limit price for any
reason.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ As noted above, the Exchange also proposes in this filing to
permit ALO Orders to be designated as non-displayed and to permit
ALO Orders to be entered in odd lots, and discussion of the proposed
modification of Rule 7.31-E(e)(2) to effect those changes appears in
the ``Non-Displayed ALO'' and ``ALO Odd Lots'' sections below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange next proposes to reorganize Rules 7.31-E(e)(2)(A)
through (C) to describe the operation of the ALO Order in a more
logical flow, but without any substantive changes to the operation of
the order type. Specifically, the Exchange proposes to reorganize Rules
7.31-E(e)(2)(A) through (C) to first describe when an ALO Order would
trade, then describe how any untraded quantity of an ALO Order not
designated to cancel would be processed, and then describe the handling
of any untraded quantity of an ALO Order that locks non-displayed
interest.
    First, the Exchange proposes to delete the current text of Rule
7.31-E(e)(2)(A), which states only that an ALO Order will be assigned a
working price and display price pursuant to Rule 7.31-E(e)(2)(B) and is
thus redundant of the substantive rule text in Rule 7.31-E(e)(2)(B) and
its subparagraphs. The Exchange proposes to add new rule text in Rule
7.31-E(e)(2)(A) providing that an Aggressing ALO Order to buy (sell)
would trade if its limit price crosses the working price of any
displayed or non-displayed orders to sell (buy) on the NYSE Arca Book
priced equal to or below (above) the PBO (PBB) of an Away Market, in
which case, the ALO Order would trade as the liquidity taker with such
orders. The Exchange notes that this change is not intended to propose
any modification to the current operation of the ALO Order and merely
restates text that currently appears in Rule 7.31-E(e)(2)(B)(ii)
describing when an ALO Order may trade, with no substantive changes.
The Exchange believes that this proposed reorganization would improve
the clarity of Rule 7.31-E(e)(2) by describing how an ALO Order would
trade before progressing on to describe how any untraded quantity of an
ALO Order would be handled if it is not designated to cancel upon
repricing.
    The Exchange next proposes to delete the current text of Rule 7.31-
E(e)(2)(B) and reorganize Rule 7.31-E(e)(2)(B) and the subparagraphs
thereunder. Rule 7.31-E(e)(2)(B) and the subparagraphs that follow
would, as proposed, specify how untraded quantities of an ALO Order
would be processed if such order has not been designated to cancel. To
effect this change, the Exchange proposes that Rule 7.31-E(e)(2)(B)
would now provide that, if an ALO Order is not designated to cancel,
any untraded quantity of such order would trade as described in
subparagraphs (i) and (ii).
    In subparagraph (i), the Exchange proposes to delete the existing
rule text and modify subparagraph (i) to provide that, if the limit
price of an ALO Order locks the display price of any order to sell
(buy) ranked Priority 2--Display Orders on the NYSE Arca Book, it would
have a working price and display price (if it has been designated to
display) one MPV below (above) the price of the displayed order on the
NYSE Arca Book. The Exchange notes that the content of Rule 7.31-
E(e)(2)(B)(i) would be incorporated into Rule 7.31-E(e)(2)(B)(ii) (as
proposed below) and that this proposed change merely moves rule text
from where it is currently located in Rule 7.31-E(e)(2)(B)(iii) and
does not reflect any proposed change to the operation of the ALO Order
when the limit price of any untraded quantity of such order locks
displayed interest on the NYSE Arca Book.
    The Exchange next proposes to delete the current text of Rule 7.31-
E(e)(2)(B)(ii) and replace it with text that would provide that, if the
limit price of an ALO Order locks or crosses the PBO (PBB) of an Away
Market, it would have a working price equal to the PBO (PBB) of the
Away Market and a display price (if designated to display) one MPV

below (above) the PBO (PBB) of the Away Market. The Exchange notes that
proposed Rule 7.31-E(e)(2)(B)(ii) rephrases text currently set forth in
Rules 7.31-E(e)(2)(B)(i) and (iv) and is not intended to propose any
change to the operation of the ALO Order when the limit price of any
untraded quantity of such order locks or crosses the PBBO of an Away
Market. The Exchange also notes that the current text of Rule 7.31-
E(e)(2)(B)(ii) was, as described above, incorporated into revised Rule
7.31-E(e)(2)(A).
    The Exchange further proposes to delete current Rules 7.31-
E(e)(2)(B)(iii) and (iv) (including subparagraph (a) under Rule 7.31-
E(e)(2)(B)(iv)), as the content of such Rules has been covered by the
proposed Rules described above and would be incorporated into proposed
Rule 7.31-E(e)(2)(C) (as discussed below), without changes to the
current operation of the ALO Order. Specifically, Rule 7.31-
E(e)(2)(B)(iii) has been incorporated into proposed Rule 7.31-
E(e)(2)(B)(i), the content of Rule 7.31-E(e)(2)(B)(iv) would be
clarified by proposed Rules 7.31-E(e)(2)(B)(ii) and 7.31-E(e)(2)(C),
and the content of Rule 7.31-E(e)(2)(B)(iv)(a) would be covered by
proposed Rule 7.31-E(e)(2)(B)(i). The Exchange also proposes to delete
subparagraph (b) under 7.31-E(e)(2)(B)(iv), which currently describes
how ALO Orders would interact with resting Non-Displayed Limit Orders
and Non-Routable Limit Orders designated with the Non-Displayed Remove
Modifier, as repetitive of rule text in Rule 7.31-E(d)(2)(B) with
respect to Non-Displayed Limit Orders and in Rule 7.31-E(e)(1)(C) with
respect to Non-Routable Limit Orders.
    Proposed Rule 7.31-E(e)(2)(C) would next provide that if any
untraded quantity of an ALO Order to buy (sell), whether designated to
cancel or not, locks non-displayed interest on the NYSE Arca Book, it
would have a working price and display price (if designated to display)
equal to its limit price. The Exchange notes that this rule text
reflects the current behavior of ALO Orders when their limit price
locks non-displayed interest on the NYSE Arca Book, which would not
change based on whether an ALO Order has been designated to cancel, as
proposed.
    The Exchange next proposes to rename current Rule 7.31-
E(e)(2)(B)(v) as Rule 7.31-E(e)(2)(D) and current Rule 7.31-E(e)(2)(C)
as Rule 7.31-E(e)(2)(E). The Exchange also proposes changes to
subparagraphs (i) and (ii) of proposed Rule 7.31-E(e)(2)(E). In
subparagraphs (i) and (ii), the Exchange proposes to add clarity to its
Rules by specifying that the reference to the PBO (PBB) is of an Away
Market and proposes to update the paragraph references to reflect the
reorganization of the Rule as described above. Specifically, the
Exchange proposes to update subparagraph (i) to refer to paragraphs
(e)(2)(A) (which now describes when an Aggressing ALO Order is eligible
to trade), (e)(2)(B)(i)-(ii) (which now describe the processing of any
untraded quantity of an ALO Order that is not designated to cancel),
and (e)(2)(C) of the Rule (which now describes the processing of any
untraded quantity of an ALO Order that locks non-displayed interest).
The Exchange further proposes to update subparagraph (ii) to refer to
paragraphs (e)(1)(A)(ii)(c) and (d) of the Rule, which simply updates
the paragraph references consistent with the changes described above to
renumber paragraphs (e)(1)(A)(iii) and (iv) as paragraphs
(e)(1)(A)(ii)(c) and (d).\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ In addition, to effect the proposed change to permit ALO
Orders to be designated as non-displayed, the Exchange proposes an
additional revision to Rule 7.31-E(e)(2)(E)(ii) discussed below in
the ``Non-Displayed ALO'' section.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange also proposes to rename current Rule 7.31-E(e)(2)(D)
as Rule 7.31-E(e)(2)(F) and modify new Rule 7.31-E(e)(2)(F) to provide
that an ALO Order would not trigger a contra-side MPL Order that is
resting at the midpoint to trade, except as specified in Rule 7.31-
E(d)(3)(F). Rule 7.31-E(d)(3)(F), in relevant part and as modified in
this filing, would provide that an MPL Order designated with the Non-
Display Remove Modifier would trade as the liquidity-taking order with
an Aggressing ALO Order or MPL-ALO Order that has a working price equal
to the working price of the MPL Order.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ Changes to Rule 7.31-E(d)(3)(F) to effect the proposed
modification of the Non-Display Remove Modifier's operation with
respect to MPL-ALO Orders are discussed further in the ``Non-Display
Remove Modifier'' section below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, the Exchange proposes to add new Rule 7.31-E(e)(2)(G),
which would provide that the ALO designation would be ignored for ALO
Orders that participate in an Auction. This rule text would be similar
to the text that currently appears in Rule 7.31-E(e)(2)(A), without
substantive changes.
    The Exchange notes that the proposed changes described above are
intended only to implement the addition of the option to designate an
ALO Order to cancel and, in connection with such proposal, to improve
the clarity and organization of Rule 7.31-E(e)(2). The proposed changes
set forth above otherwise reflect how an ALO Order currently behaves
and are not intended to propose any other changes to the operation of
the order type.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ The Exchange notes that its proposed changes to provide for
a non-displayed ALO Order, to permit ALO Orders to be entered in odd
lots, and to modify the operation of the Non-Display Remove Modifier
are discussed below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

 Rule 7.31-E(e)(3)(D)--Day ISO ALO Orders
    Rule 7.31-E(e)(3) provides that an Intermarket Sweep Order
(``ISO'') is a Limit Order that does not route and meets the
requirements of Rule 600(b)(30) of Regulation NMS. Rule 7.31-E(e)(3)(C)
provides that an ISO designated Day (``Day ISO''), if marketable on
arrival, will be immediately traded with contra-side interest in the
NYSE Arca Book up to its full size and limit price, and that any
untraded quantity of a Day ISO will be displayed at its limit price and
may lock or cross a protected quotation that was displayed at the time
of arrival of the Day ISO. Rule 7.31-E(e)(3)(D) provides that a Day ISO
ALO is a Day ISO that has been designated with an ALO Modifier and, on
arrival, may trade through or lock or cross a protected quotation that
was displayed at the time of arrival of the Day ISO ALO.
    In order to effect the change described above to permit a Day ISO
ALO Order to be designated to cancel if it would be displayed at a
price other than its limit price for any reason, the Exchange proposes
to modify and reorganize Rule 7.31-E(e)(3)(D) and the paragraphs
thereunder similar to its proposal with respect to Rule 7.31-E(e)(2)
for ALO Orders. As in proposed Rule 7.31-E(e)(2), the Exchange proposes
to reorganize Rule 7.31-E(e)(3)(D) to describe when a Day ISO ALO Order
would trade, how any untraded quantity of a Day ISO ALO Order not
designated to cancel would be processed, and the handling of any
untraded quantity of a Day ISO ALO Order that locks non-displayed
interest, in that logical order.
    First, the Exchange proposes to modify Rule 7.31-E(e)(3)(D) to add
text providing that a Day ISO ALO can be designated to cancel. The
Exchange does not propose any changes to the first sentence of current
Rule 7.31-E(e)(3)(D)(i), which describes when a Day ISO ALO Order may
trade, but proposes to combine the second sentence of current Rule
7.31-E(e)(3)(D)(i) with Rule 7.31-E(e)(3)(D)(ii). Rule 7.31-
E(e)(3)(D)(ii) would now specify that, if not designated to cancel, any
untraded quantity of a Day ISO ALO Order to buy (sell) would be
assigned a working price and display price one MPV below (above) the
price of the displayed order

on the NYSE Arca Book when the limit price of the Day ISO ALO Order
locks the display price of a displayed order on the NYSE Arca Book.
    The Exchange next proposes to delete the current text of Rule 7.31-
E(e)(3)(D)(iii) and the subparagraphs thereunder and add new rule text
specifying that any untraded quantity of a Day ISO ALO Order that locks
non-displayed interest on the NYSE Arca Book would have a working price
and display price equal to its limit price. The Exchange notes that
this proposed change merely rephrases current Rule 7.31-E(e)(3)(D)(iii)
and eliminates redundant rule text (thereby simplifying Exchange rules)
and is not intended to change the meaning or operation of such rules.
The Exchange notes that current Rule 7.31-E(e)(3)(D)(iii)(a) would be
covered by Rule 7.31-E(e)(3)(D)(ii), as proposed, and that it proposes
to delete Rule 7.31-E(e)(3)(D)(iii)(b) because, like Rule 7.31-
E(e)(2)(B)(iv), it is redundant of rule text describing the behavior of
the Non-Displayed Remove Modifier in Rule 7.31-E(d)(2)(B) with respect
to Non-Displayed Limit Orders and in Rule 7.31-E(e)(1)(C) with respect
to Non-Routable Limit Orders.
    Finally, the Exchange proposes to make clarifying changes to Rule
7.31-E(e)(3)(D)(iv). First, the Exchange proposes to replace ``After
being displayed'' with ``Once resting on the NYSE Arca Book'' to align
the rule text with existing rule text in current Rule 7.31-E(e)(2)(C),
which similarly describes how ALO Orders would be processed once
resting on the NYSE Arca Book. The Exchange further proposes to clarify
that the PBO (PBB) referenced in this subparagraph is of an Away
Market. The Exchange also proposes to update the reference to
paragraphs (e)(2)(C)(i) and (ii) of Rule 7.31-E to paragraphs
(e)(2)(E)(i) and (ii) to reflect the proposed reorganization of Rule
7.31-E(e)(2) as described above.
    The Exchange notes that the proposed changes described above are
not intended to impact the operation of the Day ISO ALO Order other
than to implement the new optional designation to cancel and, in
connection with that proposed change, to improve the clarity and
organization of Rule 7.31-E(e)(3)(D).\12\ The proposed changes set
forth above otherwise reflect how a Day ISO ALO Order currently behaves
and are not intended to propose any other changes to the operation of
the order type.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ The Exchange notes that it also proposes a modification to
Rule 7.31-E(e)(3)(D) in connection with its proposal to permit Day
ISO ALO Orders to be entered in odd lots, which is described below
in the ``ALO Odd Lots'' section.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Non-Displayed ALO Order
    As noted above, the Exchange proposes to permit ALO Orders to be
designated as non-displayed, and to effect this change, proposes to
modify Rule 7.31-E(e)(2) to add text specifying that ALO Orders may be
designated as non-displayed orders. The Exchange proposes that a non-
displayed ALO Order would function in the same way as an ALO Order
currently behaves except that it would not have a display price (and
thus would not be eligible to be designated to cancel, as such proposed
option is described above) and would be repriced when crossed by the
PBO (PBB) of an Away Market.
    The Exchange also proposes to add text to Rule 7.31-E(e)(2)(E)(ii)
(as renumbered above) to provide that, if the PBO (PBB) of an Away
Market reprices lower (higher) than the working price of a non-
displayed ALO Order to buy (sell), the non-displayed ALO Order would
have a working price equal to the PBO (PBB) of the Away Market. This
proposed rule text would indicate, as noted above, a difference in
behavior between a non-displayed ALO Order, as proposed, and a
displayed ALO Order.
    The Exchange believes that permitting an ALO Order to be non-
displayed would provide ETP Holders with greater flexibility with
respect to the operation of an existing order type and would provide
ETP Holders with the option to designate ALO Orders to be non-displayed
in accordance with their desired trading strategy.
    The Exchange notes that displayed ALO Orders would continue to be
available for use by ETP Holders, and designating an ALO Order to be
non-displayed would be at the ETP Holder's option. The Exchange also
believes that other cash equity exchanges similarly permit order types
analogous to the ALO Order to be non-displayed and that this proposed
change thus does not raise any novel issues.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ See, e.g., MEMX Rules 11.8(b)(3) and (7) (providing that a
Limit Order may be non-displayed and designated with a Post Only
instruction). The Exchange also notes that BZX Rule 11.9(g)(1)(D)
and BYX Rule 11.9(g)(1)(D) refer to ``display-eligible'' BZX Post
Only Orders and BYX Post Only Orders, respectively, suggesting that
such orders could also be designated as non-displayed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

ALO Odd Lots
    Currently, Rules 7.31-E(e)(2) and 7.31-E(e)(3)(D) provide that ALO
Orders and Day ISO ALO Orders, respectively, must be entered with a
minimum of one displayed round lot. The Exchange proposes to permit ALO
Orders and Day ISO ALO Orders to be entered in any size, and thus
proposes to delete the round lot requirement from Rules 7.31-E(e)(2)
and 7.31-E(e)(3)(D). The Exchange believes that requiring ALO Orders
and Day ISO ALO Orders to be entered in round lots is unnecessary,
particularly since the Exchange already permits odd-lot residual
quantities for ALO Orders and Day ISO ALO Orders. The Exchange also
believes that permitting ALO Orders and Day ISO ALO Orders to be
entered in odd lots could increase liquidity and enhance opportunities
for order execution on the Exchange. The Exchange notes that permitting
odd-lot order quantities, including for ALO Orders, is not novel on the
Exchange or other cash equity exchanges and thus believes that this
proposed change would align the Exchange's treatment of ALO Orders and
Day ISO ALO Orders with features available on other cash equity
exchanges.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ See, e.g., MEMX Rules 11.8(b)(2) and (7) (providing that a
Limit Order may be of odd lot size and designated with the Post Only
instruction). The Exchange also notes that the rules of Nasdaq, BZX,
and BYX do not appear to prohibit entry of their order types
analogous to the ALO Order in odd lots.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Non-Display Remove Modifier
    The Exchange proposes to modify the handling of orders designated
with the Non-Display Remove Modifier (``NDR Modifier''). Currently,
Exchange rules provide that Non-Displayed Limit Orders, Non-Routable
Limit Orders (when not displayed), MPL Orders, and MPL-ALO Orders are
eligible to be designated with the NDR Modifier.\15\ When so
designated, Non-Displayed Limit Orders and Non-Routable Limit Orders
would trade as the liquidity-taking order with an incoming ALO Order
with a working price equal to the working price of such order. MPL
Orders and MPL-ALO Orders designated with the NDR Modifier will, on
arrival, trade with resting MPL Orders at the midpoint of the PBBO and
be the liquidity taker; a resting MPL Order or MPL-ALO Order with the
NDR Modifier will be the liquidity taker when trading with arriving MPL
Orders and MPL-ALO Orders that do not include the NDR Modifier.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ See Rules 7.31-E(d)(2)(B); 7.31-E(e)(1)(C); 7.31-
E(d)(3)(F).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange proposes to modify the operation of the NDR Modifier
to provide that any resting order with the NDR Modifier would remove
liquidity when it is locked by any ALO Order. The Exchange believes
that this proposed change would expand the circumstances under which an
order with the NDR Modifier would be

eligible to trade, thereby increasing opportunities for order execution
to the benefit of all market participants. Non-Displayed Limit Orders,
Non-Routable Limit Orders (when not displayed), and MPL Orders would
continue to be eligible to be designated with the NDR Modifier, but the
Exchange proposes to provide that MPL-ALO Orders may no longer be
designated with the NDR Modifier. The Exchange proposes to eliminate
use of the NDR Modifier with MPL-ALO Orders because designating such
order with an NDR Modifier is inconsistent with the purpose of the
order type (as an MPL-ALO Order is not intended to remove liquidity at
the midpoint). Moreover, because ETP Holders have not used the NDR
Modifier with MPL-ALO Orders, the Exchange believes that eliminating
this order type-modifier combination will simplify its Rules.
    To effect the proposed modification to the operation of the NDR
Modifier, the Exchange proposes the following changes:
     The Exchange proposes to modify Rule 7.31-E(d)(2)(B) to
provide that, when a Non-Displayed Limit Order is designated with the
NDR Modifier, it would trade as the liquidity-taking order with an
Aggressing ALO Order or MPL-ALO Order when the working price of such
order locks the working price of the Non-Displayed Limit Order.
     The Exchange proposes to modify Rule 7.31-E(d)(3)(F) to
delete the reference to MPL-ALO Orders, as it proposes that such orders
may no longer be designated with the NDR Modifier. The Exchange also
proposes to modify Rule 7.31-E(d)(3)(F) to provide that an MPL Order
designated with the NDR Modifier would trade as the liquidity-taking
order with an Aggressing ALO Order or MPL-ALO Order that has a working
price equal to the working price of the MPL Order.
     The Exchange proposes to modify Rule 7.31-E(e)(1)(C) to
provide that, when a Non-Routable Limit Order is designated with the
NDR Modifier and has a working price (but not display price) equal to
the working price of an Aggressing ALO Order or MPL-ALO Order, the Non-
Routable Limit Order would trade as the liquidity taker against the ALO
Order or MPL-ALO Order.
     The Exchange also proposes to add new subparagraph
(d)(3)(E)(iii) to Rule 7.31-E to provide that an MPL-ALO Order may not
be designated with a NDR Modifier.
    The Exchange believes that the operation of the NDR Modifier, as
proposed, would not be novel and that the modifier would function
similarly to modifiers offered by other cash equity exchanges.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ See, e.g., BYX Rule 11.9(c)(12) (providing for the Non-
Displayed Swap or ``NDS'' Order, which is an instruction on an order
resting on the BYX book that, when locked by an incoming BYX Post
Only Order that does not remove liquidity, causes such order to be
converted to an executable order that removes liquidity against such
incoming order); BZX Rule 11.9(c)(12) (providing for the Non-
Displayed Swap or ``NDS'' Order, which is an instruction on an order
resting on the BZX book that, when locked by an incoming BZX Post
Only Order that does not remove liquidity, causes such order to be
converted to an executable order that removes liquidity against such
incoming order).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

MPL Orders
    A Mid-Point Liquidity Order or MPL Order is currently defined in
Rule 7.31-E(d)(3) as a non-displayed, non-routable Limit Order with a
working price of the midpoint of the PBBO. The Exchange proposes to
modify the definition of an MPL Order to provide that an MPL Order to
buy (sell) would have a working price of the lower (higher) of the
midpoint of the PBBO or its limit price. In other words, the Exchange
proposes that an MPL Order would be eligible to trade at the less
aggressive of the midpoint of the PBBO or its limit price. The Exchange
believes that permitting MPL Orders to trade at the less aggressive of
the midpoint of the PBBO or their limit price would provide ETP Holders
with increased opportunities for order execution, thereby enhancing
market quality for all market participants. The Exchange notes that
permitting MPL Orders to trade at the less aggressive of the midpoint
of the PBBO or at their limit price is not novel and that comparable
order types on other cash equity exchanges currently behave in this
manner.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ See, e.g., MEMX Rule 11.6(h)(2) (providing that a Pegged
Order with a Midpoint Peg instruction may execute at its limit price
or better when its limit price is less aggressive than the midpoint
of the NBBO); Cboe EDGA Exchange, Inc. Rule 11.8(d) (describing the
MidPoint Peg Order, which is a non-displayed Market Order or Limit
Order with an instruction to execute at the midpoint of the NBBO,
but that may execute at its limit price or better when its limit
price is less aggressive than the midpoint of the NBBO); Cboe EDGX
Exchange, Inc. Rule 11.8(d) (same); Nasdaq Rule 4702(b)(5)(A)
(describing the Midpoint Peg Post-Only Order, which will be priced
at the midpoint between the NBBO or at its limit price when the
midpoint is higher than (lower than) the limit price of such order).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To effect this change, the Exchange proposes to modify the
following portions of Rule 7.31-E(d)(3):
     Rule 7.31-E(d)(3) currently provides that an MPL Order has
a working price of the midpoint of the PBBO. The Exchange proposes to
modify this Rule to provide that an MPL Order to buy (sell) would have
a working price at the lower (higher) of the midpoint of the PBBO or
its limit price.
     Rule 7.31-E(d)(3)(A) currently provides that an MPL Order
to buy (sell) is eligible to trade only if the midpoint of the PBBO is
at or below (above) the limit price of the MPL Order. The Exchange
proposes to modify this Rule to provide that an MPL Order would be
eligible to trade at the working price of the order (which, as
described above, would be defined to be the less aggressive of the
midpoint of the PBBO or the limit price of the MPL Order).
     Rule 7.31-E(d)(3)(C) currently provides that an Aggressing
MPL Order to buy (sell) will trade with resting orders to sell (buy)
with a working price at or below (above) the midpoint of the PBBO at
the working price of the resting orders. The Exchange proposes to
modify this Rule to provide that an Aggressing MPL Order would trade
with a resting order, at the working price of such order, when the
resting order has a working price at or below (above) the working price
of the MPL Order. Rule 7.31-E(d)(3)(C) also currently states that
resting MPL Orders to buy (sell) will trade at the midpoint of the PBBO
against all Aggressing Orders to sell (buy) priced at or below (above)
the midpoint of the PBBO. The Exchange proposes to instead provide that
resting MPL Orders would trade against Aggressing Orders priced at or
below (above) the working price of the MPL Order, consistent with the
proposed changes described above to permit MPL Orders to trade at the
less aggressive of the midpoint of the PBBO or their limit price.
     Rule 7.31-E(d)(3)(E) currently provides that an MPL-ALO
Order is an MPL Order that has been designated with an ALO Modifier.
The Exchange proposes to revise subparagraphs (i) and (ii) thereunder
to make changes consistent with those described above with respect to
MPL Orders. Specifically, the Exchange proposes to modify Rule 7.31-
E(d)(3)(E)(i) to be similar to Rule 7.31-E(d)(3)(C) but with modified
phrasing specific to the behavior of MPL-ALO Orders. Accordingly, Rule
7.31-E(d)(3)(E)(i), as proposed, would provide that an Aggressing MPL-
ALO Order to buy (sell) would trade with a resting order, at the
working price of such order, when the resting order has a working price
below (above) the less aggressive of the midpoint of the PBBO or the
limit price of the MPL-ALO Order. In addition, to reflect the operation
of the ALO Modifier, the Exchange further proposes to modify Rule 7.31-
E(d)(3)(E)(i) to specify that an MPL-ALO Order would not trade with
resting orders priced

equal to the less aggressive of the midpoint of the PBBO or the limit
price of the MPL-ALO Order.\18\ The Exchange believes that these
proposed changes would provide additional clarity with respect to the
particular behavior of MPL-ALO Orders, as such orders (unlike MPL
Orders) would not take liquidity at the less aggressive of the midpoint
of the PBBO or their limit price. In addition, because the Exchange
proposes to allow MPL Orders--including MPL-ALO Orders--to trade at the
less aggressive of the midpoint of the PBBO or their limit price, the
Exchange proposes to modify Rule 7.31-E(d)(3)(E)(ii) to replace the
reference to the ``midpoint'' with the ``working price of the MPL-ALO
Order'' (consistent with the revised definition of MPL Order proposed
above).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ The proposed changes to Rule 7.31-E(d)(3)(E)(i) relating to
the operation of the NDR Modifier are described above in the ``Non-
Display Remove Modifier'' section.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To effect the proposed change to eliminate the ``No Midpoint
Execution'' Modifier, the Exchange proposes to modify Rule 7.31-
E(d)(3)(C) to delete text providing that an incoming Limit Order may be
designated with a ``No Midpoint Execution'' Modifier and that orders so
designated would not trade with resting MPL Orders and may trade
through MPL Orders.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ The Exchange also proposes to modify Rule 7.44-E(k) to
effect the proposed elimination of the ``No Midpoint Execution''
Modifier. Rule 7.44-E(k) currently provides that Retail Orders may
not be designated with a ``No Midpoint Execution'' Modifier, and the
Exchange proposes to delete such reference to reflect the proposed
elimination of the ``No Midpoint Execution'' Modifier.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that the elimination of the ``No Midpoint
Execution'' Modifier would simplify order processing on the Exchange
and, in conjunction with the proposed changes to MPL Orders described
above, encourage the use of MPL Orders and provide increased
opportunities for order execution.
    Finally, the Exchange proposes a modification to Rule 7.11-E, which
sets forth rules pertaining to the Limit Up-Limit Down (``LULD'') Plan.
The proposed change would modify the handling of MPL Orders relative to
the Upper and Lower Price Bands, consistent with the proposed changes
described above with respect to the behavior of MPL Orders.
Specifically, the Exchange proposes to modify Rule 7.11-E(a)(5), which
describes the repricing or cancellation of orders to buy (sell) that
are priced or could be traded above (below) the Upper (Lower) Price
Band. Rule 7.11-E(a)(5)(F) currently provides that, if the midpoint of
the PBBO is above (below) the Upper (Lower) Price Band, an MPL Order
will not be repriced or rejected and will not be eligible to trade.
    The Exchange proposes to delete the text of Rule 7.11-E(a)(5)(F)
providing that an MPL Order will not be repriced or rejected and will
not be eligible to trade if the midpoint of the PBBO is above (below)
the Upper (Lower) Price Band. The Exchange believes this rule text is
no longer necessary because MPL Orders, as proposed, would be permitted
to reprice and trade relative to LULD Price Bands. The Exchange
believes that this change is consistent with the proposed change to
permit MPL Orders to trade at prices other than the midpoint of the
PBBO and would similarly increase execution opportunities for MPL
Orders within the bounds of the LULD Price Bands in effect. The
Exchange notes that MPL Orders would behave in the same way as other
Limit Orders with respect to LULD Price Bands and would thus be
processed as set forth in current Rule 7.11-E(a)(5)(B).
Reserve Orders
    Rule 7.31-E(d)(1) provides for Reserve Orders, which are Limit or
Inside Limit Orders with a quantity of the size displayed and with a
reserve quantity that is not displayed. Rule 7.31-E(d)(1)(C) provides
that a Reserve Order must be designated Day and may only be combined
with a Non-Routable Limit Order or a Primary Pegged Order.
    The Exchange proposes to modify Rule 7.31-E(d)(1)(C) to clarify
that a Reserve Order may not be designated as an ALO Order. Rule 7.31-
E(d)(1)(C) currently provides that a Reserve Order may be combined with
a Non-Routable Limit Order. However, although an ALO Order is a Non-
Routable Limit Order, the Exchange currently does not permit Reserve
Orders to be designated as ALO Orders and thus proposes a clarifying
change to Rule 7.31-E(d)(1)(C) to specify accordingly. The Exchange
notes that this change is intended only to clarify and reflect current
behavior and does not propose any changes to the current operation of
Reserve Orders or ALO Orders.
* * * * *
    Because of the technology changes associated with this proposed
rule change, the Exchange will announce the implementation date by
Trader Update, which, subject to effectiveness of this proposed rule
change, will be in the third quarter of 2022.
2. Statutory Basis
    The proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b) of the
Act,\20\ in general, and furthers the objectives of Section
6(b)(5),\21\ in particular, because 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \21\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With respect to the proposed changes to permit Non-Routable Limit
Orders, displayed ALO Orders, and Day ISO ALO Orders to be designated
to cancel, the Exchange believes that the proposed changes would remove
impediments to, and perfect the mechanism of, a free and open market
and a national market system because it would offer ETP Holders the
option to cancel such orders when they would be displayed at a price
other than their limit price. The Exchange believes that providing ETP
Holders with this option would afford them increased flexibility with
respect to order handling for existing order types, as well as the
ability to have greater determinism regarding order processing in times
when such orders would be repriced to display at a price other than
their limit price. The Exchange notes that this designation would be
optional for ETP Holders, and if not designated to cancel, Non-Routable
Limit Orders, displayed ALO Orders, and Day ISO ALO Orders would
continue to function as set forth in current Exchange rules (except as
otherwise proposed in this filing). The Exchange also notes that
providing ETP Holders with the option to designate orders to cancel if
they would be repriced is not novel, and would align the Exchange's
rules with those of other cash equity exchanges that currently offer
their members similar functionality.\22\ The Exchange also believes
that the proposed changes described above to reorganize and rephrase
rule text that describes the current operation of Non-Routable Limit
Orders, displayed ALO Orders, and Day ISO ALO Orders are designed 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 because they do not propose any
functional changes other than to add the option to cancel instead of
repricing and would improve the

clarity of Exchange rules governing such orders in connection with the
proposed addition of the option to designate such orders to cancel.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ See note 5, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With respect to the proposed change to permit ALO Orders to be
designated as non-displayed, the Exchange believes that the proposed
change would remove impediments to, and perfect the mechanism of, a
free and open market and a national market system and protect investors
and the public interest because it would offer ETP Holders greater
flexibility with respect to the entry of ALO Orders and could offer ETP
Holders increased opportunities for order execution. The Exchange
believes that permitting an ALO Order to be non-displayed would simply
provide ETP Holders with increased options with respect to an existing
order type, and ETP Holders are free to designate ALO Orders to be non-
displayed or to continue using displayed ALO Orders as provided under
current Exchange rules. The Exchange further believes that permitting
ALO Orders to be designated as non-displayed is not novel and that this
proposed change would remove impediments to, and perfect the mechanism
of, a free and open market and a national market system by aligning
Exchange rules with the rules of other cash equity exchanges.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ See note 13, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With respect to the proposed change to permit ALO Orders and Day
ISO ALO Orders to be entered in any size, the Exchange also believes
that the proposed change would promote just and equitable principles of
trade, remove impediments to, and perfect the mechanism of, a free and
open market and a national market system, and protect investors and the
public interest. Specifically, the Exchange believes that the proposed
change would provide ETP Holders with the flexibility and optionality
to enter ALO Orders and Day ISO ALO Orders in odd-lot sized orders,
which could increase liquidity and enhance opportunities for order
execution on the Exchange, to the benefit of all market participants.
The Exchange also believes that the proposed change would align
Exchange rules with the treatment of post-only orders on other cash
equity exchanges, thereby removing impediments to, and perfecting the
mechanism of, a free and open market and a national market system.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ See note 14, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange also believes that the proposed change to modify the
operation of the NDR Modifier would remove impediments to, and perfect
the mechanism of, a free and open market and a national market system
and protect investors and the public interest. Specifically, the
Exchange believes that this proposed change, which would provide that
any resting order with the NDR Modifier would remove liquidity when it
is locked by any ALO Order, would expand the circumstances under which
an order with the NDR Modifier would be eligible to trade, thereby
increasing opportunities for order execution to the benefit of all
market participants. The Exchange also believes that eliminating the
use of the NDR Modifier with MPL-ALO Orders would remove impediments
to, and perfect the mechanism of, a free and open market and a national
market system because the order type-modifier combination is
inconsistent with the purpose of an MPL-ALO Order (and has not been
used by ETP Holders), and the elimination of the NDR Modifier in this
context would simplify the Exchange's rules. The Exchange further
believes that the operation of the NDR Modifier, as modified, would not
be novel and that the proposed change would promote just and equitable
principles of trade and remove impediments to, and perfect the
mechanism of, a free and open market and a national market system
because the NDR Modifier would function similarly to analogous
modifiers offered by other cash equity exchanges.\25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ See note 16, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange also believes that the proposed changes to make an MPL
Order eligible to trade at the less aggressive of the midpoint of the
PBBO or its limit price and to permit an MPL Order to reprice and trade
relative to LULD Price Bands would promote just and equitable
principles of trade and remove impediments to, and perfect the
mechanism of, a free and open market and a national market system
because MPL Orders could have more opportunities to trade with contra-
side interest, thereby providing ETP Holders with increased
opportunities for order execution and enhancing market quality for all
market participants. The Exchange also believes that this proposed
change would remove impediments to, and perfect the mechanism of, a
free and open market and a national market system because permitting
MPL Orders to trade at the less aggressive of the midpoint of the PBBO
or at their limit price is not novel and that comparable order types on
other cash equity exchanges currently behave in this manner.\26\ The
Exchange further believes that the proposed change to eliminate the
``No Midpoint Execution'' Modifier would remove impediments to, and
perfect the mechanism of, a free and open market and a national market
system because the proposed change, along with the proposed changes to
MPL Orders, could result in greater opportunities for order execution,
thereby enhancing market quality on the Exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ See note 17, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, the Exchange believes that its proposed change to specify
that Reserve Orders may not be designated as an ALO Order would remove
impediments to, and perfect the mechanism of, a free and open market
and a national market system and protect investors and the public
interest because it is not intended to effect any functional change but
would instead add clarity to Exchange rules regarding the current
behavior of Reserve Orders.

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate
in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. As noted above, the Exchange
believes the proposed rule changes would generally align order handling
on the Exchange with behavior on other cash equity exchanges \27\ and
thus would promote competition among exchanges by offering ETP Holders
similar functionality and order handling options available on other
cash equity exchanges. The Exchange also believes that, to the extent
the proposed changes would increase opportunities for order execution,
the proposed change would promote competition by making the Exchange a
more attractive venue for order flow and enhancing market quality for
all market participants.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ See notes 5, 13, 14, 16, 17, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

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

    Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not: (i)
significantly affect the protection of investors or the public
interest; (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii)
become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or
such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become
effective pursuant to Section

19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \28\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder.\29\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \29\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). In addition, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii)
requires a self-regulatory organization to give the Commission
written notice of its intent to file the proposed rule change, along
with a brief description and text of the proposed rule change, at
least five business days prior to the date of filing of the proposed
rule change, or such shorter time as designated by the Commission.
The Exchange has satisfied this requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to [email protected]. Please include
File Number SR-NYSEArca-2022-38 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-NYSEArca-2022-38. This
file number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's internet website (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml).
Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written
statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with
the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed
rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those
that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions
of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for website viewing and printing in
the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC
20549, on official business days between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and
3:00 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available for inspection
and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All comments
received will be posted without change. Persons submitting comments are
cautioned that we do not redact or edit personal identifying
information from comment submissions. You should submit only
information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions
should refer to File Number SR-NYSEArca-2022-38 and should be submitted
on or before August 9, 2022.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\30\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \30\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

J. Matthew DeLesDernier,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2022-15308 Filed 7-18-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: February 10, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 28)]
[Notices]
[Page 7026]
[DOCID:fr10fe06-56]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. RP06-199-000]

Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Corporation; Notice of Proposed
Changes in FERC Gas Tariff

February 3, 2006.
    Take notice that on January 31, 2006, Transcontinental Gas Pipe
Line Corporation (Transco) tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas
Tariff, Third Revised Volume No. 1, Thirty-Third Revised Sheet No. 28,
to become effective February 1, 2006.
    Transco states that copies of the filing are being mailed to
affected customers and interested state commissions.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Protests will be
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to
be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the
proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of
intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices,
motions, or protests must be filed in accordance with the provisions of
Sec.  154.210 of the Commission's regulations (18 CFR 154.210). Anyone
filing an intervention or protest must serve a copy of that document on
the Applicant. Anyone filing an intervention or protest on or before
the intervention or protest date need not serve motions to intervene or
protests on persons other than the Applicant.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov.
 Persons unable to file electronically should submit an

original and 14 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC
20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the

``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription''
link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive email
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For
assistance with any FERC Online service, please email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For

TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Magalie R. Salas,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E6-1865 Filed 2-9-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 41 (Thursday, March 1, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 8912-8913]
[FR Doc No: 2018-04127]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-82769; File No. SR-CboeEDGX-2018-006]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Cboe EDGX Exchange, Inc.; Notice
of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To
Amend EDGX Rule 21.1(c) To Further Align the Exchange's Rules With That
of Cboe BZX Exchange, Inc. as They Relate to the Equity Options
Platform

February 23, 2018.
    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 13, 2018, Cboe EDGX Exchange, Inc. (the ``Exchange''
or ``EDGX'') 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
Exchange has designated this proposal as a ``non-controversial''
proposed rule change pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \3\ and
Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii) thereunder,\4\ which renders it effective upon
filing with the Commission. The Commission is publishing this notice to
solicit comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \4\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange filed a proposal to amend Exchange Rule 21.1(c) to
further align the Exchange's rules with the Rule 21.1(c) of Cboe BZX
Exchange, Inc. (``BZX Options''), an options platform affiliated with
the Exchange.
(additions are italicized; deletions are [bracketed])
* * * * *

Rules of Cboe EDGX Exchange, Inc.

* * * * *
Rule 21.1. Definitions
    The following definitions apply to Chapter XXI for the trading of
options listed on EDGX Options.
    (a)-(b) (No change).
    (c) The term ``Order'' shall mean a single order submitted to the
System by a User and shall include both Attributable and Non-
Attributable Orders, as defined below. The System shall treat all
Orders as Non-Attributable Orders unless a User has entered
instructions to treat such Orders as [Non-]Attributable Orders.
    (1)-(2) (No change).
    (d)-(i) (No change).
* * * * *
    The text of the proposed rule change is available at the Exchange's
website at www.markets.cboe.com, at the principal office of the
Exchange, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to amend Exchange Rule 21.1(c) to further
align the Exchange's rules with the Rule 21.1(c) of Cboe BZX Exchange,
Inc. (``BZX Options''), an options platform affiliated with the
Exchange.
    Pursuant to EDGX Options Rule 21.1(c) the default treatment on EDGX
Options is that an order is an Attributable Order unless a User directs
otherwise. This is the opposite of BZX Options, which provides that the
default treatment is that an order is a Non-Attributable Order unless a
User directs otherwise. In order to align the Exchange's rules with BZX
Options rules the Exchange seeks to amend EDGX Options Rule 21.1(c) to
provide that an order is a Non-Attributable Order unless a User directs
otherwise.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section
6(b) of the Act \5\ in general, and furthers the objectives of Section
6(b)(5) of the Act \6\ in particular, in that it is designed to promote
just and equitable principles of trade, to foster cooperation and
coordination with persons engaged in facilitating transactions in
securities, to remove impediments 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The proposed rule change does not propose to implement new or
unique functionality that has not been previously filed with the
Commission. The Exchange notes that the proposed rule text is based on
BZX Options Rule 21.1(c). The proposed rule change is intended to
further align BZX Options Rule 21.1(c) with the rules of BZX Options in
order to provide consistent functionality across the Exchange and its
affiliate. More consistent functionality between the Exchange and BZX
Options will reduce complexity and may help to avoid potential
confusion by Users of the Exchange that are also participants on BZX
Options. As such, the proposed rule change will foster cooperation and
coordination with persons engaged in facilitating transactions in
securities and will remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of
a free and open market and national market system.

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate
in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The Exchange notes that the
proposal will provide consistent functionality between EDGX Options and
BZX Options, thereby potentially reducing complexity and providing
improvements to rules to avoid potential confusion by Users of the
Exchange that are also participants on BZX Options. As noted elsewhere
in the proposal, the Exchange is not proposing any new or unique
functionality that has not been previously filed with the Commission.
Thus, the Exchange does not believe the proposal creates any
significant impact on competition.

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

    No 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: (A)
Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public
interest; (B) impose any significant burden on competition; and (C) by
its terms, become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was
filed or such shorter time as the Commission may designate it has
become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \7\ and
paragraph (f)(6) of Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\8\ the Exchange has
designated this rule filing as non-controversial. The Exchange has
given the Commission written notice of its intent to file the proposed
rule change, along with a brief description and text of the proposed
rule change at least five business days prior to the date of filing of
the proposed rule change, or such shorter time as designated by the
Commission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \8\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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: (1)
Necessary or appropriate in the public interest; (2) for the protection
of investors; or (3) otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the
Act. If the Commission takes such action, the Commission shall
institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule should be
approved or disapproved.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to [email protected]. Please include
File Number SR-CboeEDGX-2018-006 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-CboeEDGX-2018-006. This
file number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's internet website (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml).
Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written
statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with
the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed
rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those
that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions
of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for website viewing and printing in
the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC
20549, on official business days between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and
3:00 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available for inspection
and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All comments
received will be posted without change. Persons submitting comments are
cautioned that we do not redact or edit personal identifying
information from comment submissions. You should submit only
information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions
should refer to File Number SR-CboeEDGX-2018-006, and should be
submitted on or before March 22, 2018.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Robert W. Errett,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2018-04127 Filed 2-28-18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: August 17, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 158)]
[Notices]
[Page 50757]
[DOCID:fr17au10-42]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings No. 1

August 4, 2010.
    Take notice that the Commission has received the following Natural
Gas Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings:

    Docket Numbers: RP10-1046-000.
    Applicants: Young Gas Storage Company, Ltd.
    Description: Young Gas Storage Company, Ltd. submits tariff filing
per 154.203: Baseline to be effective 8/3/2010.
    Filed Date: 08/03/2010.
    Accession Number: 20100803-5112.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, August 16, 2010.

    Docket Numbers: RP10-1047-000.
    Applicants: National Grid LNG, L.P.
    Description: National Grid LNG, LP submits their FERC Gas Tariff,
Fourth revised Volume 1 et al., effective 8/9/10.
    Filed Date: 08/03/2010.
    Accession Number: 20100802-0244.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, August 16, 2010.

    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest in any of the above
proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and
385.214) on or before 5 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment
date. It is not necessary to separately intervene again in a subdocket
related to a compliance filing if you have previously intervened in the
same docket. Protests will be considered by the Commission in
determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to
make protestants parties to the proceeding. Anyone filing a motion to
intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the
Applicant. In reference to filings initiating a new proceeding,
interventions or protests submitted on or before the comment deadline
need not be served on persons other than the Applicant.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://
www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with Internet
access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an
intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the
eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the
intervention or protests.
    Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and
14 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First St., NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    The filings in the above proceedings are accessible in the
Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in the
above list. They are also available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link
on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail notification
when a document is added to a subscribed dockets(s). For assistance
with any FERC Online service, please e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-20267 Filed 8-16-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 146 (Wednesday, July 30, 2014)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 44127-44128]
[FR Doc No: 2014-17970]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[Docket No. USCG-2014-0646]

Safety Zones; Annual Events Requiring Safety Zones in the Captain
of the Port Lake Michigan Zone--Sister Bay Marinafest Fireworks, Sister
Bay, WI

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of enforcement of regulation.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard will enforce the safety zone on Green Bay in
Sister Bay, WI for the Sister Bay Marinafest Fireworks. This zone will
be enforced from 8:30 p.m. until 10:30 p.m. on August 30, 2014. This
action is necessary and intended to ensure the safety of life on
navigable waters during a fireworks display. During the aforementioned
periods, the Coast Guard will enforce restrictions upon, and control
movement of, vessels in the safety zone. No person or vessel may enter
the safety zone while it is being enforced without permission of the
Captain of the Port, Lake Michigan.

DATES: The regulations in 33 CFR 165.929 will be enforced for safety
zone (f)(15), Table 165.929, from 8:30 p.m. until 10:30 p.m. on August
30, 2014.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this
document, call or email MST1 Joseph McCollum, Prevention Department,
Coast Guard Sector Lake Michigan, Milwaukee, WI at<PHONE_NUMBER>,
email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Coast Guard will enforce the Sister Bay
Marinafest Fireworks safety zone listed as item (f)(15) in Table
165.929 of 33 CFR 165.929. Section 165.929 lists many annual events
requiring safety zones in the Captain of the Port Lake Michigan zone.
The Sister Bay Marinafest Fireworks display zone will encompass all
waters of Sister Bay within an 800-foot radius of the launch vessel in
approximate position 45[deg]11'35.1'' N, 087[deg]7'23.5'' W (NAD 83).
This zone will be enforced from 8:30 p.m. until 10:30 p.m. on August
30, 2014.
    All vessels must obtain permission from the Captain of the Port
Lake Michigan or the on-scene representative to enter, move within, or
exit the safety zone. Requests must be made in advance and approved by
the Captain of the Port before transits will be authorized. Approvals
will be granted on a case by case basis. Vessels and persons granted
permission to enter the safety zone must obey all lawful orders or
directions of the Captain of the Port Lake Michigan or a designated
representative.
    This document is issued under authority of 33 CFR 165.929, Safety
Zones; Annual events requiring safety zones in the Captain of the Port
Lake Michigan zone and 5 U.S.C. 552(a). In addition to this publication
in the Federal Register, the Coast Guard will provide the maritime
community with advance notification via Broadcast Notice to Mariners or
Local Notice to Mariners that the regulation is in effect. The Captain
of the Port Lake Michigan

or her on-scene representative may be contacted via Channel 16, VHF-FM.

    Dated: July 17, 2014.
A.B. Cocanour,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port, Lake Michigan.
[FR Doc. 2014-17970 Filed 7-29-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P